So, lets say Bard and Rogue want to play characters. The Bard plays someone that is good at covering the fact they used a spell. Still Spell, Silent Spell, Conceal Spell, Spellsong feat, whatever.
Now, people know generally when magic happens even if the source isn't clear. A fireball doesn't come from literally no where. How does the Rogue go about claiming he actually caused the spell other than waving around a wand and a bluff check?
SorrySleeping- I'd say it's a teamwork related skill check. make sure the DM knows the 2 of them are closely working together;
co-operative ROGUE: Loudly pronouncing arcane/divine words, making obvious mystic gestures & flinging faux "spell components".
let's say BLUFF check= You have to be able to fool OTHER casters spellcraft checks.
rogue teaching the caster some sleight of hand, etc.,
co-operative CASTER: Using cover and whispering an incantation, minimizing somatic gestures & hiding the use of material components.
let's say SPELLCRAFT. You have to downplay your spellcasting, bluff my not be a class skill for you making a spellcraft check a logical leap.
caster teaching the rogue the verbal, somatic & material aspects of the spells.
i like the idea, so i'd be willing to show some flexibility toward the concept.
It could make sense as an application of the False Casting Feat.
granted the feat is literally waving a wand around and a bluff check. but anyone that doesn't have ranks in spellcraft automatically believes the character is actually casting the spell.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
That's an absurd feat! Those rules should govern what happens when someone uses bluff and slight of hand without any feat required. Notice there is no "normal" line.
This said, and given the existence of this wacky feat, I suppose you could use it. Not that the rogue doesn't have a hundred other things to spend his feat slot on first, though.
LordKailas wrote: It could make sense as an application of the False Casting Feat.
granted the feat is literally waving a wand around and a bluff check. but anyone that doesn't have ranks in spellcraft automatically believes the character is actually casting the spell.
I shouldn't have mentioned the wand. I like the idea of the feat, but was hoping for something without the needing of a wand. It still works, but still needs some GM fiat to work between two characters. Thank you.
Wheldrake wrote: That's an absurd feat! Those rules should govern what happens when someone uses bluff and slight of hand without any feat required. Notice there is no "normal" line.
This said, and given the existence of this wacky feat, I suppose you could use it. Not that the rogue doesn't have a hundred other things to spend his feat slot on first, though.
I say rogue. I just mean a class that doesn't normally cast but has options of possibility out there, even if it is just UMD. The idea isn't fully nailed down. Just creating ideas as the current campaign is ~month away from closure.
Also, lots of feats don't have a "normal" line. Meaning there isn't a possibility of doing something even close to this without the feat.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I am Nemesis wrote: I'd say it's a teamwork related skill check. make sure the DM knows the 2 of them are closely working together;
co-operative ROGUE: Loudly pronouncing arcane/divine words, making obvious mystic gestures & flinging faux "spell components".
let's say BLUFF check= You have to be able to fool OTHER casters spellcraft checks.
rogue teaching the caster some sleight of hand, etc.,
co-operative CASTER: Using cover and whispering an incantation, minimizing somatic gestures & hiding the use of material components.
let's say SPELLCRAFT. You have to downplay your spellcasting, bluff my not be a class skill for you, making a spellcraft check a logical leap.
caster teaching the rogue the verbal, somatic & material aspects of the spells.
i was suprized to see my idea in the form of a feat. even after seeing the feat, i still feel it should be skill checks.
The Spell Manifestation FAQ makes hiding the casting of a spell nearly impossible. Still and Silent remove casting requirements, but don't make detection any different.
Your best bet is casting where you cannot be noticed.
/cevah
You are looking for Conceal Spell, which hides your manifestations. alternatively, if you aren't set on bard, the Vizier Mesmerist architype dose this as its main thing
FAQ wrote: 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. Anybody happen to know what chicanery they are talking about? i can't seem to find anything relating to it.
it is GM dependent.
Manifestations
The RAW text on spell manifestations is a purposeful gotcha to stop spellcasters from covertly running amok.
Some spells, particularly Illusions, should be able to hide or conceal the nebulously defined spellcasting manifestations(SplMfst). Illusion of Calm springs to mind, as does Silent Image IF the manifestations occur in the Area of Effect(AoE) of the spell. Deeper Darkness should work although the darkness itself is readily perceivable, lol. Same for Obscuring Mist etc. It's dependent on having the perceivers OR the manifestations in the AoE of the spell. Still, the GM is the arbiter of the effect.
Spellcasting
We've mostly covered visual, but there's the verbal component. Ventrioquism(way far away for Percptn negatives, or on the Rogue), Silent Table, greater illusions that cover sounds. Silence on the Rogue could also explain away why he's silent but you still have the sound from the caster, see above. Material components and Foci are going to be covered by most illusion or effects with concealment or cover.
For a Bard many effects are sound dependent and that is a HUGE problem. Silence etc may stop LoE. That leaves you will just illusions to cover the effect.
Pretending to be the spell source
LoL... there is Bluff. Gonna be circumstance negatives if there's a visible Line of Effect(LoE) or AoE from the actual caster.
One can use Disguise to look like a caster... but that's without the SplMfst.
The feats in Ult Intrigue allow hiding of spells, no reason in a home game you couldn't allow the opposite with the same feat. There's also Cooperative Casting (it is not defined under this feat at all, so that's a GM alteration, but clearly the casters share the spellcastings and that's what you want).
The Rogue should take Minor Magic ability to create his own spellcasting manifestations. Only trained spellcasters using Spellcraft will know the difference - and that's a clear minority. Some traits will get you there too. At this point Bluff would seem to work.
Lastly, there's Spell Thematics from 3.5. Personally I think every home game specialist wizard should get this feat for free with the effect agreed upon by the GM and DC to identify effects only applied to one school of non-specialized school spells. AKA take a feat for full effect.
False Casting above will do it, but then you don't need the spellcaster. The Rogue will need the correct wand for the spell he's trying to do.
It's also going to apply with the above antics should the wand be Arcane Mark and the perciever's non-casters. Mechanically it is going to be hard to beat a Spellcraft check as noted in the feat as most casters max out spellcraft. Again, bard spells are going to get penalties if the spell is sound or language dependent as targets hear the bard's voice and probably not the same thing in the rogue's voice.
Stylized Spell also works to conceal spells, and even to change the apparent origin point; It however fails at the second part of the question given this clause:
"...In addition, the deception can’t make it appear that another creature cast the spell."
Feign Curse
I'm actually using this as a rogue and it's hilarious
|
