Touch attack + bluff?

[Douglas Muir 406]

I don't suppose there's a rule for making a touch attack in the guise of friendly contact? Like, slap someone on the back and zap them with a touch spell, maybe using Bluff to conceal what you're doing?

Let's assume that (1) the actual casting is concealed -- either it's a "held" touch spell cast out of sight of the victim, or the caster has Cunning Caster, or some such; and (2) the spell effect is not immediately obvious to the victim. And you deliver the touch spell with a handshake, backslap, kiss or other friendly contact. Presumably the attack roll to deliver the spell would be auto-success [willing target]. But would the victim automatically know he'd been hit with a spell? Or could Bluff or something else conceal this, so that he walks away cursed (or whatever) and not aware of it?

Doug M.

[avr]

By default I think you know about effects upon you, but there are some curses which make no sense that way - the curse of burning sleep for example. Maybe that's only when you might be about to take an action affected by the curse? The '–4 penalty on attack rolls, saves, ability checks, and skill checks.' version of bestow curse might take a while to be noticed if so.

[JDLPF]

FAQ states there's 'manifestations' whenever a spell is cast, even for those that have no verbal and somatic components. It's how an enemy knows to take an attack of opportunity for SLA use.

What exactly this means is a topic of constant debate, and subject to a lot of table variation.

There's some fluff feats that let you hide spellcasting, like the Conceal Spell feat. Beyond that, check with your GM.

[Philippe Lam]

If following the feinting action economy, it would need Improved Feint and a move action as per physical counterparts, no different than a rogue trying to rapier stab to do sneak damage and crippling effect