| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on if the spell has the Manipulate trait. So if they cast Daze, yes; if they cast Shield, no.
Reactive Strike triggers on Manipulate actions. It no longer triggers on spellcasting directly (I'm not sure PF2 Attack of Opportunity ever triggered directly from spellcasting like PF1 did).
But Reactive Strike does not trigger on the manifestations of spellcasting, so having the Subtle trait remove those manifestations does not prevent Reactive Strike from triggering.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's an opening, you take it. The Fighter doesn't know why there was an opening, but it was there when the guy fiddled around. This is assuming the Fighter considers the caster an enemy.
I'd think in a city that random people would be performing manipulate actions quite often, adjusting clothes, picking up boxes, etc. So even though Subtle spellcasting triggers a Reaction, there's no reason for the Fighter to suspect the caster's taking an offensive action (especially not casting) simply because their guard's down.
Yeah, I'd agree with that point too.
For a social encounter rather than combat that is already engaged, a spellcaster isn't going to be attacked with Reactive Strike just for running their fingers through their hair or whatever other seemingly random Manipulate actions they may take. Even if those seemingly random Manipulate actions happen to be casting a spell with the Subtle trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, a spell cast with the manipulate trait can trigger a reactive strike.
Whether or not the fighter chooses to make one is a slightly different but related question that depends on a lot of context.
If you're going to stealthily cast spells and are worried about reactive strikes, just don't stand next to anyone else while casting. If if they potentially could make a reactive strike, if they're not next to you it's not going to work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought this would be a quick find, but post remaster it took me a while to pin down exactly where in spellcasting text it is given [manipulate] for it's default case.
Turns out, it never does, which is really dang stupid. That "manipulate norm" of spellcasting should be mentioned somewhere, and spelled out plainly.
Instead, each spell either does or does not have [manipulate] listed in it's traits.
This means that in the *most* general case, adding [subtle] to a [manipulate] spell does not change the yes/no on triggering Reactive Strike. Subtle spells still do trigger, because they still have [manipulate].
Except for when they wouldn't.
Reactions still require the creature to be aware of the trigger for them to be able to take the Reaction.* [Subtle] removes *all* sound from the spellcast. For a normal spell, a blind creature can still react to the sound and make their Reactive Strike, thanks to sound being an imprecise sense by default.
I'd argue that a (sight-based) creature who cannot see the spellcaster, cannot react to a [subtle] spellcast.
Found one example pretty quickly: Rogue's L20 feat Hidden Paragon. The Trigger requires that you successfully became Hidden or Undetected from all current foes, before you can then choose yes/no to spend the Reaction. Players are not supposed to know if their attempt at stealth worked, that's kinda core to the concept there.
Looks like the L14 feat Sense the Unseen was the one I half-remembered, and it's way worse. Triggers on "you fail a check to Seek," yet it's a Reaction.
The GM prompting a player to use the Reaction itself tells them that a foe is in that Seek AoE, ffs. What a horribly conceptualized and implemented ability. And it's offered to 3 classes and 4 archetypes, ugh.
[Subtle] removes *all* sound from the spellcast.
Not necessarily.
It removes the sounds of incantations and the sounds of magical manifestations.
It doesn't remove the sound of your clothing rubbing together as you do whatever it is that you do for the Manipulate trait of spellcasting.
But that is just me being pedantic again.
I'd argue that a (sight-based) creature who cannot see the spellcaster, cannot react to a [subtle] spellcast.
I'm fine with that as long as it is limited to the specifics, and is applied equally and fairly.
So, for example of following the specifics, a creature that has a precise sense of smell is using that to target and trigger reactions with. Invisibility foils the sense of vision, not smell. So the precise smell creature can still react to subtle spellcasting.
And for an example of being applied equally, a creature that relies on vision for their precise sense would also not be able to react to other Manipulate trait actions of an invisible creature - such as the Interact action to Reload a firearm or crossbow.
And of course, to apply this fairly - the enemies can do it too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't remove the sound of your clothing rubbing together as you do whatever it is that you do for the Manipulate trait of spellcasting.
Yet another reason to adventure naked.
** spoiler omitted **...
Yeah, most Reactions have bad triggers and completely omit the awareness of something happening. I'd say if you cannot observe a target with an imprecise sense at least, then you cannot react to anything that creature does – like, why would the sound of a spell tell you that the (undetected) enemy used a manipulate action?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Not necessarily.
It removes the sounds of incantations and the sounds of magical manifestations. ...
Welp, I should have written the longer version.
The manifestations of the now-cast spell are not hidden, that is correct.
However, at that moment in time, the casting is complete, it's in the past, and can no longer be Reacted to.
I do think it would be a little incorrect / unfair for a GM to allow RS to trigger off the manifestations of a completed cast, as that's not what Reactive Strike does.
You don't get to react to the SFX of an ongoing spell to smack its Hidden+ caster, that's imo over the "cheating" line.
Reactive Strike and its relatives specifically work via a target *creature*; they need that awareness of the individual to swing upon.
A magical fissure line in the stone that races from the caster toward the target AoE as part of an Earthquake spell or something is not good enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't remove the sound of your clothing rubbing together as you do whatever it is that you do for the Manipulate trait of spellcasting.
Thankfully, Reactive Strike, etc, are defined as narrow special abilities.
Getting imprecise pings via a foe making audible actions is not good enough for RS to trigger. Even if a caster is making some noise via scraping boots, rubbing clothes, I argue the [subtle] trait unambiguously removes them from being knowable as "spellcasting sounds," and therefore can never satisfy the criteria for spellcasting as a trigger.
The tricky detail is that doing audible stuff doesn't mean [manipulate], so you cannot use it for that alt trigger option.
A good example of a weird sense that would still trigger imo is spore sense; where the puffball or mushroom type thing is aware of foes via the non-spore creature-shaped bubble within the cloud.
The full [manipulate] motion of the subtle cast is just as ~visible, so they still have the required awareness of the trigger.
___________
And for an example of being applied equally, a creature that relies on vision for their precise sense would also not be able to react to other Manipulate trait actions of an invisible creature - such as the Interact action to Reload a firearm or crossbow.
The devil is in the details; it's about being aware that the trigger condition, specifically, has been met. It requires a high bar of certainty. From the ground up, subtle spells are conceived to be not recognizable as spellcasting, which makes that case easy to rule.
I think I'd need more details before ruling on the unseen Reload case, as a player could argue that is very recognizable.
Pre-post edit: Re-reading the explanation of Imprecise Senses, I'd say hearing a Reload is not good enough within pf2.
Imprecise senses provide vague info in all regards. The subject is still fully Hidden to that imprecise sense, and I'd argue that lack of detail means being unable to distinguish the exact action being performed.
[Hidden: "A creature that's hidden is only barely perceptible. ..."]
Average hearing is an imprecise sense—it can’t detect the full range of detail that a precise sense can. You can usually sense a creature automatically with an imprecise sense, but it has the hidden condition instead of the observed condition. It might be undetected by you if it’s using Stealth or is in an environment that distorts the sense, such as a noisy room in the case of hearing. In those cases, you have to use the Seek basic action to detect the creature. At best, an imprecise sense can be used to make an undetected creature (or one you didn’t even know was there) merely hidden—it can’t make the creature observed.
Reacting to movement is notable in this discussion, because it is perhaps the one thing that imprecise senses would be enough to swing upon; you don't need to know what action specifically the creature is doing, only that they are moving from square to square.
Anything requiring more detail than that would really struggle in my book.
(and flashy default spellcasting is another rare case where I'd allow an RS trigger to be met via imprecise sense)