The Conceal feat conceals obvious spellcasting manifestations….my question is…would it eliminate the spells manipulate trait vis-a-vis Reactive Strikes?
I’m referencing the Wizard Spellshape Feat “Conceal Spell” if anyone needs clarification
Hey Unklbuck! I've moved your question to our Second Edition Rules Discussion section as you may get better help here. The reason for that is that although you may have come across this rule in Organized Play, it pertains to the game as a whole, and other Pathfinder Second Edition players who do not engage in Organized Play may still be able to help you! Best of luck!
|
9 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The orc warrior may not know you're casting a spell, but he knows when you've let your guard down all the same.
Nothing in Conceal Spell prevents reactions from working normally.
Agreed.
Conceal Spell doesn't remove any traits from the spell. So it doesn't prevent reactions from triggering on those traits, such as Reactive Strike.
It also doesn't prevent it from being a casting of a spell. I'm not sure if anything in Remaster triggers on casting a spell, but Legacy Mage Hunter did. Something like that would still trigger on spellcasting even if cast with Conceal Spell.
Now, all of this is assuming that we are already in combat and that the enemy is actively hostile towards you.
If instead this is happening during a social encounter and you cast a spell using Conceal Spell, there is much less reason that someone will be using Reactive Strike against you just because you did something that involves the Manipulate trait. Even if that something turns out to be casting a hostile spell on them. They wouldn't have known that during the casting of the spell - only after the casting is complete and the spell takes effect.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Hooraaaay it's working! Thank you Ravingdork and Finoan for jumping in here to help Unklbuck!
To add further explanation as to what Spellcasting manifestations are
Player Core pg. 299 Casting Spells wrote: 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—a colorful, glowing ring of magical runes that appears in midair, typically around your hands, though what kind of spellcaster you are can affect this— academic wizards typically have neat and ordered spell signatures, while a druid's might be more organic and a cleric's might be inspired by their deity. How spellcasting looks can vary from one spellcasting tradition or class to another, or even from person to person. So while the Subtle trait removes these visual manifestations and verbal incantations, it does however not remove the need to perform the gestures that give the spell its manipulate trait.
It is a change from how it worked previously as it used to hide the usage of components themselves if one succeeded Stealth/Deception checks.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Lost Omens Travel Guide--as fascinating a tome as there ever was--also elaborates on spell signatures in a massive two page spread chock full of useful information! I've provided the introductory excerpt below:
Lost Omen's Travel Guide pg. 76-77 Spellcasting Signatures wrote: The spell signature is the most universal aspect of spellcasting in recorded knowledge. When an individual casts a spell—any spell, from the weakest of cantrips to the most powerful of wishes—it creates a visible array of runes, and sometimes other effects, around the caster. These runes vary from caster to caster, to the point that one familiar enough could identify a concealed stranger by their signature, which is impossible to hide without specific training. The nature of signatures is such that it seems no casters share duplicate signatures. Any patterns that emerge are within a caster’s arrays of personal signatures and not among multiple spellcasters.
I'm imagining that when casting spell with the subtle trait you may appear intensely focused (and thus leaving yourself open to attack), even if it's not obvious that you're casting a spell due to not speaking, waving your hands, or handling material components (all of which have technically gone away).
Someone who wishes to hurt you is likely to take the opportunity presented, regardless of knowing if you're casting a spell.
Claxon wrote: I'm imagining that when casting spell with the subtle trait you may appear intensely focused (and thus leaving yourself open to attack), even if it's not obvious that you're casting a spell due to not speaking, waving your hands, or handling material components (all of which have technically gone away). I would say that as written you are absolutely making visible gestures as that is part of the manipulate trait which Subtle does nothing to conceal. If the spell doesn't have manipulate then sure but you much like you say it would still have concentrate which can be reacted to. Such as from a fighter using Disruptive Stance.
As intended though, who knows, Spellcasting Actions used to refer to each individual component being its own action so it hid the usage of the Somantic Component entirely but its been ages since that was a thing.
Re-reading, perhaps you're right about the gestures.
This is one of the rough points of the game for me in the conversion to Re-Master. I considered it a loss to get rid of verbal, somatic, and material component tags because they made it very clear.
I don't like how they compressed some things into certain tags because it put (for me) to many concepts/ideas/action into one tag. Manipulate is one of those, or rather I should say putting somatic and material into manipulate is a problem to me.
If subtle doesn't conceal gestures I would say it's a bit of a problem though. You look like a crazy person doing whatever gesturing for the spell. It might not have the obvious manifestation and chanting of spell casting...but I wouldn't call it subtle if you need to wave your arms around.
The actual gestures as a whole is largely free for the player to decide what this gesture is, But doing the jedi mind trick is still a visible gesture albeit not an obvious one. Even spells like Charm had a somantic component and managed to be "subtle"
I found the removal of the components just the logical next step as they already removed any definition of what spellcasting actions actually are and being able to see Concentrate and Manipulate where you expect to see them is quite a bit easier than having to remember that certain things have non-visible traits. Not to mention how common it was that classes had means to use Somantic instead of Material components.
Same for activating items really as far to few people realize you need to either wield it or touch it with a free hand to activate anything with the manipulate trait.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Guys, you can just do the Bill Clinton closed fist thumb pointing gesture while talking about politics in the tavern and silently casting Suggestion or Charm on the barkeep. What matters is that if you're in combat you trigger manipulate/concentrate stuff as appropriate, but if you're not there's not and never has been a requirement that your spell gestures be particularly weird or noticeable.
Pretty much yeah, The flavor of ones spellcasting is largely up to the player and GM, after all one of the examples is to whistle as part of the verbal incantation.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
NorrKnekten wrote: Pretty much yeah, The flavor of ones spellcasting is largely up to the player and GM, after all one of the examples is to whistle as part of the verbal incantation. To me though, that is a problem.
A GM could decide that most spell casting gesture are very noticeable. And since the subtle trait doesn't specifically interact with it, that you're still making obvious gestures.
Which defeats the point of subtle.
If I'm the GM running the game, I would simply say "subtle also includes adjusting the gestures, making it so that while you need to provide gestures they are subtle gestures". We all know hand talkers, I gesticulate a lot when speaking, and I'm imagining subtle would allow you to weave movements into something that looks "normal" for people who gesticulate while speaking. But I'm also a GM who wants the thing to work as intended.
Some GMs are not that.
Claxon wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: Pretty much yeah, The flavor of ones spellcasting is largely up to the player and GM, after all one of the examples is to whistle as part of the verbal incantation. To me though, that is a problem.
A GM could decide that most spell casting gesture are very noticeable. And since the subtle trait doesn't specifically interact with it, that you're still making obvious gestures.
Which defeats the point of subtle.
If I'm the GM running the game, I would simply say "subtle also includes adjusting the gestures, making it so that while you need to provide gestures they are subtle gestures". We all know hand talkers, I gesticulate a lot when speaking, and I'm imagining subtle would allow you to weave movements into something that looks "normal" for people who gesticulate while speaking. But I'm also a GM who wants the thing to work as intended.
Some GMs are not that. Subtle hides the manifestations and the spellcasting actions, though.
From Conceal Spell, "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."
Claxon wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: Pretty much yeah, The flavor of ones spellcasting is largely up to the player and GM, after all one of the examples is to whistle as part of the verbal incantation. To me though, that is a problem.
A GM could decide that most spell casting gesture are very noticeable. And since the subtle trait doesn't specifically interact with it, that you're still making obvious gestures.
Which defeats the point of subtle. At that point they would probably also say that charm and suggestion are obvious attempts at spellcasting and the entire room including the target knows you tried to cast a spell contrary to what both subtle and the spells themselves tell you, so I dont see that as an issue in how its written as much as its the GM having incomplete understanding which should be adressed.
Quote: If I'm the GM running the game, I would simply say "subtle also includes adjusting the gestures, making it so that while you need to provide gestures they are subtle gestures". We all know hand talkers, I gesticulate a lot when speaking, and I'm imagining subtle would allow you to weave movements into something that looks "normal" for people who gesticulate while speaking. But I'm also a GM who wants the thing to work as intended. And that is exactly how it works as written. Without the manifestations it is not obvious that someone is casting a spell with the subtle trait. The gestures are just that, gestures. While Somantic Components were an obvious sign of spellcasting in the past it no longer is. But you are still gesturing with your hands regardless and would trigger the same reactions as if you are checking your watch or doing any other action that requires you to use your hands.
Just like before the remaster a target could use Attack of Opportunity on someone casting Suggestion on them, Even if they were to use Conceal Spell since conceal spell itself had manipulate. But they wouldn't know a spell was cast nor would they be aware they have been charmed if they fail.
Its like what Finoan said, They see your gestures and know you are using an action with the manipulate trait. They do not neccesarily know what action it is, much less which spell was cast.
Claxon wrote: A GM could decide that most spell casting gesture are very noticeable. And since the subtle trait doesn't specifically interact with it, that you're still making obvious gestures. You are making obvious gestures which are obviously not spellcasting.
Claxon wrote: If I'm the GM running the game, I would simply say "subtle also includes adjusting the gestures, making it so that while you need to provide gestures they are subtle gestures". We all know hand talkers, I gesticulate a lot when speaking, and I'm imagining subtle would allow you to weave movements into something that looks "normal" for people who gesticulate while speaking. That's the way.
Claxon wrote: But I'm also a GM who wants the thing to work as intended.
Some GMs are not that.
Yes, GMs can break games in small and big ways. Not a surprise.
Claxon wrote:
A GM could decide that most spell casting gesture are very noticeable. And since the subtle trait doesn't specifically interact with it, that you're still making obvious gestures.
Throwing my two cents in, I disagree that the trait does not specifically effect gestures or that it is possible within the bounds of the rules for a GM to rule that a Subtle spell requires obvious gestures. Per the actual Subtle trait a spell with the trait "doesn't have obvious manifestations." A gesture is a manifestation. In fact, the "mani" part of that word literally derives from the Latin "manus", meaning hand. To manifest is to make something evident. If a GM is ruling that a spell with the Subtle trait requires obvious gestures (which are obvious manifestations) then they are wrong, full stop. The exact nature of whatever gestures are required to cast a spell are generally roleplaying fodder and may be subject to GM fiat, and a Subtle spell may still require *some* gesture, but the Subtle trait takes that particular interpretation (the spell requires obvious gestures) out of GM fiat. It is simply incorrect.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
But we know what definition of manifestations it is talking about because they are described by the rules in spellcasting and is described separately from the gestures and incantations. It is specifically about occult or magical manifestations synonomous with apparitions.
Player Core pg. 299 Casting Spells wrote: Casting a spell requires the caster to make gestures and utter incantations, so being unable to speak prevents spellcasting for most casters. If your character has a long term disability that prevents or complicates them from speaking (as described in GM Core), work with the GM to determine an analogous way they cast their spells, such as tapping in code on their staff or whistling.
Spellcasting creates obvious sensory manifestations, such as bright lights, crackling sounds, and sharp smells from the gathering magic.
If no gestures were needed to cast a subtle spell then none of said spells would have the Manipulate trait and Conceal Spell would tell us how it interacts with Manipulate.
And as long as the action has the Manipulate trait its observable enough to be reacted to.
Errenor wrote: Claxon wrote: A GM could decide that most spell casting gesture are very noticeable. And since the subtle trait doesn't specifically interact with it, that you're still making obvious gestures. You are making obvious gestures which are obviously not spellcasting. I would phrase that a different way. I would say "You are making obvious gesture, which are not not obviously spellcasting". And what I mean by that is that on-lookers have no factual way of knowing if the gestures are going to produce a spell.
But what is potentially implied (for a bad GM) is that if someone is so obviously gesturing, they might be casting a spell. Which could have consequences with (paranoid) observers.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ofcourse, They would never be able to have a conversation when someone is hand-talking, and might think someone is using Tremor Signs when they infact just fingertapping. Don't get me started on whenever a person touches someone else.
By the same means, onlookers might not know which items are magical and might suspect a line of red prayer beads are going to explode in a fireball.
And while that might make sense in certain settings it certainly sounds more like an issue with the GM, Either that characters can't even give someone directions or that the GM just happens to choose to have NPCs become suspicious when the players are trying to cast a spell unnoticed with not even deception check.
Claxon wrote: Errenor wrote: Claxon wrote: A GM could decide that most spell casting gesture are very noticeable. And since the subtle trait doesn't specifically interact with it, that you're still making obvious gestures. You are making obvious gestures which are obviously not spellcasting. I would phrase that a different way. I would say "You are making obvious gesture, which are not not obviously spellcasting". And what I mean by that is that on-lookers have no factual way of knowing if the gestures are going to produce a spell.
But what is potentially implied (for a bad GM) is that if someone is so obviously gesturing, they might be casting a spell. Which could have consequences with (paranoid) observers. No, it definitely doesn't look like spellcasting. So much doesn't look it that paranoid observers must become completely incapacitated with fear of spellcasters because any finger twitch, fist squeeze, winking or striking any pose could be casting a spell.
NorrKnekten wrote: Ofcourse, They would never be able to have a conversation when someone is hand-talking, and might think someone is using Tremor Signs when they infact just fingertapping. Don't get me started on whenever a person touches someone else. I feel weirdly called out. I do have trouble talking with someone who gestures wildly with their hands while doing it. And I do a lot of fingertapping, which is usually misinterpreted by other people. And I hate being touched.
So apparently I am either a spellcaster, or paranoid of other spellcasters. Or both.
Probably both.
But anyway, strange tangents aside...
---------
If the spell has the Manipulate trait, then casting it is going to involve some sort of movement. Enough that mechanically you would struggle to do it while Grabbed (DC 5 flat check) and could not do it at all while Restrained, and it would provoke reactions from active enemies.
But saying that the movement from the Manipulate trait must still be an obvious indicator of casting a spell completely negates the intent of the Subtle trait.
When casting a spell with the Subtle trait that still has the Manipulate trait, the movements are enough to trigger reactions from actively hostile enemies, but are not distinct enough to indicate that the movements are due to spellcasting.
While it doesn't remove the manipulate trait, I'm a firm believer that reactive strike still can't be used in response because there's nothing to respond to. You need to see something happening to react to it.
The wording of the Subtle Trait: "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, allow you to make spells subtle even if they wouldn’t normally be."
A little vague to be fair in my opinion, but I'm of the firm believer group that this means nothing is going on to be reacted to. Following up, looking into Conceal Spell, they get more in depth of what making a spell subtle does.
The wording of Conceal Spell: "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."
The important lines being 'simplify the incantations and gestures needed to spellcast, leaving them barely noticeable' and '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'. Expanding on what the Subtle trait covers, Gestures and incantations are clearly part of a spells spellcasting actions. If those are removed, in my head, the only visible part of the spell fireball is the explosion that occurs. If a wizard is just standing next to me, and I don't see hand motions, I don't see or hear lips moving, and there aren't magic runes, there is no reason to act with urgency or an opening to exploit.
The last thing that's the nail in the coffin for at least why I firmly believe that a subtle spell isn't something ypu can react to, was found in the Samsaran level 13 Ancestry feat from the Lost Omens Tian Xia Characyer Guide, Water to Water.
Water to Water: 'You allow your body to collapse into water, then reconstitute your corporeal form elsewhere. You can cast translocate as an occult innate spell twice per day; the spell additionally gains the water trait. #If you Cast this Spell while standing in a body of water of at least ankle depth, you don’t need to perform any incantations or gestures to Cast the Spell (typically preventing reactions, such as Reactive Strike)#, and the spell gains the subtle trait as you simply fall into the water without so much as a splash'.
And notice how it very specifically DOESN'T remove the Manipulate trait. So yeah, if a spell has no Incantations or Gestures, you can't react to it. Printed clear in black and white from an official Paizo source. And at least to me, if they're hidden via the subtle trait/conceal spell and it's equivalents, they may as well not be there for anyone but the caster. Who still has to be able to perform them, albeit in a manner in which no one else will notice them, and therefore, have no reason in a sane mind to try and react to them.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
LastWallFlower wrote: The last thing that's the nail in the coffin for at least why I firmly believe that a subtle spell isn't something ypu can react to, was found in the Samsaran level 13 Ancestry feat from the Lost Omens Tian Xia Characyer Guide, Water to Water.
...
Printed clear in black and white from an official Paizo source.
A specific rule in a particular feat or ability does not define a general rule.
A specific rule might be reminder text of a general rule.
A specific rule might be an override of a general rule.
But the specific rule does not affect an existing general rule as it is applied to other feats or abilities.
So both can be true that Water to Water does prevent Reactive Strike (because it says so) and that Subtle spells cast in other ways still follow the general rule that Reactive Strike can react to any action with the Manipulate trait.
NorrKnekten wrote:
If no gestures were needed to cast a subtle spell
I never said a subtle spell requires no gestures; I explicitly allowed that it may still require them (this is especially true if the spell still has the manipulate trait, which I agree the subtle trait does not negate (which is the original question of the thread)). I merely insist that it cannot require any *obvious* gestures, obvious meaning "would necessarily expose the spellcasting to an observer", which would negate the purpose of the subtle trait which was Claxon's explicit concern which I was responding to. I think Claxon and I are agreement that such an interpretation of the gestures required for a subtle spell would be against the intended functioning of the trait, but Claxon is concerned that such an interpretation may still be within the bounds of the rules as written, which I disagree with.
NorrKnekten wrote:
But we know what definition of manifestations it is talking about because they are described by the rules in spellcasting and is described separately from the gestures and incantations.
Admittedly, this may be a viable interpetation I overlooked, but it opens up a different issue, which is that the subtle trait does not mention gestures at all:
Subtle wrote:
A spell with the subtle trait can be cast without incantations and doesn't have obvious manifestations.
HOWEVER, the Conceal Spell feat, which grants spells the subtle trait, *does*:
Conceal Spell wrote:
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.
So are we to say that spells which normally have the subtle trait may require obvious gestures, but spells which are granted the subtle trait by the Conceal Spell cannot require them? Are we to dismiss that line in Conceal Spell as meaningless flavor text (Note: Paizo devs have said you're not supposed to do this (though sometimes you really have to anyway)) and only refer to to the text in the subtle trait itself, even though that's also just a natural language description and not really a collection of well-defined mechanical keywords? Or are we to say the subtle trait in both cases does indeed negate the possibility of the spell requiring obvious gestures?
And I never said that it was obvious that the creature was casting a spell, just that others can percieve that the caster is doing something, though this something can be anything. Compare that to some of the Stealth/Deception skill actions which explicitly states if creatures notice.
"barely noticable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting to arrive to the conclusion that creatures never notice the gestures, One could just aswell come to the conclusion that Conceal Spell doesn't completely remove the incantation since we are leaving them "barely noticable" instead.
Another miss is that it says that its the Subtle Trait that hides spellcasting actions. But as you said, Subtle by its own text and sidebar doesn't hide gestures. Infact, Spellcasting Actions hasn't been properly defined since the playtests.
Before the remaster this was how Conceal Spell functioned. It itself required gestures in the past and alot of the spells that are Subtle now did infact trigger Manipulate reactions typically because they had a material components in place of verbal component.
Finoan wrote: LastWallFlower wrote: The last thing that's the nail in the coffin for at least why I firmly believe that a subtle spell isn't something ypu can react to, was found in the Samsaran level 13 Ancestry feat from the Lost Omens Tian Xia Characyer Guide, Water to Water.
...
Printed clear in black and white from an official Paizo source.
A specific rule in a particular feat or ability does not define a general rule.
A specific rule might be reminder text of a general rule.
A specific rule might be an override of a general rule.
But the specific rule does not affect an existing general rule as it is applied to other feats or abilities.
So both can be true that Water to Water does prevent Reactive Strike (because it says so) and that Subtle spells cast in other ways still follow the general rule that Reactive Strike can react to any action with the Manipulate trait. It can be. It can definitely be interpreted that way. I see it more as reminder text, because they've put it in parentheses instead of just continuing on and writing, 'when you cast translocate this way, it can't be reacted to', it instead is going out of the way to say 'you cast the spell without incantations and gestures (By the by spells cast without incantations or gestures can't be reacted to by things like reactive strike). And as Paizo is a publishing company, I'm pretty sure if they could have said it with less words, they would have. So, I'm of the opinon that it's being definitive of what it's describing (casting without gestures and incantations as unreactable) as the general norm, and not the special case for just this feature. Because why wouldn't they just put in, it loses the manipulate trait (which is the major bandwagon opinion I see as the reason people argue for reactive strike to beat subtle spell) or just write this spell can't be reacted to at that point. Saves them so much ink. That and the wording 'typically preventing reactions, such as Reactive Strike' typically meaning it's the normal and not the exception.
Doesn't water to water describe two separate things though?
-"you don’t need to perform any incantations or gestures to Cast the Spell" (a rather direct inferred removal of Manipulate Trait since Manipulate states you must Gesture to use the action)
AND
-the spell gains the subtle trait as you simply fall into the water without so much as a splash.
(No visible sensory phenomenon, And overlapping as this too removes incantations)
NorrKnekten wrote: Doesn't water to water describe two separate things though?
-"you don’t need to perform any incantations or gestures to Cast the Spell" (a rather direct inferred removal of Manipulate Trait since Manipulate states you must Gesture to use the action)
AND
-the spell gains the subtle trait as you simply fall into the water without so much as a splash.
(No visible sensory phenomenon, And overlapping as this too removes incantations)
I think it doesn't remove the manipulate trait from the spell for the very same reason they didn't write it on conceal spell and the subtle trait. For when you're in those situations where you can't perform a manipulate action you've got some spell effect or condition on you. Or in the more considerate case of conceal spell than water to water, you're in manacles and your very well hidden gestures are still tricky to perform.
As for the second part, they've done that with every single feat that gives subtle. The explanation of the feat usually just repeating everything listed in the subtle trait and then some, and the putting in somewhere it gains the subtle trait.
So overall I'd say it's all very much one description still.
You're of course welcome to have your own opinions and disagree. I know my stance is the unpopular one. But I feel like the feats designed around making Spells subtle, especially since they are most often class feats which are 99/100 times combat oriented (up until you look at certain archetypes like dandy/celebrity),are generally designed with the players interest and favor at heart, which as an rpg should be. Especially given, reactive strike comes up SO MUCH MORE than concealing spellshapes on monsters.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I for one am not going to play the gotcha game with my players for making use of a subtle spell (whether or not they happen to be using Conceal Spell). And I frown at any GM who would.
NorrKnekten wrote:
"barely noticable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting to arrive to the conclusion that creatures never notice the gestures, One could just aswell come to the conclusion that Conceal Spell doesn't completely remove the incantation since we are leaving them "barely noticable" instead.
Which is another unfortunate discrepancy between Conceal Spell and Subtle, since Subtle says the spell can be cast "without incantations" whereas Conceal Spell, as you note, merely says it makes the "incantations and gestures... barely noticeable". However Conceal Spell does additionally grant the Subtle trait after saying this, so I would rule that a concealed spell by the feat can still be cast without incantations, because of the trait.
Honestly, while it's not impossible I strongly doubt that whoever wrote conceal spell intended for it do anything other than provide the exact effects they believed were already stated or implied by the subtle trait, so I wish that either the author of it had hewed to subtle's wording more closely or the editor had done more to harmonize them before publishing. But being frank I think with the formal spellcasting components being removed from the system I suspect the designers just didn't want to think about this sort of thing too hard and preferred to thrust such fiddly details unto the GMs.
Going back to the original question of the thread, what is certain is neither subtle nor conceal spell remove the manipulate trait (some naturally subtle spells even have the manipulate trait), nothing in either description implies that it should remove the manipulate trait (as we've noted, both subtle and concealed spells can still require some sort of gesture, which is also the definition of the manipulate trait), and Reactive Strike triggers off of actions with the manipulate trait. As far as I can see no part of this is really disputable within the rules. So a concealed spell will do nothing to protect you against Reactive Strike.
And there's no reason it should. The Fighter isn't standing there, capable of attacking but choosing not to unless the enemy casts a spell. They're trying to attack, and they have an extra chance to hit if the event drops their guard.
The Fighter doesn't have to know what the enemy is trying to accomplish, and there are plenty of Manipulate actions that aren't spells.
Whether or not you trigger Reactive Strike is a question that only matters if you're already in combat. Conceal Spell isn't really a combat feat.
>Conceal Spell isn't really a combat feat.
It does have a combat use-case if you suspect the enemy might have Counterspell or another ability that depends on observing your spellcasting manifestations
LastWallFlower wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: Doesn't water to water describe two separate things though?
-"you don’t need to perform any incantations or gestures to Cast the Spell" (a rather direct inferred removal of Manipulate Trait since Manipulate states you must Gesture to use the action)
AND
-the spell gains the subtle trait as you simply fall into the water without so much as a splash.
(No visible sensory phenomenon, And overlapping as this too removes incantations)
I think it doesn't remove the manipulate trait from the spell for the very same reason they didn't write it on conceal spell and the subtle trait. For when you're in those situations where you can't perform a manipulate action you've got some spell effect or condition on you. Or in the more considerate case of conceal spell than water to water, you're in manacles and your very well hidden gestures are still tricky to perform. I can see that for conceal spell where they don't make any attempt to remove the need. But for water to water it becomes a literal contradiction for it to keep the Manipulate trait, Since then the ability would both say that you 'must perform' and 'do not require' gestures.
Thats not a part which exists in the subtle trait since it makes no mention of gestures.
Dunwright wrote: Which is another unfortunate discrepancy between Conceal Spell and Subtle, since Subtle says the spell can be cast "without incantations" whereas Conceal Spell, as you note, merely says it makes the "incantations and gestures... barely noticeable". However Conceal Spell does additionally grant the Subtle trait after saying this, so I would rule that a concealed spell by the feat can still be cast without incantations, because of the trait.
Honestly, while it's not impossible I strongly doubt that whoever wrote conceal spell intended for it do anything other than provide the exact effects they believed were already stated or implied by the subtle trait, so I wish that either the author of it had hewed to subtle's wording more closely or the editor had done more to harmonize them before publishing. But being frank I think with the formal spellcasting components being removed from the system I suspect the designers just didn't want to think about this sort of thing too hard and preferred to thrust such fiddly details unto the GMs.
Yeah I agree with all of that, Ofcourse you require no incantations since that is what the subtle trait does, but that was the point I was making. What the text earlier attributes to subtle is just a thing subtle doesn't do.
I suppose the closest comparison is to that of melodious spell where its rather explicit that you hide your spellcasting in performance, and if your performance(or in this case demoralize) isn't suitable to the spell you dont get the subtle effect. Just like the old Conceal Spell hid the spellcasting gestures within non-spellcasting gestures.
Typically from what I've seen during the remaster they were trying to keep it as close to the original as possible. Pretty much just lifting the parts of the text verbatim without considering the full extent of changes (Like they did with Oracle).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Dunwright wrote: I never said a subtle spell requires no gestures; I explicitly allowed that it may still require them (this is especially true if the spell still has the manipulate trait, which I agree the subtle trait does not negate (which is the original question of the thread)). I merely insist that it cannot require any *obvious* gestures, obvious meaning "would necessarily expose the spellcasting to an observer", You have a bad definition which causes problems and hurts your argument (further too). If I scratch my head it's an obvious gesture. It is not obvious spellcasting gesture though, and probably doesn't mean I cast a spell with it.
Baarogue wrote: >Conceal Spell isn't really a combat feat.
It does have a combat use-case if you suspect the enemy might have Counterspell or another ability that depends on observing your spellcasting manifestations
You forgot the most important ones: it allows casting under silence effects and holding your breath (while not losing all your air, for example under water). Ah! And casting from stealth! If your GM is nice enough to agree that subtle is "a particularly unobtrusive action" which they frankly absolutely should. At least with a Stealth check.
Well, it also allows hiding who is a spellcaster in a group if it's important for narrative and all parties don't metagame (knowing whose turn it is).
Finoan wrote: A specific rule might be reminder text of a general rule.
A specific rule might be an override of a general rule.
And also a specific rule might have bad wording and suggest wrong understanding of a general rule.
Which is especially true in case of a specific rule in a far little corner of one ancestry in a mostly lore book. Why LastWallFlower would think it could even remotely be an argument for the general case, I can't understand.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
Community & Social Media Specialist
