Alright, so this comes up a lot between my DM and I. Here is the situation: one way or the other, the target of the spell did not realize a spell was cast (this can be because of darkness, greater invisibility, Conceal Spell, etc.). If the spell cast has no noticeable effects and either does not allow a saving throw or the target fails its saving throw, does the target know a spell was cast on them?
EXAMPLES:
I am under the effect of Greater Invisibility, and I cast Ill Omen on someone. Do they know they just received a debuff?
I use the feat Conceal Spell, which basically lets me cast spells without people noticing if they fail their skill check, to cast Charm Person on the person I am speaking to. They fail their saving throw. Do they know I cast a spell on them? Will they be hostile to me after the spell ends?
Thanks for your help!
|
A DC 25+spell level Knowledge Arcana check will let you identify a spell targeting you, even if you didn’t get the chance at a Spellcraft.
Creatures are aware of having to make saving throws, so you would know something is up even if you can’t place the effect. After a Charm Person you’d likely realize you failed a save and then acted weirdly friendly towards X person after it. For other spells like Ill Omen, the rules are largely silent about how “aware” a creature is about the effects affecting them. A GM call for sure.
|
Here is the situation: one way or the other, the target of the spell did not realize a spell was cast (this can be because of darkness, greater invisibility, Conceal Spell, etc.).
None of those conceal that a spell has been cast, with the possible exception of conceal spell. But even that feat don't say exactly that, it say:
"so others don’t realize you’re casting a spell or using a spell-like ability until it is too late....
If an opponent fails its check, your casting also does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and an opponent that fails its check can’t use readied actions that depend on realizing that you’re casting a spell or using a spell-like ability, or readied actions such as counterspelling that require identifying the spell you’re casting."
In all other instances this FAQ apples:
What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. 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.
posted October 2015 | back to top
EXAMPLES:I am under the effect of Greater Invisibility, and I cast Ill Omen on someone. Do they know they just received a debuff?[/quote+
They someone in that square did something magic. They need a successfull spellcraft or knowledge arcana check to know what was done.
I use the feat Conceal Spell, which basically lets me cast spells without people noticing if they fail their skill check, to cast Charm Person on the person I am speaking to. They fail their saving throw. Do they know I cast a spell on them? Will they be hostile to me after the spell ends?As I read conceal spell and charm person, they will, after the spell has been completed, know that something magical happened. If charmed they will not link it to you and/or they will not feel that it is something harmful.
How they will react after the charm end depend on the on the initial reaction and what happened during the charm. If what happened is similar enough to the effect if a successful diplomacy check they could fail to notice that they where magically influenced, if it is the opposite of their normal behavior they will notice immediately that something happened and probably will be furious.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pizza, wile I agree with you that, after the spell has been cast there aren't signs of its existence unless that is specified by the spell or some other rule (like the interference between long lasting abjuration spells), but the rules and FAQ about recognizing a spell with spellcasting are very clear: you always get a spellcraft check, so there is always a perceptible effect when a spell is cast, even if the caster use a silent spell while invisible.
The spellcraft check will be more difficult as you apply the perception modifiers to the spellcraft check, but you still know that a spell has been cast (barring special abilities that say something different).
Thank you all. Diego Rossi and Pizza Lord, you both say very different things. Does this mean the subject is still debated in the community and hence up to DM discretion?
If that is so, I will stop trying to make social spellcasting work because my DM and I both have strong views on the subject and discord is not ideal when playing table-top RPGs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you all. Diego Rossi and Pizza Lord, you both say very different things. Does this mean the subject is still debated in the community and hence up to DM discretion?
If that is so, I will stop trying to make social spellcasting work because my DM and I both have strong views on the subject and discord is not ideal when playing table-top RPGs.
I have never seen any thread agreeing on how it works. DM discretion it is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you all. Diego Rossi and Pizza Lord, you both say very different things. Does this mean the subject is still debated in the community and hence up to DM discretion?
If that is so, I will stop trying to make social spellcasting work because my DM and I both have strong views on the subject and discord is not ideal when playing table-top RPGs.
That it will require GM intervention is indisputable, but I think that the FAQ cited above give a clear idea of what is the opinion of Paizo developers.
these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation.
You need to find an agreement with your GM on how far you can go. Too restrict and several spells and abilities become unusable, too lax and the spellcasters reign supreme in all the social situations.
Just wanted to add in case you didn't know: if he succeeds at his save, hell know. CRB p.216
|
2) You are under greater invisibility and you cast ill omen: If there's something that the target can observe (in this example, that likely means 'hear', if you have verbal components), then they receive a Spellcraft to identify the spell you are casting.
You have to be able to see the spell to Spellcraft it. Hearing the verbal components alone does not work.
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, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
|
|
2) You are under greater invisibility and you cast ill omen: If there's something that the target can observe (in this example, that likely means 'hear', if you have verbal components), then they receive a Spellcraft to identify the spell you are casting.You have to be able to see the spell to Spellcraft it. Hearing the verbal components alone does not work.
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, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
Hearing the verbal components alone does not work. Greater invisibility would also block someone from seeing the material components used (which a DC 20 Knowledge Arcana check could determine the spell in question).
However, Invisibilty and Greater Invisibility give no mention of hiding the manifestations that the aforementioned FAQ describe. So those spells/conditions don’t hide the manifestations and don’t prevent a Spellcraft check.
However, things like total cover, darkness, fog, etc, can block the line of sight to the square that the spell is cast in and therefore block the “clearly see the spell as it is being cast.”
My reading of the FAQ was that it isn't the verbal, somatic, or material components that was being used to identify the spell but rather these mysterious and ill defined manifestations which are the means by which spellcraft works. Thus the psychic spell caster using mental abilities can't go undetected. Nor does silent, still, and eschew components feats help since the manifestations are part of the spell itself. Conceal, and it chain of feats *can* be used to hide or misdirect the view from the manifestations but not eliminate them. How invisibility interacts with manifestations is unclear. some are in the camp that it hides the manifestations, others say no. I can't really see how could hide the manifestations since it is a new effect caused by casting a new spell.
For what it's worth, there's an encounter in an adventure path involving a creature using a pre-cast illusion to distract the PCs into thinking the illusion is the creature, all the while hanging out, invisible, in a corner casting other spells undetected. The spell manifestation FAQ, if taken to the extreme as some do, utterly breaks the entire premise of said encounter.
Based on that, I'm going to assume that concealing spellcasting via invisibility, at least, is indeed possible.
|
|
For what it's worth, there's an encounter in an adventure path involving a creature using a pre-cast illusion to distract the PCs into thinking the illusion is the creature, all the while hanging out, invisible, in a corner casting other spells undetected. The spell manifestation FAQ, if taken to the extreme as some do, utterly breaks the entire premise of said encounter.
Based on that, I'm going to assume that concealing spellcasting via invisibility, at least, is indeed possible.
If I recall correctly, that was written pre-FAQ. And wouldn't be the first time where a adventure has rule interpretation that differ from what is the mainstream interpretation or the actual rule text.
Note: I think that the spell manifestation is enough to pinpoint the square of the caster, but that don't mean that it is a mainstream interpretation, I don't know what is the mainstream interpretation in this case. I mean simply that an adventure text is a very weak rule source unless something is specifically defined as a now or specific rule.
|
|
For what it's worth, there's an encounter in an adventure path involving a creature using a pre-cast illusion to distract the PCs into thinking the illusion is the creature, all the while hanging out, invisible, in a corner casting other spells undetected. The spell manifestation FAQ, if taken to the extreme as some do, utterly breaks the entire premise of said encounter.
Based on that, I'm going to assume that concealing spellcasting via invisibility, at least, is indeed possible.
A simple fix to allow this encounter to exist according to the FAQ would be to have the spellcaster doing so behind total cover, perhaps behind a shelf or bookcase in the room? Characters need to “clearly see” the manifestations, so take away the line of sight to the caster’s square.
Thank you all. Diego Rossi and Pizza Lord, you both say very different things. Does this mean the subject is still debated in the community and hence up to DM discretion?
The subject isn't so much debated as... disagreed upon. The designers have made it pretty clear what they intend. Some of the community doesn't like the results. That portion of the community understandably continues to be vocal.
If that is so, I will stop trying to make social spellcasting work because my DM and I both have strong views on the subject and discord is not ideal when playing table-top RPGs.
Social spellcasting isn't really intended. That's the bottom line. Spellcasting in Pathfinder has a massive potential to change circumstances, and that potential is amplified if it's allowed to be done clandestinely. If Pathfinder spells were weaker, they could be safely done secretly... but they're not.
Example; if clandestine spellcasting were easily done, how does any world ruler survive? They're always one charm person from giving away the keys to the kingdom. There's a spell that prevents a creature from knowing its allies are allies. Start with that one and even if the leader has minions to warn him he's being messed with, he won't trust them anymore.
What we do at our tables as a sort of compromise is that social spellcasting isn't hidden, but there's only consequence if you do something bad. So using prestidigitation to chill your drink won't be a problem. Casting anything while in audience with a leader without explaining what you're going to cast and why, and getting permission first is an expressway to the dungeon.
Hope some of this helps.
This FAQ really needs clarification, because right now the interpretations are all over the map. I hold to the "spell manifestations have the same concealment level as the spellcaster" interpretation, meaning anything that provides total concealment (including both invisibility and stealth) also hides spell manifestations. There's a whole spectrum of interpretations between both extremes, and basically no guidance on the matter. However, I suspect this is just another of those things that will be left as table variation and people will still be arguing polar opposite interpretations years after official support for PF1E has ended.
A simple fix to allow this encounter to exist according to the FAQ would be to have the spellcaster doing so behind total cover, perhaps behind a shelf or bookcase in the room? Characters need to “clearly see” the manifestations, so take away the line of sight to the caster’s square.For what it's worth, there's an encounter in an adventure path involving a creature using a pre-cast illusion to distract the PCs into thinking the illusion is the creature, all the while hanging out, invisible, in a corner casting other spells undetected. The spell manifestation FAQ, if taken to the extreme as some do, utterly breaks the entire premise of said encounter.
Based on that, I'm going to assume that concealing spellcasting via invisibility, at least, is indeed possible.
IIRC, and I don't have it in front of me, the creature needed to be able to see what was going on to function as written. I may have to completely rewrite the encounter or respec the creature for Conceal Spell. Or just rule that invisibility is enough, but that seems weird.
Not sure what I'm worried about, though--the party will probably just detect magic their way past that little issue anyway. Heck, at the level in question someone may even have permanent see invisibility or true seeing.
Not sure what I'm worried about, though--the party will probably just detect magic their way past that little issue anyway. Heck, at the level in question someone may even have permanent see invisibility or true seeing.
Detect Magic requires 3 rounds of concentration to pinpoint the location of auras. No one is doing that during combat.
|
|
Not sure what I'm worried about, though--the party will probably just detect magic their way past that little issue anyway. Heck, at the level in question someone may even have permanent see invisibility or true seeing.Detect Magic requires 3 rounds of concentration to pinpoint the location of auras. No one is doing that during combat.
Arcane sight, possibly permanent. 7,500 gp instead of the 2,500 for detect magic, but well worth it. The only possible drawback is "makes your eyes glow blue". If taken literally that make very easy to pinpoint you when invisible.
And if the scenario is the one I think, the battle will not start immediately, so there is time to use detect magic. Most illusions will not last more than 1 round of battle, unless the caster concentrate on them and has them react appropriately.
In our local PFS chapter, if you succeed at the spell DC you can spellcraft the "tingle" you felt. If you dont have spellcraft, oh well, if you fail, oh well. Visibility is irrelevant, though if you make it you will now be paranoid looking for invis casters.
While you make some good points I will point out no ruler worth his salt is going to give away his Kingdom with a Charm Person.
"I'm your bestest friendm please give me your Kingdom".
Nice ruler - "LOL. Good joke"
Nasty Ruler - "Guards kill him". Caster "But I'm your best friend". Ruler - "Yes, and that's why I'm not having you tortured before you're executed for trying to take my kingdom".
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Brevity. Details.
The number of ways a simple charm could be used for serious malfeasance are beyond enumeration. From "hey, King Numphertoad, I've just learned Count EnemyGuy is going to teleport in here with a small army any minute now... you and your guards should immediately take cover in your panic room, which I've totally not trapped" to "I need to inspect your Sceptre of Lordship for a second because I'm pretty sure Count EnemyGuy has tampered with it", and countless more.
I know charm isn't dominate, but for a clever play it's close enough, because all you really need to do is come up with a plausible crisis and a reasonable "solution".
|
|
Anguish:
All I can say is you are WAY WAY more trusting of your friends (and have more confidence in their abilities) than I do.
It will surely depend on the personality of the affected creature. It will go from "Thanks from the warning, I will do it myself." to "Take my Scepter and check it immediately." depending on his confidence, level of magical knowledge and so on. But a successful charm will go a long way into convincing him to listen to you and follow your suggestion as long as they seem reasonable. On the other hand if you seem a bumbling idiot giving bad suggestions he will treat you as his friend that is a bumbling idiot and give you some high pay low harm for failure job, like grand admiral of the Switzerland navy.
How does anybody realistically cast in a social setting anyway? Best case scenario, everyone only becomes unfriendly towards you and don't immediately attack you.
If you are in a city and begin casting a spell, people don't know what you are casting. You could be casting fireball, earthquake, etc.
I would expect most cities to have laws and regulations regarding spell casting. In order to even practice magic in a high population area, you will probably have to acquire a license to practice magic in public. Possibly even schedule events in advance so an official can observe.
In the presence of a ruler and want to case Zone of Truth or Detect Evil or whatever? Every guard in the room should immediately attack you. How do they know you aren't casting dominate person? Any king should have whatever protections in place that he can afford.
Maybe the king has an Anti-Magic Zone prepared somehwere? In fact, I would expect any prosperous kingdom to operate an anti-magic zone area in their prisons.
Kings can probably afford a set of magical items that render them immune to many effects. Mind buttressing Armor to be immune to charms, for example.
Even in most inns / bars of small towns, casting a spell should be treated as the equivalent of waving a gun around or revealing that you are holding a bomb. People are are trained in spellcraft may know what you are doing and not care. Not everyone will.
I understand that a lot of that is world building and maybe societies in your worlds don't care that someone might be opening a gate to allow their demon armies to walk straight into the middle of the city or transforming into a dragon or whatever. I'd like to be a villain in such a world.
|
|
Considering magic is literally used to do laundry in Pathfinder and offensive spells rarer than Burning Hands (which can't outright kill a sick child even on a max damage roll till at least level 3) are rarer, thinking everyone doing magic is going to unleash the apocalypse even though most cities don't have any wizards powerful enough is just crazy. It's like assuming anyone with a multitool is going to stab a bunch of people with the tiny blade instead of cut out a coupon or fix a screw.
It will be seized if you bring it to a airplane. ;-)
It all depend on your setting. My characters routinely use magic to do laundry, bless the food (Purify food and drink, in a medieval setting wells often are way too near dunghills) and so on, but if doing that in public he will say it and explain what he is doing before doing it.
You should consider the level of the potential target too. If you roll well with shocking grasp or cause light wounds you can disable a typical 1st level NPC. With a cantrip you can Daze him 1 round and done at the right time that can be deadly (do that to someone driving a wagon or to the animal pulling it and enjoy the incident). Same with grease. The already cited Charm person can wreak havoc. Or Sleep and Cause fear. And I am citing only CRB spells.
So using spells in public isn't "small stuff". It is important. If I see a construction worker maneuvering that kind of flamethrower that is used to spread tarred sheets I don't feel alarmed, if I see someone dressed as a business man bringing it to a crowded mall I would have some doubt, if he lighten the pilot flame I will move away and call security. He can have plenty of reasons for doing that but it don't feel reassuring.
Anguish:
All I can say is you are WAY WAY more trusting of your friends (and have more confidence in their abilities) than I do.
Really?
If my best friend unexpectedly asked to borrow my car, I'd probably lend it.
If my best friend unexpectedly told me my wife was in trouble and I need to go somewhere specific, I'd probably go.
Sure, I'd ask questions, but Bluff is a thing. Spin a plausible story and - by definition - it's plausible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anguish:
All I can say is you are WAY WAY more trusting of your friends (and have more confidence in their abilities) than I do.Really?
If my best friend unexpectedly asked to borrow my car, I'd probably lend it.
If my best friend unexpectedly told me my wife was in trouble and I need to go somewhere specific, I'd probably go.Sure, I'd ask questions, but Bluff is a thing. Spin a plausible story and - by definition - it's plausible.
If your best fiend ask you to lend him a lot of money because he need to help a widow move some money out of an African state you will not lend it and instead try to stop him, I hope.
So, even when speaking to your best friend, your brain is still working.If you are the Evil lord of Evilland that has killed his parent to ascend to the throne probably you aren't so keen into following your best friend suggestion without checking.
Or, to paraphrase a web novel where the heir of a noble speaking to his commoner best friend after the best friend has gravely and gratuitously offended a way higher noble: "I will always remember our friendship, I will do what I can for your family."
Being charmed don't mean becoming stupid or losing all your self interest.
|
I'll admit that I didn't read the whole thread but I'll leave this here.
Subtle Enchantments
Your enchantments influence targets in more subtle ways and are harder to notice.
Prerequisites: Deceitful, Spell Focus (enchantment).
Benefit: When you cast an enchantment spell or use an enchantment spell-like ability to influence a creature’s attitude or actions and the foe negates the spell with a successful Will save, she has a 50% chance not to notice that she just succeeded at a saving throw (she still can attempt to identify your spell or spell-like ability as normal). If the foe fails the saving throw or is otherwise affected by the spell, the Sense Motive DC to notice she is under the effects of an enchantment increases by 5.
Normal: Anyone who successfully saves against a spell notices the mental intrusion automatically.
How does anybody realistically cast in a social setting anyway? Best case scenario, everyone only becomes unfriendly towards you and don't immediately attack you.
If you are in a city and begin casting a spell, people don't know what you are casting. You could be casting fireball, earthquake, etc.
I would expect most cities to have laws and regulations regarding spell casting. In order to even practice magic in a high population area, you will probably have to acquire a license to practice magic in public. Possibly even schedule events in advance so an official can observe.
In the presence of a ruler and want to case Zone of Truth or Detect Evil or whatever? Every guard in the room should immediately attack you. How do they know you aren't casting dominate person? Any king should have whatever protections in place that he can afford.
Maybe the king has an Anti-Magic Zone prepared somehwere? In fact, I would expect any prosperous kingdom to operate an anti-magic zone area in their prisons.
Kings can probably afford a set of magical items that render them immune to many effects. Mind buttressing Armor to be immune to charms, for example.
Even in most inns / bars of small towns, casting a spell should be treated as the equivalent of waving a gun around or revealing that you are holding a bomb. People are are trained in spellcraft may know what you are doing and not care. Not everyone will.
I understand that a lot of that is world building and maybe societies in your worlds don't care that someone might be opening a gate to allow their demon armies to walk straight into the middle of the city or transforming into a dragon or whatever. I'd like to be a villain in such a world.
So in the Malazan book series (which is based on the author's D&D campaign) the empress and other high profile people carry otataral which is the antimagic equivalent of kryptonite. The empress herself is a high level monk or brawler that crushes magical assassins that warp in and find themselves depowered.
|
|
So in the Malazan book series (which is based on the author's D&D campaign) the empress and other high profile people carry otataral which is the antimagic equivalent of kryptonite. The empress herself is a high level monk or brawler that crushes magical assassins that warp in and find themselves depowered.
One of the problems of a lot of medieval rulers and lords was that they were very well trained in warfare but badly trained in managing the land, the people and the economy. In pathfinder being a "high level monk or brawler that crushes magical assassins" require training, lots of it. It is not something you acquire with the title.
While not necessarily antithetic, being at the same time a competent lord and a good combatant with high saves is difficult. And then, in any administration system, you need competent high level advisors.The prerequisite to be the minister of the finances is to be a 20th level wizard or cleric? A 8th level expert specialized in the right fields wouldn't be better?
While they shouldn't be pushovers, if the requirement to cover any government role is to be high level characters with maximized saves you will never have enough people to manage even a castle.
So decent world building require to protect the rulers from spellcasters without the need for them to be extremely high level characters.
Considering magic is literally used to do laundry in Pathfinder and offensive spells rarer than Burning Hands (which can't outright kill a sick child even on a max damage roll till at least level 3) are rarer, thinking everyone doing magic is going to unleash the apocalypse even though most cities don't have any wizards powerful enough is just crazy. It's like assuming anyone with a multitool is going to stab a bunch of people with the tiny blade instead of cut out a coupon or fix a screw.
1. A level 1 commoner has 6 HP. A level 1 Burning Hands does 1d4 Fire damage. So, you can almost burn a "regular" person to do unconsciousness, and this is a cone. At level 2, casting burning hands into a crowd of "regular" people can possibly cause them to be in a fight for their life as they lie dying on the ground.
Even if you disagree of the term "regular" person, I am talking about what the regulations are. Brandishing a gun is illegal in many/all places in the U.S. You didn't even attack anyone, just threatened you would. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded area can be a crime. I am suggesting that a random person, who hasn't been given authority to use magic in public, goes down to the market and starts obviously casting a spell... that should cause a scene. Because he *could* be casting Prestidigitation so he can clean his shoes.. or he *could* be casting a horrible spell to wreak havoc and chaos.
2. Just because laundry can be done with magic doesn't mean that people are out in public doing it. Laundry magic is done in the privacy of their homes, or perhaps in magical laundromats. Though, I doubt it, since prestidigitation is a cantrip. Doesn't seem like a great business model.
I'm suggesting that the use of magic in populated areas will be regulated, not banned. So, if you want to own a magical laundromat service, you'll need a license to practice that magic in public. Casting spells that are outside of those allowed by that license can land you in trouble. If you want to put on a show that uses magic as special effects, it may require an official to inspect/interview/observe. Depends on how bureaucratic you want your magical regulations to be.
Can you imagine the nightmare at the Department of Magical Vocations? Every apprentice mage is going to be down there trying to get their cantrip license or w/e and you gotta go down and renew your license to cast healing magic. You're going to have to go down to the DMV super early and camp out and there will STILL be a line.
The FAQ in question kinda sound like a handwaved metagame rule that only affect players in that NPCs have a chance of seeing through their shenanigans despite level differences. Handwaved in that there is very little that actually state the observation in question, Metagame as the character is just "aware" despite of magical training and it seems to only affect the players or around the players. The problem is that mages already run rampart across the world of Golarion, i mean you have the entire aspect of Blue dragons manipulating and casting spells galore to get their plans together, demons and devils alike does the same thing. (Even if Dominate person is its own thing its not the only spell in question they use.)
I just have to agree with Pizzas earlier statements, noted i am biased that his theories makes manipulation a bit more interesting and would require tools like detect magic or similar effects.
And honestly, a lot of Paizos erratas and FAQs muds the water more than it clears up.... so yeah i ignore those a lot in my own games.
Considering magic is literally used to do laundry in Pathfinder and offensive spells rarer than Burning Hands (which can't outright kill a sick child even on a max damage roll till at least level 3) are rarer, thinking everyone doing magic is going to unleash the apocalypse even though most cities don't have any wizards powerful enough is just crazy. It's like assuming anyone with a multitool is going to stab a bunch of people with the tiny blade instead of cut out a coupon or fix a screw.1. A level 1 commoner has 6 HP. A level 1 Burning Hands does 1d4 Fire damage. So, you can almost burn a "regular" person to do unconsciousness, and this is a cone. At level 2, casting burning hands into a crowd of "regular" people can possibly cause them to be in a fight for their life as they lie dying on the ground.
Apparently commoners are treated as monsters and only get average hp, so the beggar only has 4hp.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/npcCodex/npc/commoner.html
The following is my understanding:
1) The FAQ was to prevent spellcasters from running over mundanes. Now mundanes have some chance against casters.
2) To spellcraft the caster, you must perceive the caster. Per the OP, this may not be the case for the situation.
3) If you make a save vs. a spell, you know that hostile magic happened to you. If you fail the save, you don't know it unless the spell has an obvious effect. [I.e. you know if you got hit by a fireball.]
4) Some spells erase the memory of the spell's happening. [Sequester thoughts, Modify Memory, ....]
/cevah
5) You still probably know that a spell was cast if it was done anywhere in your vicinity and wasn't silent with the victim's back turned. Modify memory became a much better spell after the spell manifestation "FAQ"; too bad it's so rare.
