First thing that comes to mind is the arcane trickster. I'm not 100 % certain about that though.
3.5 had a couple feats that were similar. I think in Complete Arcane?
I specifically remember the fluff being about casting magic missile but making it look like he was casting sleep.
I think the Spellsong feat (from UM) allows a bard to hide spells he is casting in his bardic performance.
First thing that comes to mind is the arcane trickster. I'm not 100 % certain about that though.
Yes. The Tricky Spells ability allows them to cast up to 5 spells a day with Silent and Still Spell features.
If they also had Eschew Materials, there'd be no way to know who just cast Fireball in the middle of the royal ballroom.
Silent and still spells combined. You pull out a ball of bat poop and boom fire everywhere.
And it makes sense that it would be difficult to percieve or recognize spells that have been Silenced, Stilled and with Materials Eschewed... but RAW is, ahem, silent on the matter. None of those metamagic feats increase the DC to Spellcraft checks to ID a spell being cast. This may be one of those cases where DM's just need to use common sense though.
Silent and still spells combined. You pull out a ball of bat poop and boom fire everywhere.And it makes sense that it would be difficult to percieve or recognize spells that have been Silenced, Stilled and with Materials Eschewed... but RAW is, ahem, silent on the matter. None of those metamagic feats increase the DC to Spellcraft checks to ID a spell being cast. This may be one of those cases where DM's just need to use common sense though.
Without magic good luck identifying what a caster is thinking. Even if you knew they were casting by the look of concentration you would never know what they we're casting. For that matter how would one tell the difference between the looks of concentration from "I'm casting a silent stilled eschewed spell" and an "I'm trying not to fart" Look of concentration?
Without magic good luck identifying what a caster is thinking. Even if you knew they were casting by the look of concentration you would never know what they we're casting. For that matter how would one tell the difference between the looks of concentration from "I'm casting a silent stilled eschewed spell" and an "I'm trying not to fart" Look of concentration?Silent and still spells combined. You pull out a ball of bat poop and boom fire everywhere.And it makes sense that it would be difficult to percieve or recognize spells that have been Silenced, Stilled and with Materials Eschewed... but RAW is, ahem, silent on the matter. None of those metamagic feats increase the DC to Spellcraft checks to ID a spell being cast. This may be one of those cases where DM's just need to use common sense though.
Agreed 100%, but like I said, it's not covered by RAW. In fact RAW just says you have to see the spell as it's being cast. By strict reading, spells with only a Verbal component can't be identified unless you can read lips.
|
When you DM my games you can do that. When I DM my games I will do it my way.
Under the spellcraft skill: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast
If the wizard does not make casting motions and does not say a magical word you cannot clearly see the spell being cast. Increasing the DC to identify a spell based upon material components seems a reasonable requirement.
As a DM I would still allow an attempt to ID with spellcraft, upping the DC by 5 or 10 maybe.Is it any harder to ID normal spells when they don't have all the VSM/F components? No? Then I would suggest that you don't do so for these.
Think of spellcraft as noticing the aura of the caster as the cast and draw the energy for the spell.
You need LOS to the spellcaster for this, but you don't need to see them gesticulating, etc.
-James
This implies that spellcasters have some sort of aura sensing ability that the core rules do not grant them. Using this logic, it is not a far leap to say they should be able to sense any magical trap or magical item.
I do not like this argument, because you're talking about someone trying to identify something that is being done in a very different manner then the way it is usually done. A wizard trying to identify something as a fireball would be expecting gestures and sound. Remember, just because you the player have a big book of the all the spells in front of you doesn't mean your character does. They may be working all on bits of knowledge "someone casting a lightning bolt will be waving their hands kinda like this, and reciting Corp Por.... Remove those cues, and the character likely would be stumped.
I would say a +5 to the DC for every removed component of the spell would be fair, and the identifying character does not suffer the penalty if they also possess the same metamagic feat as the one being used. So you don't take the +5 to DC to identify a still fireball if you also have still spell.
For a Still, Silent, Eschewed Materials spell, I would rule that you have to make a successful perception check equal to 15+Spell Level to even realize the person is casting a spell.
Actually, this just became a house rule for me.
Silent and still spells combined. You pull out a ball of bat poop and boom fire everywhere.And it makes sense that it would be difficult to percieve or recognize spells that have been Silenced, Stilled and with Materials Eschewed... but RAW is, ahem, silent on the matter. None of those metamagic feats increase the DC to Spellcraft checks to ID a spell being cast. This may be one of those cases where DM's just need to use common sense though.
The changes from 3.5 to PF indicate that the intent of spellcraft was to identify spells (and spell-like abilities) by simply watching the act of a caster cast them (and yes, spell-like abilities are cast). Components are no longer mentioned in the PF spellcraft skill description.
Secret Signs make detecting spellcasting harder.
|
|
Since we are in a rules forum, the things relating to a spell that are in the rules and can be observed:
Verbal components, Somatic Components, Material components (including foci), spell effects.
That is the sum of the list. Special auras and other stuff are not mentioned in the rules unless you are using a Detect something spell, in conjunction with spell craft your idea might make sense. Without Detect magic and its ilk you have to rely on the things that can be observed via perception (which is specifically mentioned in spellcraft's description).
That brings us back to VSM and spell effects. Not all spells have obvious effects, e.g. charm person. Some are very obvioius e.g Glitterdust, fireball.
So a silent, still spell leaves us with M/F/DF and spell effects. Short of half the information usually observed when someone casts a spell it should be more difficult to discern which spell is being cast (again I refer you to the mention of perception in the skill description). Thus an increase in DC is supported by the rules. Heck using perception rules I could up the DC for all kinds of things.
Secret Signs make detecting spellcasting harder.Thanks! But, where is it from?
Check the Section 15 box below it.
"Pathfinder Campaign Setting: The Inner Sea World Guide."
|
|
So a silent, still spell leaves us with M/F/DF and spell effects. Short of half the information usually observed when someone casts a spell it should be more difficult to discern which spell is being castGreat, so which is harder to ID via spellcraft:
A. A wizard casting True Strike.
B. A wizard casting Web.And my other question: can you ID via spellcraft a spell-like ability?
Oh also, I thought we were talking about Identifying spells as they were being cast, not afterwards.
Thanks,
James
As it is being cast then, Web is more difficult to ID due to its higher level (15+spell level for DC) is the obvious answer. I see you are trying to say that since true strike does not have a S component then by my rule above it should be harder to ID.
But notice I am saying that if you are denied V and M then I would up the DC. So a silent true strike might fall into my rule. Your point has validity except for the whole idea of auras and such. Play the game how you like.
|
|
The ability of the skill SpellCraft to identify what spell or spell like ability is an interesting one.
There are some spells, like the spells from the School of Illusion, and the school of Enchantment, which would be effectively useless if identified while being cast.
If an illusion spell is identified while being cast, all it takes is for the wizard to tell everybody, and well everyone will get a save. Perhaps I am wrong.
Enchantment charm, you have a similar situation.
any suggestions?
|
|
Secret Signs make detecting spellcasting harder.Thanks! But, where is it from?Check the Section 15 box below it.
"Pathfinder Campaign Setting: The Inner Sea World Guide."
Perfect, just what I was looking for, and PFS legal to boot!
The ability of the skill SpellCraft to identify what spell or spell like ability is an interesting one.
There are some spells, like the spells from the School of Illusion, and the school of Enchantment, which would be effectively useless if identified while being cast.
If an illusion spell is identified while being cast, all it takes is for the wizard to tell everybody, and well everyone will get a save. Perhaps I am wrong.
Enchantment charm, you have a similar situation.
any suggestions?
This falls on the player (or DM) to remember to check. I've cast illusions in the middle of combat before, and I'm always sure to describe them as a physical effect, often one that mimics another spell. "I cast a spell, and there's a great rumbling noise, and the cavern floor appears to stretch upwards, forming a wall that blocks the passage."
In the middle of combat, in character or otherwise, most people don't remember to try for their Spellcraft check. Don't forget that all condition modifiers to Perception (distance, distraction, etc) apply to the Spellcraft check as well. In combat, these can easily up the DC by +5 or more.
Even if a character skilled in Spellcraft realizes that a spell was an illusion, they still need to make their saves if/when they interact with the illusion. After all, they might've been wrong. They can also shout warnings to their allies, but again, those allies also need to save on interaction and if they fail, they believe the illusion over their friend. I seem to recall that there were provisions for someone pointing out an obvious illusion (eg. sticking their hand through a fake wall) that gave a bonus to save, but I can't find that now. Was it removed from 3.5 to Pathfinder?
As for charm/enchantment spells, it doesn't matter that much. If target fail their save they're still affected, regardless if they know what's been done to them. "*blinks* Oh, hey buddy. I dunno why you cast Charm Person on me, but I'm sure you had a good reason. So, what can I do for you?"