Is there any guidance about when spells can be cast under stealth without breaking stealth? I imagine casting a spell with verbal/somatic components would break stealth, and as I understand casting a spell irrespective of components is still clearly casting a spell, but would it break stealth? If so, would something like Cunning Caster let a character preserve stealth?
Abilities I'm familiar with are
Cunning Caster: "conceal your actions from onlookers"
Conceal Spell: "conceal the manifestation of casting the spell"
Thought Thief's Unseen Compulsion: "Creatures that fail their check are unaware of any effects of the thought thief's spell."
Dawnflower Dissident's Secret Caster: "disguise his spellcasting"
Would a caster casting a spell with no components be able to preserve stealth? If not, would a caster casting a spell with no components using some further ability (eg those above) preserve stealth? Is there an official or probable answer for any of these?
When casting a spell with a verbal component, you have to speak in a clear, audible manner though won't 'break' stealth unless you have to make an attack roll for it. Keep in mind that the DC to hear someone walking is 10 and to hear the details of a whispered conversation is 15. The DC to notice you casting a spell is likely within that range, and you'll need to adjust for distance.
Somatic components are silent and likely won't break stealth unless you are attacking someone, and then you'll have to resort to the 'sniping' rules found under the stealth skill.
Most of the answers for your questions are found under the rules for Perception and Stealth skills.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All spells have some kind of “manifestation” to let onlookers know ‘Hey! That guy right there is casting a spell!’ Without some form of feat, class ability, etc. that specifically disguises the source the caster will be noticed.
Extremely relevant FAQ includes the phrase “[options for concealing casting] will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.”
thanks for the responses, all; it seems like there's some contention. i'm inclined to understand the faq belafon linked as implying that it *is* possible to conceal manifestations using cunning caster, even though the feat doesn't explicitly say you can.
in any case it's probably an 'ask your gm' situation but its nice to have a clear picture of different possible answers as well as to make sure there isn't a clear raw.
|
|
thanks for the responses, all; it seems like there's some contention. i'm inclined to understand the faq belafon linked as implying that it *is* possible to conceal manifestations using cunning caster, even though the feat doesn't explicitly say you can.
With Cunning Caster, yes you can conceal the casting completely. Or Conceal Spell, etc.
I was responding to the idea that spells without components wouldn't break stealth. That's not correct, you need some kind of ability that specifically disguises the source.
thanks for the responses, all; it seems like there's some contention. i'm inclined to understand the faq belafon linked as implying that it *is* possible to conceal manifestations using cunning caster, even though the feat doesn't explicitly say you can.With Cunning Caster, yes you can conceal the casting completely. Or Conceal Spell, etc.
I was responding to the idea that spells without components wouldn't break stealth. That's not correct, you need some kind of ability that specifically disguises the source.
Neither the rules, nor the FAQ, state that casting a spell breaks stealth. This is similar to the numerous discussions had on these boards about whether spell manifestations reveals the location of an invisible caster (there is large disagreement about whether they do or not, and different types of spell manifestations lend themselves to both sides of the argument).
Things like cunning caster and conceal spell shed no additional information on this topic, as those feats can be used when the caster is standing in plain sight of a group of onlookers. As such they do not answer the question of if they are even required if the caster is not in plain sight.
As a thought experiment: can I snipe while using ray spells? Or does casting a spell reveal me, such that I no longer qualify for being able to snipe because I am not making the attack itself from stealth?
|
|
thanks for the responses, all; it seems like there's some contention. i'm inclined to understand the faq belafon linked as implying that it *is* possible to conceal manifestations using cunning caster, even though the feat doesn't explicitly say you can.With Cunning Caster, yes you can conceal the casting completely. Or Conceal Spell, etc.
I was responding to the idea that spells without components wouldn't break stealth. That's not correct, you need some kind of ability that specifically disguises the source.
Neither the rules, nor the FAQ, state that casting a spell breaks stealth. This is similar to the numerous discussions had on these boards about whether spell manifestations reveals the location of an invisible caster (there is large disagreement about whether they do or not, and different types of spell manifestations lend themselves to both sides of the argument).
Things like cunning caster and conceal spell shed no additional information on this topic, as those feats can be used when the caster is standing in plain sight of a group of onlookers. As such they do not answer the question of if they are even required if the caster is not in plain sight.
As a thought experiment: can I snipe while using ray spells? Or does casting a spell reveal me, such that I no longer qualify for being able to snipe because I am not making the attack itself from stealth?
Yes, you certainly can snipe with a ray spell. Then you make a stealth check with a -20 penalty to maintain your obscured position. Just like any other snipe attempt. That stealth check is what "provides an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse."
I'm not sure if my posts are somehow coming off as "this is how I screw over casters" but that's absolutely not my intention. I think a stealthed caster using any spell should be allowed to "snipe" (attempt a stealth check to remain hidden) even if it isn't a spell that requires an attack roll. I was solely responding to the question about removing components. The relevant FAQ is saying that the source of the spell is identifiable even if there are no components.
. . .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.
I'm not sure if my posts are somehow coming off as "this is how I screw over casters" but that's absolutely not my intention. I think a stealthed caster using any spell should be allowed to "snipe" (attempt a stealth check to remain hidden) even if it isn't a spell that requires an attack roll. I was solely responding to the question about removing components. The relevant FAQ is saying that the source of the spell is identifiable even if there are no components.
While the components are identifiable, the person seeing them to identify them does need to be able to actually see the components. Its not entirely clear whether being in stealth would prevent seeing them to identify in the first place or not, and thus break stealth or not. So my objection is your claim.
I was responding to the idea that spells without components wouldn't break stealth. That's not correct, you need some kind of ability that specifically disguises the source."
is not supported by RAW. But is also not specifically rejected by RAW - though I'd argue this is a situation that you need an explicit "permission" to break stealth, as the stealth ability does have explicit things that break stealth, casting a spell not being one of them. And the FAQ does not address the aspect of casting spells while stealthed/invisible.
|
I'm not sure if my posts are somehow coming off as "this is how I screw over casters" but that's absolutely not my intention. I think a stealthed caster using any spell should be allowed to "snipe" (attempt a stealth check to remain hidden) even if it isn't a spell that requires an attack roll. I was solely responding to the question about removing components. The relevant FAQ is saying that the source of the spell is identifiable even if there are no components.
While the components are identifiable, the person seeing them to identify them does need to be able to actually see the components. Its not entirely clear whether being in stealth would prevent seeing them to identify in the first place or not, and thus break stealth or not. So my objection is your claim.
I was responding to the idea that spells without components wouldn't break stealth. That's not correct, you need some kind of ability that specifically disguises the source."is not supported by RAW. But is also not specifically rejected by RAW - though I'd argue this is a situation that you need an explicit "permission" to break stealth, as the stealth ability does have explicit things that break stealth, casting a spell not being one of them. And the FAQ does not address the aspect of casting spells while stealthed/invisible.
Then you have those like me who hate the whole "manifestations" and consider them an ill thought out, poorly handled attempt to patch psychic spells which limits plot threads and the whole point of certain spells*. So I hard house rule they don't exist in any game I run you have detect magic, see magic innately or the only spell indications you see are the ones that would have an explicit visible result like lightning bolt or edvard's Balkan tentacles. Charm person and the like you would only see the somatic or hear the verbal part of the casting and others like mage's armour I generally allow the player to decide if its invisble, a slight glow or other effect depending on their taste.
*Seriously it has been a few years since I've looked do they have rules for how they work because last time I checked I couldn't even find if there was a range penalty on noticing. Its all "up to the GM" so yeah this game its glowing signs in the air which are readily visible but wont be seen behind a stone wall or other cover while in that one its a hair raising tingling that can be picked up on the other side of the castle with a dc 10 perception.
*Seriously it has been a few years since I've looked do they have rules for how they work because last time I checked I couldn't even find if there was a range penalty on noticing. Its all "up to the GM" so yeah this game its glowing signs in the air which are readily visible but wont be seen behind a stone wall or other cover while in that one its a hair raising tingling that can be picked up on the other side of the castle with a dc 10 perception.
No further updates to the rules on this after the the FAQ.
The base rules do impose a distance penalty though by default.
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.
|
|
*Seriously it has been a few years since I've looked do they have rules for how they work because last time I checked I couldn't even find if there was a range penalty on noticing. Its all "up to the GM" so yeah this game its glowing signs in the air which are readily visible but wont be seen behind a stone wall or other cover while in that one its a hair raising tingling that can be picked up on the other side of the castle with a dc 10 perception.No further updates to the rules on this after the the FAQ.
The base rules do impose a distance penalty though by default.
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.
That's for identifying a spell though manifestations are just to notice magic is happening. It's the difference between "My magic sense is tingling" and "he's casting fireball get into cover."
|
|
Some spells can cover spellcasting for observers, depending upon exactly how & where your GM interprets "spellcasting manifestations" occur. I can't stress this enough, cast and ask your GM for a description. This rule is meant to keep casters from running amok - so it is a Game Balance issue.
{then}
classically the act of spell casting, spellcasting manifestations, or obvious spell effects are going to break Stealth (see First post) which forces the sniping option.All spells have some kind of “manifestation” to let onlookers know ‘Hey! That guy right there is casting a spell!’ Without some form of feat, class ability, etc. that specifically disguises the source the caster will be noticed.
Extremely relevant FAQ includes the phrase “[options for concealing casting] will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.”
from the FAQ
under Stealth skill there are several relevant quotes;
<-- does not cover spellcasting.
<-- see "obviously... even to the uninitiated" in the FAQ.
<-- just in case it didn't end with the above two.the catch is "Spellcasting Manifrustrations" is a Game Balance issue. So it is what your GM & Group feel is balanced and fair.
I personally think the effects should appear in...
While I am happy to discuss how this game balance issue invalidates entire schools of casting and creature abilities it'd derail this thread, if you want to talk about it please make a new thread otherwise I suggest we drop it here. I was just saying I dislike the whole mechanic for a number of reasons.
|
|
I am simply restating the rationale as to what is going on in RAW as it is the Rules forum and people read this for some Guidance. It wasn't actually laid out clearly thus I posted.
Azothath wrote "..."I didn't actually read your postings as they are greyed out by my reader so news to me!
It's fine if you don't agree and want to run it differently in your Home Game.
Ah my mistake, thought you were replying to me.