| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You cast your mind control spell with the Bill Clinton thumb gesture, no one suspects a thing.
Honestly, I think this is what is intended. The gestures associated with spell casting are much more open ended now. The book even says something like "you have a lot of room to decide on the flavor your features and words take." For the wizard, "your gestures precisely shape and direct your magic while circles of arcane runes flare to life."
Subtle and Conceal clearly remove the circles of arcane runes, and we know it removes the incantations since you can still use Subtle spells while Silenced. You may need to make gestures still-- I haven't seen anything suggesting you can cast Subtle spells while restrained-- but those gestures do not need to be overly magic. Gesticulating your hands while you talk is a pretty normal practice in conversation. Some people use it to intentionally hammer home points (Bill Clinton) while others do it almost subconsciously and have trouble not fidgeting while they talk. Pointing or gesturing in someone's direction should inherently be a red flag and I see no need for a skill check.
If the other side has reasons to suspect foul play, they might be able to roll a check to tell if any given gestures could have contained spells, maybe?
But it is worth keeping in mind that these spells do have a built in danger of discovery: if the target critically succeeds. And PCs critically succeed on will saves much more often than NPCs because of Master proficiency usually treating successes as critical successesses. Your party's fighter may be charmed, but odds favor the NPC getting caught if they try to charm the wizard and champion too.
Shout NOT be inherently a red flag, I meant to say.
What might be more widely relevant than social situations is whether subtle spells provoke reactive strikes. If you're still gesturing, you should be making the same manipulate actions casting normally requires. But it would be nice and thematically appropriate if casting invisibility could get you out of a tough spot. Reactive Strike really screws a caster over and I don't feel like there are many interesting counter plays to it.
Oh unbalanced: "if it has observable components" is the big if.
Subtle spell being a way out of triggering reactions entirely seems way beyond the intended purpose of the feat. That would make the whole later steady casting feat a total joke. I mean, yes it is one extra action, but uncounterable and unprovokable both? For one 2nd level feat? There was something missed in making this not require a single skill check.
I think all of that would be fine, if it still required a successful stealth check to do, but just automatic is too much. Especially because there isn’t any 2nd level caster that wouldn’t take such a feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn’t remove the concentrate or manipulate trait. It still triggers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn’t remove the concentrate or manipulate trait. It still triggers.
Indeed.
I've said it all throughout 1st Edition, and I'll say it again here:
Failing to notice someone casting a spell does not necessarily mean you overlooked their brief moment of distraction.
That would make the whole later steady casting feat a total joke.Steady casting feats always were and are a complete and utter joke. To spend a 6th level feat on a very niche situation which is avoided at almost all costs and still get 70% chance of failure, of the feat doing absolutely nothing?! That's an absolute nonsense.
Yeah, I never really grocked that either.
You'd think that for something that niche, it would be auto success or something worthwhile.
So it seems like the subtle trait does remove any incantations from the cast a spell activity, and while the descriptive text is ambiguous, the effect of the conceal spell feat is to make the next spell you cast gain the subtle trait.
Questions and concerns about the conceal spell feat:
First of all the rules around stealth remain pretty nebulous in the remastery. Technically, there are no rules anywhere for what actions make you observed by an opponent except the sneak rules, which only really activate after you have succeeded on a sneak check (which would mean that using the conceal spell action, or casting a subtle spell would make you observed, so not something you can do from hiding). Maybe, the sense motive activity would fit for indicating that a character is acting strangely (casting a subtle spell) but there is no way to sense motive as a reaction, so mechanically, I am not really sure how a character is supposed to ever be able to sense whether someone is casting subtle spells.
I get that a lot of players found the old system cumbersome and difficult to use successfully against many NPCs, but it is still an unbelievably radical shift from "this is hard to do" to "this is trivially easy to do, and 100% undetectable or noticeable." I think this is going to get really complicated in play very quickly and we are going to have lots of rules questions about how to determine what spells have visible effects. As a GM, I am going to enforce that trying to cast a subtle spell from hiding still requires a stealth check because the stealth skill is the skill for doing things without detection. For one example, without something like this, conceal spell, invisibility and translocate would allow a caster to basically move around without ever requiring an active stealth check.
Beyond the obvious and intended issues with what it means for spells to be cast without notice there are 2 other issues.
Conceal spells can never be identified or countered. A level 2 feat and an extra action shuts down a whole feat chain, and narrative space of wizard duels without any possible counter.
Subtle spells don't have incantations, which means that they can be cast in silence, but doesn't this also mean that conceal spell lets casters cast spells underwater without trouble as well?
Altogether, this feels like something that is having unintended effects and will need further consideration. At the very least, if conceal spell is meant to be a counter to counter-spelling and allowing for spell casting underwater, that should be overtly stated somewhere in the book and not left as a trail of consequences that players will try to exploit and GMs will ultimately just be left making up their own rules for these situations. They may feel like outlier situations, but all together, I see a lot of potential for disruption for this change.
My players always want to be able to cast detect magic, and mind reading and illusion spells in social situations and on exploration mode, not to mention casting buffs before entering rooms. I was fine with silent spell beings also useful for casting spells underwater, since that was another separate feat that showed heavy investment. One 2nd level feat for all of the above with no rolls feels too good to be true to me.
I am curious how GMs will handle it when the subtle shenanigans go from something they rarely see happening in game to something players start railroading all over them, getting super defensive anytime the GM calls for deception or stealth checks when the spells are being used to create distractions or avoid notice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say subtle/conceal removes the need for incantations and obvious gestures. I would say it doesn't say remive gestures so you can't cast while bound using subtle spell.
In terms of countering, it makes more sense to counter the spell effect than it does counter at casting. A conceal ray of frost still has a ray if frost shooting from you and I would still allow a counter at point of effect.
In terms of countering charm... there are other abilities that allow you to detect if someone has been charmed, there is also dispel magic. Recignising and counting charm as it is being done seems unfun, its a much better story to discover that someone has been charmed then keep an eye out for whonis doing it should they try again.
Immediately noticing and being able to counter manipulate type spell effects or knowing someone just cast invisibility etc takes the fun away from those effects as a narrative. Investigating what happened is a much better story. YMMV though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unicore, I welcome your questions and concerns. It helps to anticipate potential exploits and handle side-effects that might have been unintended. Or - to cite a condition: "Unnoticed" ;-)
Personal foreword / anecdote to explain my view: I play as sly undercover agent (cleric (of a certain trickery goddess)/bard/rogue) in an urban campaign, with observation, intrigue, and often being observed by powerful organized crime etc. I'd say that better covert casting (than in CRB) was needed dearly. This is particularly true because of skill requirements. Naturally, in that role I already added some skill training/increase to Deception, Stealth and Perform respectively.
However, I found maximizing these skills just to have a reasonable chance to get away with a covert spell to be really, really daunting. Especially when being aware that one single skill-failure in the situations, in which I most badly needed covert casting, could ruin everything (from identity to life of self, relatives etc.). Tactics that can't effort a single mistake are fragile ones, per se. That's OK. I don't want to complain about that principle; I just think secretive tactics should remain a viable, interesting option.
Once your secret (caster) identity is discovered it's obvious that this has serious consequences. Must have consequences, for a plausible world. I just remind us all, how fragile it is compared to tactics like martial violence, which so often is presented a very accessible or even the default option. It has been so easy to take the "away with your deceptive approach, just beat'em up"-path. Fail a strike one time? No worries, the next could do! Fail to uphold your secret identity - failed for good!
All in all and as a consequence, I almost never cast at all when observed. 8-| Not even the spells that seemed to be meant to be discreet (or "Subtle", as it's now called ;-)), like Charming Touch. Personally, I think it was a pity, since it rendered interesting options mechanically - and as ultimate consequence: plotwise - impractical.
Side-Note to all that now stumble across Charming Touch: Charming Touch did not get Subtle trait (yet?), which I presume to be an oversight when remastering a spell that was probably much less famous and less used than Charm. Compare my remark on Charm vs Charming Touch in the errata thread (Deeplink).
Back to one specific point regarding your concerns of the stealth-without-actual-stealth invisible caster:
[...] conceal spell, invisibility and translocate would allow a caster to basically move around without ever requiring an active stealth check. [...]
While I believe that omitting incantations is a needed option and would make a caster significantly more stealthy, I doubt that the hypothetic example caster would get away with just translocating around and no one noticing. Unless they isn't capable of actual stealth and/or deception, they will tell their presence one or the other way.
Something I always remind players that rely very much on Invisibility of: Manipulating light and visibility does not remove one from all other senses, especially hearing, scent.
I guess you brought up Translocate as a means to avoid walking around and consequently as a way to remove noise. Sure, it sounds like a solid tactics, but I wouldn't overly rely on it. Does relying on Invisibility+Translocate to change places without actual Stealth skill really guarantee that no one hears? I wouldn't rule so.
Reasons: One can easily make sound without ever leaving the place one stands upon: Sounds of clothing and equipment slightly jingling. Sound of winds around body parts or fast moving objects - like weapons/staves. Sounds of weight shift on creaky wooden floor. Even rapid breathing in the stressful situations characters often be.
Not to speak of scent and all other ways to pinpoint invisible creatures. Plus, as already noted: Active spells can normally be detected no matter how sneaky they were once cast. Unless, again, one takes additional means of protection (more, higher spells or certain feats) on top.
Hence, personally I've been more afraid of impractically weak covert casting than of too robust one. So I guess, I might become rather happy than worried in the remaster, in this regard, though I admittedly need to get into exact details of mentioned concerns more thoroughly.
That being said and no matter my personal casting preferences, I really like that you and others scrutinize the new options and point out potential loopholes, side-effects, indirect consequences maybe not considered when remastering the mechanics, yet, etc. IMHO that vigilance and effort is vital to achieve a better, "battle-hardened" (and sometimes, just sometimes "Subtle" ;-)) system...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just happy for character concepts to function without the levels of effort and luck needed that make people abandon the concept entirely
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just happy for character concepts to function without the levels of effort and luck needed that make people abandon the concept entirely
This. This more than anything is why I'm happy with the new Subtle trait and Conceal Spell feat.
I had enough otherwise good ideas fail entirely due to bad luck and unnecessary restrictions that my fellow players ended up HATING my character. They blamed ME for causing trouble, rather than the game system for encouraging a trap option.
I'm done with that. Remaster rules all the way!
Addition: Also let's remember the fundamental asymmetry: Most often open hostility quickly negates subtlety. (Just cp. trying charm and negotiate after your allies lost patience and opened the fight...)
The opposite - more peaceful, subtle measures to end hostility - is much less true.
(Except maybe a vast minority of mechanically effective options - like maybe Calm Emotions or Legendary Negotiator Feat.)
In principle, I can live with some sort of asymmetry. It probably reflects mankind and it's tragedies. How easy it is to start fights up to wars and how hard to win back real peace. But I digress ...
Yet, it's a question of balancing approaches, again.
Errenor, I concur. Openness and scrutiny must be allowed in both ways and the multitude of playing preferences. And every earthly dev can only be a flawed mortal. Besides that I consider it practically impossible to reach universal consensus how an ideal system would look like. On the other hand, that makes RPGs and the discussion about stay vivid. :-)
I really like that you and others scrutinize the new options and point out potential loopholes, side-effects, indirect consequences maybe not considered when remastering the mechanics, yet, etc. IMHO that vigilance and effort is vital to achieve a better, "battle-hardened" (and sometimes, just sometimes "Subtle" ;-)) system...It's all good and well, but when only the options which make life easier and more interesting for players are being scrutinized and various nerfs when they happen just get shrugged off with 'the devs know better', the approach begins to look suspect.
My concerns are that all of this will apply equally to NPC casters as well, and thus it is a change to how magic works in the world. As a player, I have played a number of wizards who have had to maximize deception and stealth to get away with frequent subtle casting. It was definitely a whole build and not just an easily tacked on side thing. I can understand a move to simplify the system by quite a lot. But, as written, with no clear call out for skill checks anywhere with subtle casting, I foresee GMs being left in a place where they want to say the player trying to sneak into the dungeon by using subtle spells would still need to make some stealth checks, but players throwing temper tantrums at the prospect, because their character is never sneaking or hiding, and they feel like they should never have to make a stealth check while subtle casting.
Minimally, the new subtle trait is something players should proactively talk to their GMs about, before building a character that is going to be using them a lot, because it is a trait that puts a ton more power in casters hands and most parties would get really mad, or start getting really paranoid, if enemy NPCs were casting spells regularly and there is no mechanical way for the players to realize it. There are many GMs who will start to feel the same way about PCs doing it all the time.
The suggestion by Cyder, for spells that have obvious effects still being counter-able, is a good one, and one that should probably be clearly written into the rules or at least clarified in the FAQ. As far as wether conceal spell actually removes incantations or just makes the unnoticeable, the feat language will lead to disagreement about that at the table as well, which is another reason it is minimally a “talk to your GM about this before making assumptions,” and also possible grounds for Eratta.
|
I can't help it, but I'm bit puzzled by the Subtle trait. It has a nice description alright, but doesn't imply interaction with other game mechanics. Counterspell may be off the table, but what about Reactive Strike? The Subtle trait doesn't say it suppresses Manipulate or Concentrate traits for purposes of triggering reactions. If I use Conceal Spell, and then my enemy interrupts the casting (that they were supposedly unaware of), the feat failed its job.
It would be nice to have more clarity on what the trait and feat(s) can and can't do.
The traits are still there. Your enemy just does not know what they interrupted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was about to post saying that Unicore's concerns were quite valid (even though I hated the old hoops PCs had to jump through), but then Errenor came along and did a very good job of making Unicore's point. More so than I could have hoped to on my own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't help it, but I'm bit puzzled by the Subtle trait. It has a nice description alright, but doesn't imply interaction with other game mechanics. Counterspell may be off the table, but what about Reactive Strike? The Subtle trait doesn't say it suppresses Manipulate or Concentrate traits for purposes of triggering reactions. If I use Conceal Spell, and then my enemy interrupts the casting (that they were supposedly unaware of), the feat failed its job.
That's not its job. Its job is to cast without breathing (very important sometimes!), cast without drawing attention to yourself (somewhat important in ranged combat if using something like Illusory Creature or dropping an offensive effect with no visuals to give you away as a source to target), cast without anyone knowing a spell is being cast at all (for Honeyed Words right before an interrogation, Charm on a difficult NPC who won't liste to sweet reason and diplomacy, etc.), and apparently to avoid being counterspelled (which for the action cost seems fine, honestly, and just doesn't come up that often and isn't going to be the reason people take this or use it in combat).
You're still vulnerable to a reactive strike, because you still have the manipulate trait and are making the minimal gestures that open you up to an extra attack. Just as a theoretical Subtle Guzzler feat would still get you whacked even if you could draw, palm, and sip behind your hand without anyone knowing you'd drank a potion or elixir.
We don’t really know that the point of conceal spell is to be able to cast spells without breathing. Nothing in the feat talks about that, and the wording of the descriptive text is vague about whether the incantations happen, but are subtle, or, per the subtle spell, don’t happen at all. I am inclined to agree that my reading is that subtle spells don’t have incantations, full stop, but the wording is ambiguous in the conceal spell feat and I anticipate table to table variation about that.
I don’t know that it will happen soon, but if people keep talking about it and asking about it, I wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually get FAQ or Errata on the subtle trait or the conceal spell feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t know that it will happen soon, but if people keep talking about it and asking about it, I wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually get FAQ or Errata on the subtle trait or the conceal spell feat.
People are still talking about what minions can do in exploration mode and that's been since the release of the system: amount and length of debate doesn't really correlate with getting an answer.