| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, a wizard player is asking me if Conceal Spell wouldn't make an opponent with Reactive Strike at least roll a Perception check to realize if they are casting (using a Manipulate action) something or not.
My take on this is that Conceal Spell (subtle trait) makes that your gestures are deceptive, in a way that nobody understands that you are casting something, but the Manipulate trait still counts towards Reactive Strike, since you have made some kind of opening/breach to your opponent.
They're advocating that since Conceal Spell has the text "The trait hides only the spell’s spellcasting actions and manifestations" it would be difficult for this opening/breach to be even there.
Charm is a spell that has both traits (Subtle and Manipulate), so I think the designers were thinking about hiding casting social/utility spells in social situations or when you don't want to be Counterspelled, but I would very much like to hear your opinions about this interaction of traits!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Conceal Spell does not provide protection against Reactive Strike in any way, no.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fiddling around with your equipment involves interacting and/or manipulating it and even that provokes RS/AoO, regardless of if the fact that a spell is being cast can be known at all (which for the record does not seem to be something that can be done at all with Conceal Spell without something like a spellcaster NPC constantly doing something like detect magic or similar higher level detection sensory spells/effects) the caster is still very clearly and visibly fildding around with their hands and has "their defenses lowered" which permits the Reaction and attack.
The rules here do not make Conceal Spell even better than it already is and prevent Reactions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Hammerjack. If Conceal Spell made the Manipulate trait vanish or semi-vanish, which AFAICT is what your player is advocating, it would say so.
What happens is the opening is there but the fighter doesn't know that it's because you're casting. Could be a nervous twitch for all they know.
So, a wizard player is asking me if Conceal Spell wouldn't make an opponent with Reactive Strike at least roll a Perception check to realize if they are casting (using a Manipulate action) something or not.
My take on this is that Conceal Spell (subtle trait) makes that your gestures are deceptive, in a way that nobody understands that you are casting something, but the Manipulate trait still counts towards Reactive Strike, since you have made some kind of opening/breach to your opponent.
They're advocating that since Conceal Spell has the text "The trait hides only the spell’s spellcasting actions and manifestations" it would be difficult for this opening/breach to be even there.
Charm is a spell that has both traits (Subtle and Manipulate), so I think the designers were thinking about hiding casting social/utility spells in social situations or when you don't want to be Counterspelled, but I would very much like to hear your opinions about this interaction of traits!
To put it into perspective, Conceal Spell adds the Subtle trait to existing spells that don't have them already, meaning to normal onlookers, you'll simply look like you are waving your hands around or whatever; no emanations or anything will come from it. Same with Concentrate, it will simply appear like you are thinking (or speaking) very hard/loud. If an enemy with a Reaction like Reactive Strike does not perceive you as an enemy (or the source of the spellcasting) because they do not see the obvious queues of spellcasting, odds are, they will not take their Reaction on you, because there is no reason for them to; it is not apparent you are the one casting a spell unless there is no other logical explanation behind it (that is, you are the only element present that could be the source of the spell). Guards randomly attacking civilians waving their hands around, screaming, etc. is probably something I would expect only corrupt/evil cities to do, meaning unless you're already dealing with shady individuals, the odds of this happening are infinitesimally small (or the GM is being a jerk on purpose, which means there are far more important things to worry about).
However, let's say you are trying to mask yourself as being the spellcaster of an adventuring group against a bunch of enemies. Having an enemy with Reactive Strike be in front of you will not save you if you decide to subtly cast a spell, as the enemy notices you are triggering a reaction: Regardless of whether that reaction is actually a spell or not, odds are, they will take it, because it's basically a free MAPless attack, and if it turns out you are doing something, and it disrupts whatever it is you are doing, all the better. Very rarely does an enemy (usually a highly intelligent one) wait/save their reactions for a greater purpose (such as locking down a foe).
Honestly, Subtle spell is more impressive for non-combat scenarios (tricking guards/enemies into being more gullible to illusory effects, causing them to run off or be fooled), or for espionage (you want to assassinate/assault someone or infiltrate something while not being detected as working against them), since its only real combat application is that to enemies, you seem like you are just waving your hands around and talking/screaming, i.e. you aren't really doing anything. But relatively smart enemies will put 2 and 2 together eventually, and realize that your "not doing anything" is actually what is causing a Fireball to go off in front of them, meaning it can lose value really, really fast.
Also, just because a spell is Subtle doesn't mean that you won't be immediately identified if you cast spells like Lightning Bolt, i.e. effects which have an origin point that matches your square; odds are, enemies will go to investigate this, or even simply go to strike at the location (if it makes sense for them to do so), meaning Subtle is only useful for certain spells, not every spell (such as Fireball, which doesn't require giving away your location).
That being said, having a Subtle spell combined with any effect like Invisibility (especially its 4th level version) and maybe Haste is probably the closest thing to an "I Win" button you will come across, since you can constantly move around, constantly cast unrecognizable spells, and easily stomp most enemies that can't just see Invisible creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A trained fighter knows to look for openings; they need not understand why there is an opening or what might have caused their target a moment of distraction.
A caster using a subtle spell may not appear to be casting a spell, but their guard still drops all the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^^ this ^^
I believe the main intention of Subtle is for the "hide that 'I' am the one casting in a crowd" type scenario.
I agree that if Subtle removed the Manipulate trait from you casting, and it was a saving throw spell, then it could avoid Reactive Strike.
Intimidating Glare is a feat that comes to mind that removes a trait from an action (removes Auditory from Demoralize replacing with Visual).
Also, Subtle doesnt prevent Counterspell (trigger: A creature Casts a Spell that you have prepared) which is reacting to the completion of casting.
Indeed. (Usually) concentrating and manipulating (=gesturing?) on their spell for ca. 4 to 6 seconds - even if done subtly - does IMO pose a very plausible trigger for opponents who know what to look for and are trained to make use of it in an encounter, in other words: our reactive strikers.
Regarding the invisible caster scenario: Note that whoever fights them can by default still attempt to locate them by other senses. If I had to fight the invisible wannabe subtle, my no. 1 attempt was to focus on the sound they make when moving around.
I guess in rules terms, that means: That invisible one will probably keep a hidden condition towards anyone w/o non-vision based precise senses; but unless the invisible take effort to hide and sneak, it won't become better, though. (Pls correct me if I am wrong.)
So, I concur with answers above: Wanting to be subtle in a fight does not entitle one to be unmolested by any entities waiting for the right (attack of) opportunity. ;-)