What do you mean be 'effect'. What exactly are you trying to hide?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you using a spell? An SLA? A SU? does it have visual effect?...
Please stop being coy, and just say what ability you're trying to hide. Please be exact and don't use vague terms.
By RAW, the only way to hide spell emanations is with the Conceal Spell or Cunning Caster feats.
I'm sure a clever player could come up with all sorts of subterfuges without these feats. But since the FAQ on spell emanations, you're out of luck unless your (non-PFS) DM is feeling in a particularly generous mood.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your DM houseruled the spell emanations away, then only he can answer your question.
This said, the Spell manifestations FAQ doesn't specify whether it also applies to SU abilities, so if this telekineses-like effect isn't a spell or a spell-like ability, you might have some wiggle room even without a kind DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your DM houseruled the spell emanations away, then only he can answer your question.
This said, the Spell manifestations FAQ doesn't specify whether it also applies to SU abilities, so if this telekineses-like effect isn't a spell or a spell-like ability, you might have some wiggle room even without a kind DM.
yeah, it's into serious houserule territory once the spell emenations were changed. He's changed what is and isn't detectable so it's up to him to houserule the rest for you.
As to the effect, it sounds like the psychic spell Telekinetic Projectile [or a kineticists Telekinetic Blast]. I not sure why Lady-J can't just tell us the exact thing being used unless it's some custom, non-standard ability: That would make it even further into houseruling.
My personal opinion is that you need Cunning Caster to attempt it [as the intent is to "prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok"]. With that feat, it's a bluff -4 as "the spell produces an obvious effect": 'Ow... that hurt'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Raw, skills are mostly useless. Want to wuack like a duck? There is a feat for that. Want to hang from a rope? Feat for that.
Want to do something reasonable with a skill that is not explicitly spelled out? Maybe a feat for that. If not, you can't do it unless rule 0.
Sigh... Yep... Don't worry though, there's a feat to unlock skills! :P
The spell manifestation FAQ didn't establish how obvious spell manifestations are. Does an observer six miles away notice when you cast a spell? Is a spell obvious if the caster is hiding behind a brick wall? How about if the caster is invisible? The FAQ created more questions than it answered, and there is nothing but disagreement on how to resolve them.
My own thought is that a spell has the same concealment as its caster, and since a successful stealth check gives you concealment it should also give your spell concealment.
The spell manifestation FAQ didn't establish how obvious spell manifestations are.
Line of sight.
Does an observer six miles away notice when you cast a spell?
If they can see a PC sized object from 6 miles away, then yes: Make those perception checks.
Is a spell obvious if the caster is hiding behind a brick wall?
Full cover that blocks line of sight and effect? no. Otherwise yes.
How about if the caster is invisible?
You bet! Casting is like a combo of mardi gras, a fireworks display and a earthquake all going off in your square. Everyone instantly knows the nanosecond you start casting ANYTHING.
The FAQ created more questions than it answered, and there is nothing but disagreement on how to resolve them.
Nope, it's pretty clear. Everyone even remotely close to you that isn't blind, deaf and unconscious can't help but notice when you cast unless you have a specific ability that allows a slim chance to avoid detection.
My own thought is that a spell has the same concealment as its caster
Oh no, you have to think the pictures of casting the the pathfinder books. Think 20' tall circles of glowing energy accompanied by peals of thunder...
and since a successful stealth check gives you concealment it should also give your spell concealment.
Normal skills are totally 100% useless in hiding casting.
"Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.": This is your one and only option to conceal them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they can see a PC sized object from 6 miles away, then yes: Make those perception checks.
That would be a stealth check, undercutting your later arguments.
You bet! Casting is like a combo of mardi gras, a fireworks display and a earthquake all going off in your square. Everyone instantly knows the nanosecond you start casting ANYTHING.
Nope, it's pretty clear. Everyone even remotely close to you that isn't blind, deaf and unconscious can't help but notice when you cast unless you have a specific ability that allows a slim chance to avoid detection.
The FAQ isn't anywhere near that resolute. To quote the relevant parts of the FAQ:
many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations ... whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated
It does not say how obvious or prominent these manifestations are. If you do see them, they are obviously magical in nature, but it does not establish how difficult it is to notice them in the first place. You and I have each taken opposite interpretations on that matter, but the FAQ simply doesn't address it.
Normal skills are totally 100% useless in hiding casting.
"Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.": This is your one and only option to conceal them.
It doesn't say these are the only ways to conceal spellcasting, only that they are options. There is nothing to indicate that stealth and invisibility aren't also valid options in situations where you can make those checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would be a stealth check, undercutting your later arguments.
The criteria would being able to see you if you aren't hiding. the manifestations are obvious: that's why I said a an object your size to see if it's possible. the only question is if they are within their sensing range. They aren't detecting you but the manifestation so how well you hide is meaningless.
The FAQ isn't anywhere near that resolute. To quote the relevant parts of the FAQ:
I was in the thread that spawned the FAQ. It's that obvious.
many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations ... whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated
You skipped a quote.
Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
YOUR ONLY HOPE IS SPECIAL ABILITIES TO "allow them to go unnoticed".
It does not say how obvious or prominent these manifestations are.
EVERYONE is allowed spellcraft checks vs you're casting the can physically sense them. As the FAQ pointed out, it "various pieces of art from Pathfinder products". look them up and you'll see they are ANYTHING but subtle. Anyone within line of sight can make a spellcraft check vs your spell to ID it or fire an arrow to try and disrupt your spell if they readied an action.
If you do see them, they are obviously magical in nature, but it does not establish how difficult it is to notice them in the first place.
No, you get to make a spellcraft check to ID it: doesn't matter is your hidden, invisible, a shadow, ect. the manisistation isn't.
You and I have each taken opposite interpretations on that matter, but the FAQ simply doesn't address it.
Again, this was al hashed out in the original thread. that and you can plainly see, the FAQ lets you know how to hide spell manifestations: special abilities. NOTHING ELSE.
It doesn't say these are the only ways to conceal spellcasting, only that they are options. There is nothing to indicate that stealth and invisibility aren't also valid options in situations where you can make those checks.
It only offers a single option to hide manifestations. You can't offer absence of proof as proof. "there is no proof there wasn't ghosts at the moon landing so that must mean there WERE ghosts there!" If you could use simple spells and skills, why have the special abilities that do what you say they can already do?
If you still disagree you're welcome to check out any of the other threads about this. I don't think you'll find much agreement that simple skill checks are going to work [RAW at least].