Ma'varkith
First Post
kreynolds said:
Well, anyone with an 11th-level spell slot is "way too out there" for many campaigns.
Lies, Lies, Lies and Silent, Stilled, Eschewed Spells
- Thread starter Thistleknot
- Start date
Well, anyone with an 11th-level spell slot is "way too out there" for many campaigns.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
I would allow it with the following conditions:
1. Both the spell imitated and the spell disguised would have to have no visible effect. If they did, it would ruin the bluff. For instance, you could theoretically use this to disguise a fireball as a lightning bolt but as soon as the lightning bolt goes off, it'll be obvious to everyone what you really cast.
2. Only characters with the spellcraft skill would be able to attempt to detect the deception. If you couldn't tell what spell was cast to start with, there's no way you'll see through the bluff.
3. I would do it like this:
#1. Concentration check: DC 15+ spell level for the caster to avoid losing the real spell while concentrating on the arcane/divine gestures of another one.
#2. Bluff check (with a +2 synergy bonus if the caster has 5 or more ranks in spellcraft) opposed by the spellcraft of the observers (5 or more ranks in sense motive would give a +2 synergy bonus to the roll).
-If the observer beats the bluff check but fails to meet DC 15+[level of spell imitated], the observer simply cannot discern what the spell was. "No sir, I saw him wiggle his fingers and say some magic words and then the guy just exploded. I didn't recognize the spell he cast. . . ."
-If the observer beats fails to beat the bluff check but makes a spellcraft roll of DC 15+[level of spell imitated], the observer recognizes the imitated spell "yessiree, that was a cure light wounds. I wonder who cast that implosion. . . ."
-If the observer beat beats the bluff and his total score is higher than or equal to 15+[level of spell imitated], the observer recognizes the spell that was being imitated but also realizes that it was not really the spell cast. "Something's fishy here. That wasn't a cure light wounds--he was trying to disguise something far more complex. . . ."
-If the observer beats the bluff and his total score is higher than or equal to 23+[level of the actual spell] the observer recognizes what was imitated and what was actually cast, successfully penetrating all of the subterfuge. "Your honor, the defendant attempted to mask his modified implosion spell behind the gestures for a cure light wounds. It was a very clever ploy and very hard to detect but I'm not the master of the Arcanist's Guild for nothing. . . ."
1. Both the spell imitated and the spell disguised would have to have no visible effect. If they did, it would ruin the bluff. For instance, you could theoretically use this to disguise a fireball as a lightning bolt but as soon as the lightning bolt goes off, it'll be obvious to everyone what you really cast.
2. Only characters with the spellcraft skill would be able to attempt to detect the deception. If you couldn't tell what spell was cast to start with, there's no way you'll see through the bluff.
3. I would do it like this:
#1. Concentration check: DC 15+ spell level for the caster to avoid losing the real spell while concentrating on the arcane/divine gestures of another one.
#2. Bluff check (with a +2 synergy bonus if the caster has 5 or more ranks in spellcraft) opposed by the spellcraft of the observers (5 or more ranks in sense motive would give a +2 synergy bonus to the roll).
-If the observer beats the bluff check but fails to meet DC 15+[level of spell imitated], the observer simply cannot discern what the spell was. "No sir, I saw him wiggle his fingers and say some magic words and then the guy just exploded. I didn't recognize the spell he cast. . . ."
-If the observer beats fails to beat the bluff check but makes a spellcraft roll of DC 15+[level of spell imitated], the observer recognizes the imitated spell "yessiree, that was a cure light wounds. I wonder who cast that implosion. . . ."
-If the observer beat beats the bluff and his total score is higher than or equal to 15+[level of spell imitated], the observer recognizes the spell that was being imitated but also realizes that it was not really the spell cast. "Something's fishy here. That wasn't a cure light wounds--he was trying to disguise something far more complex. . . ."
-If the observer beats the bluff and his total score is higher than or equal to 23+[level of the actual spell] the observer recognizes what was imitated and what was actually cast, successfully penetrating all of the subterfuge. "Your honor, the defendant attempted to mask his modified implosion spell behind the gestures for a cure light wounds. It was a very clever ploy and very hard to detect but I'm not the master of the Arcanist's Guild for nothing. . . ."
Tom Cashel
First Post
Keeeeeeeeee--rist!
Make up a magic item that allows a spellcaster to cast one spell while the illusion of another spell is projected.
All you're doing is trying to create a story hook here...be the DM, don't let the rules rule you in this case. If the PCs notice the illusion, while everyone else is fooled, you have your set-up for a "prove your innocence" type adventure.
IMO, it seems a little excessive to come up with this whole rules-based structure for something that's happening "behind the curtain." Players shouldn't be able to figure out everything that happens by cross-referencing skills and spells and feats in their handy dandy Handbooks.
Make up a magic item that allows a spellcaster to cast one spell while the illusion of another spell is projected.
All you're doing is trying to create a story hook here...be the DM, don't let the rules rule you in this case. If the PCs notice the illusion, while everyone else is fooled, you have your set-up for a "prove your innocence" type adventure.
IMO, it seems a little excessive to come up with this whole rules-based structure for something that's happening "behind the curtain." Players shouldn't be able to figure out everything that happens by cross-referencing skills and spells and feats in their handy dandy Handbooks.
Andor of the Blade
First Post
Sorry Tom, but I couldn't disagree with you more.
They should have the opportunity to. That's exactly why they have the feats and skills.
If you want to play a game, follow the same rules as the players. (If you want to tell a story, ignoring the rules, write a book.)
Thistleknot is asking for advice on how to follow the rules to achieve his goals. Advising him to ignore the rules is just plain bad advice.
P.S. I'm a little surprised you posted as you did. I have found most of your comments to be well thought out, insightful and reasonable. I'll put this one down as an aberration.
They should have the opportunity to. That's exactly why they have the feats and skills.
If you want to play a game, follow the same rules as the players. (If you want to tell a story, ignoring the rules, write a book.)
Thistleknot is asking for advice on how to follow the rules to achieve his goals. Advising him to ignore the rules is just plain bad advice.
P.S. I'm a little surprised you posted as you did. I have found most of your comments to be well thought out, insightful and reasonable. I'll put this one down as an aberration.
Tom Cashel
First Post
Andor of the Blade said:
Well, I'm not above the occasional knee-jerk reaction!
You're right, it's a Rules question, and my answer was more geared to the DM Plots forum (on the White Wolf site...ha ha). To tell you the truth, I posted without considering my own DMing, in which I do try to find legal, rules-based ways for villains to do the things they do, rather than introducing a deus ex machina to fuel every plot.
[That said...do you ever fudge die rolls? Not being a smart-aleck, I'm just curious. I used to fudge them sometimes, but now I let the dice fall as they may. Just as the PCs don't get to reroll or ignore results they don't like, neither do I. But if, OTOH, you are a DM who fudges rolls, then making up a story hook for a situation like this is no different.]
In any case, point observed, point taken...put it in the box marked "ABERRATIONS."
Darklone
Registered User
Rules question
I am sure this has been answered already somewhere so excuse me that I ask again...
Assuming the cleric casts an illusion to fake the other spell and casts the one he wants under the cover of the illusion...
Can you hold the concentration of a spell and cast another? I think not. This is not really a problem since some illusions have a duration of concentration plus a few rounds. Let him cast the illusion silent, eschewed and stuff a few rounds before he makes his move. (perhaps extend the illusion).
So where is ruleswise the problem?
Problem is that players might be able to notice the illusion. Well. But that shouldn't be too tough to disguise, perhaps he arranges a screaming messenger with an important but not so important message entering the room to give him a moment of concentrated frowning (how suspicious!)
I am sure this has been answered already somewhere so excuse me that I ask again...
Assuming the cleric casts an illusion to fake the other spell and casts the one he wants under the cover of the illusion...
Can you hold the concentration of a spell and cast another? I think not. This is not really a problem since some illusions have a duration of concentration plus a few rounds. Let him cast the illusion silent, eschewed and stuff a few rounds before he makes his move. (perhaps extend the illusion).
So where is ruleswise the problem?
Problem is that players might be able to notice the illusion. Well. But that shouldn't be too tough to disguise, perhaps he arranges a screaming messenger with an important but not so important message entering the room to give him a moment of concentrated frowning (how suspicious!)
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Why does he want to pretend to cast another spell at all? If he was casting a stilled, silent, eschewed spell, there wouldn't really be anything to reveal it (although I don't think that clerics can use Eschew, can they? it is for material components but not holy symbols?)
Is the point being that the reciepients voluntarily forgo their saving throw because they think they are getting a nice spell cast on them?
Otherwise, the cleric in question could just cast his still, silent spell from behind a screen while someone else (a patsy) talks to the PCs or casts some other innocuous spell.
Is the point being that the reciepients voluntarily forgo their saving throw because they think they are getting a nice spell cast on them?
Otherwise, the cleric in question could just cast his still, silent spell from behind a screen while someone else (a patsy) talks to the PCs or casts some other innocuous spell.
Andor of the Blade
First Post
Hi Tom,
When I'm DMing my children (ages 6 and 8), I fudge rolls all the time (all in their favour). When I play/DM with my adult group, we have all agreed - "The die is cast." *
OK, back to the main thread. Sorry for the interruption.
* I know this quote had nothing to do with dice, but it seems very apt.
When I'm DMing my children (ages 6 and 8), I fudge rolls all the time (all in their favour)
. When I play/DM with my adult group, we have all agreed - "The die is cast." * OK, back to the main thread. Sorry for the interruption.
* I know this quote had nothing to do with dice, but it seems very apt.
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Real quick: that quote has everything to do with dice. Alea jacta est is Latin for "The die is cast," and is what Caesar said when crossing the Rubicon to make war on Rome. The expression means that a person has committed to a course of action and can no longer turn back.
Check out http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxthedie.html for more details -- I had vague memories of this proverb from my junior-high Latin days, and picked up the details here. Until you said the quote didn't apply to dice, it never occurred to me that it could apply to anything else.
Okay, I'm done hijacking your hijack!
Daniel
Check out http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxthedie.html for more details -- I had vague memories of this proverb from my junior-high Latin days, and picked up the details here. Until you said the quote didn't apply to dice, it never occurred to me that it could apply to anything else.
Okay, I'm done hijacking your hijack!
Daniel
Similar Threads
