Enlighted Ones,
Rumors circulate about changes to the mechanics of how covert casting works. Pre-remaster this was usually implemented by some metamagic class feats, particularly Conceal Spell and Melodious Spell (also cp. the remarks in section Casting Spells). Now, there seem to be remaster-changes. In this course, I've read about a new trait(?): "Subtle".
Are you users with access to the new rules willing to share a bit more on that matter?
For instance:
- Do Conceal Spell and Melodious Spell still exist? How do they work in Remaster?
- Do you still need skill checks? If yes, which?
- And what's the deal with "Subtle"?
That would greatly help to shed some early light on shady casting.
(A topic some undercover caster - in a tricky scenario in which getting recognized at the wrong places by the wrong persons could threaten more than one life - is eager to learn about.)
Thanks in advance.
|
I do not have the book, but from what I read on the boards, there is this new trait for spells called Subtle. Spells with this trait can be cast without anyone noticing (apparently no check is required). The effects can still be detected though : only the casting is hidden.
Conceal Spell is still there and gives the Subtle trait to the spell you cast.
Maybe Melodious spell works similarly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could also see this trait in the War of Immortals playtest. Animist had a feat equivalent to Conceal Spell that gave the Subtle trait to the next spell cast.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A spell with the subtle trait can be cast without incantations and doesn’t have obvious manifestations. Most of these spells enhance your subterfuge or stealth, such as invisibility. Some abilities, like the Conceal Spell feat (page 201), allow you to make spells subtle even if they wouldn’t normally be.
There it is, verbatim. Discuss away.
Edit: further relevant text
Casting a spell requires the caster to make gestures and utter incantations, so being unable to speak prevents spellcasting for most casters.
Spellcasting creates obvious sensory manifestations, such as bright lights, crackling sounds, and sharp smells from the gathering magic. Nearly all spells manifest a spell signature
Looks like you still have to wave your arms/hands around since it doenst say anything about removing gestures. That seems to limit its effectiveness a lot, no?
Depends on what is meant by 'make gestures' and how large and extravagantly obvious those gestures are required to be.
It doesn't look like that is actually defined, so subtle gestures should be a thing too. At least something that the GM could rule to be a thing while still maintaining that they are playing by RAW.
Looks like you still have to wave your arms/hands around since it doenst say anything about removing gestures. That seems to limit its effectiveness a lot, no?
The specific hand gestures involved in casting spells already had a lot of interpretation built into them, particularly since you still can do them when your hands are filled (with weapons, say).
So you could easily make the gestures involved in casting subtle spells be "you wiggle your fingers" which isn't super obvious, particularly since in a situation where maximum subtlety is needed you can hide the gestures inside of other normal gestures.
Maybe stealth casting is supposed to always require a stealth check then? If the gestures are not inherently covered for free with the subtle trait? That would alleviate most of my concerns about rampant abuse. Is there anything about it in the stealth skill description?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks to all for the answers about subtle so far; really helps to understand what is about to be changed.
Organizational note: The thread at hand was spawned from remaster wizard thread (s. https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sieh&page=6?Player-Core-Previ ew-The-Wizard-Remastered#262). Apparently there is more debate on "Subtle" and impact on remaster wizards going on, there. That's fine. I don't want to restrict anyone posting there; I just thought it is helpful to have a dedicated thread focusing on covert casting, in general, instead of having it all conflated with general wizard remaster.
Particularly since these feat choices - at least when in CRB/APG - have also been in witch or bard class, respectively. BTW: Does that still hold for remaster, as well?
I also think there could be more information in how you generally cast spells that will also shed light on the situation. The kind of gestures required for casting will be called out, class by class.
I think it would make a lot of sense for making secret movements requiring either deception or stealth.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe stealth casting is supposed to always require a stealth check then?
The subtle trait requires no check.
If the gestures are not inherently covered for free with the subtle trait?
One thing worth noting is that while gestures aren't called out specifically by the subtle trait, several of the abilities that grant you the subtle trait either do call out gestures or that the ability entirely hides your spellcasting.
I feel like "okay your spell is subtle but since it only says incantations everyone knows what you're doing anyways" reads more like a GM trying to cheat a player out of their ability than an accurate interpretation.
Does Identifying spells being cast mentions the Subtle trait ?
Not directly.
Recognize a spell requires you to be aware of the casting, but doesn't specify in any more detail.
So I could see a GM saying that because you can't see the manifestations you can't identify the spell, or a GM saying that because you can still see the effects, you can identify the spell.
The subtle trait does however appear to block counterspelling, because counter spell requires you to see manifestations and subtle spells have no manifestations.
I also think there could be more information in how you generally cast spells that will also shed light on the situation. The kind of gestures required for casting will be called out, class by class.
I think it would make a lot of sense for making secret movements requiring either deception or stealth.
I wonder if gestures are fuzzy because they're caster specific. Some casters may have more of a flourish and others may use symbolic gestures.
If each class had their own gestures that would seem like something that could be used to identify the class of caster when they're casting.
Maybe stealth casting is supposed to always require a stealth check then?The subtle trait requires no check.
If the gestures are not inherently covered for free with the subtle trait?One thing worth noting is that while gestures aren't called out specifically by the subtle trait, several of the abilities that grant you the subtle trait either do call out gestures or that the ability entirely hides your spellcasting.
I feel like "okay your spell is subtle but since it only says incantations everyone knows what you're doing anyways" reads more like a GM trying to cheat a player out of their ability than an accurate interpretation.
I agree that it would be a trap option if the gestures could not also be disguised, I just wonder if the deliberate exclusion of gestures from the subtle trait description indicates that there is something in the stealth skill about moving or making gestures without notice?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The stealth rules don't say anything about concealing movements. Neither does Deception.
Looking at the rules a bit further, there's some ambiguity here worth highlighting:
- Every description of spellcasting mentions both incantations and gestures. These two are defined separately consistently throughout the book. Every spellcasting class has examples of what their incantations and gestures are like. It seems pretty clear that these are important and separate things.
- The subtle trait only references incantations and manifestations, not gestures. The phrasing is actually somewhat odd, because the trait makes clear that subtle hides incantations and manifestations and doesn't hide effects... gestures aren't mentioned at all. The obvious takeaway is that gestures aren't covered, but it's weird that the ability emphasizes what it doesn't cover (effects) and just doesn't mention gestures at all.
- However, some of the abilities that reference the subtle trait do mention gestures. There's some internal contradiction here, for example conceal spell says:
Through sheer mental effort, you can simplify the incantations and gestures needed to spellcast, leaving them barely noticeable. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell, the spell gains the subtle trait, hiding the shining runes, sparks of magic, and other manifestations that would usually give away your spellcasting. The trait hides only the spell’s spellcasting actions and manifestations, not its effects, so an observer might still see a ray streak out from you or see you vanish into thin air.
Bolding for convenience. Conceal spell says 'spellcasting actions and manifestations' rather than specifying incantations.
- There's a final YMMV wrinkle in that subtle explicitly does not hide spell effects, but I can imagine there's some discrepancy on what that means. Can you identify a spell from its effects alone? Do all spells have visible effects, or just some?
There's a lot of potential for variation there, because "you didn't see anything" and "you know the baron was the target of a spell you've identified as Charm, but you don't know where it came from" both seem to fall within valid readings of the trait as is.
Unless there is a change to counterspelling, you would have to be able to see the manifestations of the spell to ever be able to counter a spell, which makes conceal spell a little too potent as an automatic counter.
The effects of spells can't really happen until a spell has been cast. It would be pretty contradictory for a spell like charm, that is subtle by default to have an obvious and visible spell effect because anytime you could cast it where that didn't matter, it wouldn't really matter if it had been cast subtly or not.
Overall, it is a bit of a niche concern that your average dungeon diving party isn't going to be concerned with, but it creates a huge amount of work for any GM if they have to decide what spells can be cast with conceal spell without anyone being able to identify those spells, counter them, or know they were even cast. It also interacts strangely with spells like charm that have success results that don't reveal what was done. Does a concealed charm spell register as a different, harmless concealed spell on a success? Does the target not know they were even targeted?
I hope clarity is provided or errata is made. I think just letting anyone with the feat cast any spell they want with no need to make a check to do so without notice is a big mistake. Perception checks are active, meaning characters would have to be always making perception checks to potential notice that any spells were every being cast, and then what is the countering DC for noticing? I get wanting to make the concealed casting thing a little less difficult for players, but, as with all abilities, if the NPCs can have these powers too, it becomes pretty unfair for fairly powerful things to happen without your character having any chance to notice them. Or do we just start telling players "Make a will save" without cause and without any ability to identify why? Shouldn't that be a secret check then? Because "Make a will save" followed by rolling badly and losing full agency of character with no idea of how or why is going to really upset players.
I agree that it would be a trap option if the gestures could not also be disguised, I just wonder if the deliberate exclusion of gestures from the subtle trait description indicates that there is something in the stealth skill about moving or making gestures without notice?
Could be a stealth, deception, thievery or even a flat check, level check or the like. *shrug* Until it's clarified, it's a 'ask your dm' question with a lot of possible solutions.
Unless there is a change to counterspelling, you would have to be able to see the manifestations of the spell to ever be able to counter a spell, which makes conceal spell a little to potent as an automatic counter.
Counter spell calls out manifestations specifically, so yes subtle spells are uncounterable. Seemingly by design.
So charm is a spell that can never be countered?
That is what it looks like in the current rules, but that seems poorly thought out to me. Not just for charm and similar subtle spells by default, but for characters that sink multiple feats into identifying and countering spells, it is only a matter of GM and Adventure writer fiat that every single higher level wizard wouldn't have picked up conceal spell as a feat to be able to have un-counterable spells. Like that is such a no brainer feat for wizards who ever expect to face off against higher level wizards, not ever giving it to NPCs seems pretty immersion breaking to me.
Maybe the assumption is just that people don't play Pathfinder 2nd edition to play campaigns of intrigue and espionage, but as someone playing a caster in a Hell's Rebels campaign with a GM that is likely pretty excited about using remastered content, this is something I am going to talk to my GM about before making any assumptions about how it will work in our game.
In the games I GM, I probably just won't be using the subtle trait at all until the campaigns are over. One is a Fists of the Ruby Phoenix Campaign with a ton of NPC casters in it and my player with a wizard character does tons of counter spelling. But I don't see any high level Magaambya professor walking around without the ability to conceal their spells if it just automatically prevents them from being countered with no checks and minimal investment. I don't really want to get into remaking the cast of NPCs in the campaign around such a glaring world building issue.
The other campaign is a early Abomination Vaults campaign and I might talk about it with the players, but there are some powerful wizards in that campaign too that seem like they would be unlikely not to be prepared for facing off against other, counterspelling casters, so I might let them decide if they want the the subtle trait in the game or not, seeing as I am running a much more intrigue heavy version of Otari, pulling heavily on the inherent Twin Peaks themes of the town. Everyone has secrets and now apparently using magic to keep those secrets and enact secret plans just got a whole lot easier...unless the players don't want to play nondetection/scrying cat and mouse games. We did that with the 2nd book of wrath of the righteous and with the whole of the Carrion Crown campaigns we ran, so I know these players can be up for it, but "anyone could easily be casting spells undectably" is a lot more fuel to throw on the fire.
Charm is less "mind control" and more "jedi mind trick" anyway. A spell to make NPCs like you somewhat more being uncounterable doesn't seem like a huge problem.
I would assume the downside in an intrigue campaign is that if the target succeeds on their save they realize you're up to something.
Charm is really just one low level example though. I am more concerned about clairaudiance, modify memory, dominate, various curses, poxes, blindness, illusions, even magic item/invisible item for social intrigue.
Then there is the kind of PF1 cheese of Parties casting invisibility sphere and silence on themselves but retaining the ability to teleport around anywhere the wizards s crying/sensors have seen/can see to ambush enemy casters with a an AoA martial adjacent to them (while also silencing the caster), while the party casters can all cast spells in silently is the shut down PF1 casting mechanics of the god wizard.
A lot will depend upon how the spell descriptions explain spell effects but “no checks for any subtle spells” is a big door open to that kinda cheese.
I guess the multiple points of failure for certain spells to function as intended generated enough ire for them to rethink calling out rolls. Idk, but maybe my players will finally start casting some of those more covert spells again in social situations. It's been literal years since any of them have cast charm
I personally don't use charm as a wizard, because the people at my table feel like all charm/compulsion magic is inherently evil and icky and would have their characters stop a wizard from casting charm, even if it was being used for something like trying to convince a head strong youth to return home to the farm instead taking up a life of banditry. I understand why and can agree that there are inherent issues in role playing games of adequately representing consent and intention for NPCs. It is kind of one of those "this can get very ugly if you look at it too closely" issues. Like is there really any difference between believing that convincing that youth with diplomacy, or intimidation or deception is any less of a violation of the NPCs free will than doing so with magic? It is a weird dynamic to admit that NPCs only really exist to help PCs tell a story, but if we acknowledge that as players, than suddenly the PCs are in this potentially ugly space of knowing that the world they exist in revolves around them. Obfuscating that is one of the chief illusions necessary for whole tables to create together.
The reason I think charm is worth talking about with the subtle spell trait is because, in world, the ability of anyone who can cast that spell to be able to do so without anyone noticing it was cast, and having to actively investigate/seek signs of foul play to have a chance to uncover it feels like a pretty radical shift from the pre-remastered rules, where casting the spell without anyone noticing took a lot of character investment. It is a world building change that invites a lot more of the ugly and uncomfortable stories around enchantment magic back into the game, where they previously were too difficult for the vast majority of in world characters to even consider, as evidenced by how few players were using such options on their characters.
I am curious how the subtle spell trait interacts with the cast a spell activity used to activate items like scrolls, staves and wands.
Small specific question in between: Is Melodious Spell still mentioned in remaster? And if so, how does it compare to Conceal Spell?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Melodious spell is basically identical to Conceal Spell, but also has the secondary effect of letting you do a free create a diversion, demoralize, perform or request if the spell you cast has the emotion, sonic, auditory, or visual traits.
Melodious spell is basically identical to Conceal Spell, but also has the secondary effect of letting you do a free create a diversion, demoralize, perform or request if the spell you cast has the emotion, sonic, auditory, or visual traits.
Thx. That is interesting. Though I don't know yet, which spells qualify as trigger for that second effect; naively it sounds like it could open up some fascinating possibilities. For instance - IF charm qualifies (what I hope) - it would allow a discreet, Charm-Request combo.
I can already imagine above-mentioned, sly caster with the passion domain moving past some NSC whose urgent cooperation is needed. Some slight, passing (charming) touch, a little bit of whispering in the ear - and things might quickly move forward...
Charm has the emotion trait, even in the remaster.
Addition to Unicore's message / Side Note: Without wanting to judge others' experiences and preferences ...
[...] the people at my table feel like all charm/compulsion magic is inherently evil and icky [...] Like is there really any difference between believing that convincing that youth with diplomacy, or intimidation or deception is any less of a violation of the NPCs free will than doing so with magic? [...]
I'm always fascinated to hear/read from other tables and learn how different people treat situations. That charm aversion particularly amazes me. You already brought it up. I guess, I make this comparison between charm and all other ways, player characters influence their environment, too. Particularly, when one considers how often and in which ways many (D20-like) adventures I've played so far presented martial violence as an alternative(?) option to move stories forward...
Melodious spell is basically identical to Conceal Spell, but also has the secondary effect of letting you do a free create a diversion, demoralize, perform or request if the spell you cast has the emotion, sonic, auditory, or visual traits.Thx. That is interesting. Though I don't know yet, which spells qualify as trigger for that second effect; naively it sounds like it could open up some fascinating possibilities. For instance - IF charm qualifies (what I hope) - it would allow a discreet, Charm-Request combo.
I can already imagine above-mentioned, sly caster with the passion domain moving past some NSC whose urgent cooperation is needed. Some slight, passing (charming) touch, a little bit of whispering in the ear - and things might quickly move forward...
Ironically, Charm also has the Subtle trait too, so there's no point in using Melodious Spell on it.
Most of the spells you'd expect to want to cast without being noticed, like Message, Silence, Invisibility, and so on have the Subtle trait already built in. You'd most likely want to use other kinds of spells with Melodious Spell instead.
|
|
Melodious spell is basically identical to Conceal Spell, but also has the secondary effect of letting you do a free create a diversion, demoralize, perform or request if the spell you cast has the emotion, sonic, auditory, or visual traits.Thx. That is interesting. Though I don't know yet, which spells qualify as trigger for that second effect; naively it sounds like it could open up some fascinating possibilities. For instance - IF charm qualifies (what I hope) - it would allow a discreet, Charm-Request combo.
I can already imagine above-mentioned, sly caster with the passion domain moving past some NSC whose urgent cooperation is needed. Some slight, passing (charming) touch, a little bit of whispering in the ear - and things might quickly move forward...
Ironically, Charm also has the Subtle trait too, so there's no point in using Melodious Spell on it.
Most of the spells you'd expect to want to cast without being noticed, like Message, Silence, Invisibility, and so on have the Subtle trait already built in. You'd most likely want to use other kinds of spells with Melodious Spell instead.
There's no point using Conceal Spell on those.It may be worth using Melodious spell for the free interaction check.
It’s not free though, because you have to use a (wasted) Melodious Spell action. Neutral total action cost.
The fact that these are one action spell shape feats is a balancing factor that hasn’t been mentioned and will only have been obvious to some of you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The example of Melodious (Request) + Charm is also a bad combination because the free request happens as part of activating the feat, which means you'd be making it before you cast the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't use charm as a wizard, because the people at my table feel like all charm/compulsion magic is inherently evil and icky
Yes that is a fair position. Though it would make something like these are not the droids you are looking for evil too.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Counterspelling is kind of a pain in the butt anyway.
You, as far as I can tell, have to guess what the spell you're countering is and pray. Since Recognize a Spell is a reaction, Quick Recognition makes that a free action, but Counterspell is also a reaction. You can only use action action per trigger, so you can't do multiple of them at once.
since you need a spell equipped to counter it, it should be covered by the below rule and have no need for Recognise Spell.
"If you notice a spell being cast, and you have prepared that spell or have it in your repertoire, you automatically know what the spell is, including the level to which it is heightened."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The example of Melodious (Request) + Charm is also a bad combination because the free request happens as part of activating the feat, which means you'd be making it before you cast the spell.
Can someone quote the text of Spellshape as successor of Metamagic trait? I'm asking because Metamagic had the following clause:
Any additional effects added by a metamagic action are part of the spell’s effect, not of the metamagic action itself.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Addition to Unicore's message / Side Note: Without wanting to judge others' experiences and preferences ...
[...] the people at my table feel like all charm/compulsion magic is inherently evil and icky [...] Like is there really any difference between believing that convincing that youth with diplomacy, or intimidation or deception is any less of a violation of the NPCs free will than doing so with magic? [...]I'm always fascinated to hear/read from other tables and learn how different people treat situations. That charm aversion particularly amazes me. You already brought it up. I guess, I make this comparison between charm and all other ways, player characters influence their environment, too. Particularly, when one considers how often and in which ways many (D20-like) adventures I've played so far presented martial violence as an alternative(?) option to move stories forward...
Yeah I also can't really grasp the mental processes that lead to considering blowing someone up (or cutting them into pieces, etc. etc.) acceptable, but making them believe you are a friend absolutely not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clever Counterspell is a lot harder to trigger than it used to be with the death of spell schools, but easier to pull off with the removal of the -2 penalty.
|
|
Yeah I also can't really grasp the mental processes that lead to considering blowing someone up (or cutting them into pieces, etc. etc.) acceptable, but making them believe you are a friend absolutely not.Addition to Unicore's message / Side Note: Without wanting to judge others' experiences and preferences ...
[...] the people at my table feel like all charm/compulsion magic is inherently evil and icky [...] Like is there really any difference between believing that convincing that youth with diplomacy, or intimidation or deception is any less of a violation of the NPCs free will than doing so with magic? [...]I'm always fascinated to hear/read from other tables and learn how different people treat situations. That charm aversion particularly amazes me. You already brought it up. I guess, I make this comparison between charm and all other ways, player characters influence their environment, too. Particularly, when one considers how often and in which ways many (D20-like) adventures I've played so far presented martial violence as an alternative(?) option to move stories forward...
Manipulating free will.
Can hit quite close to home for people.
Likely more frequently than murder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The example of Melodious (Request) + Charm is also a bad combination because the free request happens as part of activating the feat, which means you'd be making it before you cast the spell.Can someone quote the text of Spellshape as successor of Metamagic trait? I'm asking because Metamagic had the following clause:
Any additional effects added by a metamagic action are part of the spell’s effect, not of the metamagic action itself.
SPELLSHAPE
"Many spellcasters can gain access to spellshape actions, typically by selecting spellshape feats. Spellshape actions tweak the properties of your spells. You must use a spellshape action directly before casting the spell you want to alter. If you use any action (including free actions and reactions) other than casting a spell directly after, you waste the benefits of the spellshape action. The benefit is also lost if your turn ends before you cast the spell. Any additional effects added by a spellshape action are part of the spell’s effect, not of the spellshape action itself."
The feats look like they take care of all spellcasting actions (including gestures), whereas the trait alone leaves gestures unmentioned.
Due to the odd phrasing, I suspect either the trait should cover everything (including gestures), or the feats should not cover gestures much like the trait.
The inconsistent nature of the text leads me to believe that some of it is a holdover from previous design decisions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see the gestures from spells with the Subtle trait as being, well, subtle. You could probably detect them, but the whole point of the trait is being able to cast without it being obvious. I don't think you would have to wildly flail your arms when trying to Charm someone.
You cast your mind control spell with the Bill Clinton thumb gesture, no one suspects a thing.