Locating a Druid using Natural Spell

[smetzger]

Automatically recognized by anyone?
Recognized by someone who doesn't know magic?
Recognized by a barbarian who has never seen magic?

By the rules, Yes and Yes. I have provided evidence of this in my earlier post. No one has provided evidence that this only applies in special circumstances, like being familiar with magic or being in humanoid form.

Does this universal automatic magic-sensing ability also extend to discerning fake from real spellcasting, or do you at least grant that Bluff can be used to make fake spellcasting appear to be real?

1st its not "magic-sensing", its the notice of ongoing spellcasting. Fake spellcasting is something else, a Bluff vs. Sense Motive would be used here. I fail to see how this effects 'automatic discernment of spellcasting'.

However, house-ruling the feat seems a better solution than pushing the proposition that every person in the world can tell spellcasting from gobbledygook without any sort of training whatsoever. I know, I know, this is "Rules," not "House Rules," but the rules in this case are so blatantly nonsensical that I wonder if there is some application of the Bluff skill in a supplement somewhere, or some errata, or a question on a FAQ... just something I haven't seen.

So, you admit that not allowing for automatic detection of spellcasting is a "House Rule". Thats good. If you want to make that House Rule in your game thats fine. If you want to discuss the merits of the house rule, exactly how to run it, and what it may or may not do to game balance than ask in the House Rule forum. Its not that I don't think its a logical House Rule. Its just that I think discussion of House Rules belongs in the House Rules forum.

Understand, I'm not trying to boost the power of druids. I'm trying to boost the power and mystery of magic itself, whoever is casting it. Something WILL have to be done to balance Natural Spell if you allow it to camouflage casting to some degree, but I don't think untrained people should automatically recognize spellcasting in every situation.

Thats fine but has nothing to do with the discussion about the actual RAW. If you want to discuss what rule changes need to be made to run a game with 'mystery of magic' then the place is House Rules.

Lots of rules don't make sense. But it is important to realize what rules we as DMs are in fact House Ruling. That way we can communicate those House Rules ahead of time to the players.

 

[smetzger]

Actually, you showed me the rules on Spellcraft being used to identify the spell which did point out Spellcraft is useless on anything that is still & silent (and assuming there's no visible spell effect). The only rules I've seen say "if you cast a spell in combat, you take an AoO because you are distracted" but nothing says "when you cast a spell, everyone knows you are casting a spell."

Except for where I pointed you to the section on Counterspelling.

COUNTERSPELLS

It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing so, you are using the spell’s energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.

How Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing the ready action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. (You may still move your speed, since ready is a standard action.)

If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent’s spell and can attempt to counter it.

So, you make a spellcraft check when you recognize the person is casting a spell. But you automatically recognize them casting a spell. No mention of applying to humanoids only.

Let's try different logic. How do you tell the difference between a wizard who casts Detect Magic and a fighter who pronounces identical syllables with the same hand gestures? Both appear to be a spell but only one of them is casting. The fighter, btw, does not draw an AoO but he probably sacrifices a standard action for the hand waiving. Had he mimed spiderclimb he would because eating/drinking evokes an AoO (see the section on Potions).

Bluff vs. Sense Motive in this case. Seeing as how the Fighter didn't provoke an AoO he would also need to Bluff Casting defensively. But this doesn't have anything to do with auto-recognizing the casting of a spell.

If someone ready's an action vs. spellcasting and the target uses a psionics power would you disallow it because the attacker "knows it isn't spellcasting so that's not what the readied for"? What about a spell-like ability?

If Psionics and Magic are the same then the trigger is activated. If they are different then it is not. But this doesn't have anything to do with auto-recognizing the casting of a spell.

I'll point out that counterspelling involves a spellcraft check as a free action which would allow you to recognize fake casting (DC15 as if spell level 0).

Use this skill to identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place.

No mention of recognizing fake casting, Sense Motive is the skill used to identify someone trying to 'fake' you out. But this doesn't have anything to do with auto-recognizing the casting of a spell.

The "ready action against spellcasting" would be whenever the target get's that spaced-out, "I deserve an AoO" look more than complete assurance that they can recognize spellcasting 100% of the time.

No, its "If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell...". No mention of a spaced-out look. It even works when they cast defensively.

You still haven't shown me where in the books it says that Spell-Casting is not automaically recognized for non-humanoid creatures.

 

[smetzger]

Always on invisibility? Hardly. I can still be spotted, quite easily if the opponents know to look for me. Anyone trained in magic knows flamestrikes only come from clerics or druids. If my party's cleric is fighting or doing something else and the flamestrikes keep a 'comin, then its pretty clear there's another caster around.

Look, I don't think anyone is arguing that Natural Spell isn't extremely powerful. However, Kalendraf is playing it by the rules as stated in the PHB (which I am understandably happy about), so please stop busting his chops. If you houserule it to tone it down in your campaign, great! We're playing it by the book, as it were. End of story.

By the rules if there is a squirrel or bird or whatever and it is not hiding then it is seen. If said creature attempts to cast a spell then by the rules it is recognized as spell casting.

 

[Nail]

We're playing it by the book, as it were. End of story.

Two points:

• Saying "end of story" doesn't mean the arguement is resolved. Quite the opposite. It usually means you want the other person to stop arguing with you. Different.
  
• You are not playing it by the book. The book does not give the Wild Shaped druid the powers you think it does. It seems as if the one with the house rules is you and your DM. "...Not that there's anything wrong with that."

 

[Nail]

I don't see why not. RAW, I believe you can glide as a free action.

Not quite. Glide is not a defined action in the flying RAW. (Perhaps you are thinking of "hover"?)

Instead, the SRD says that you must move a certain distance each round or stall...depending on your manueverability, of course. Other than that, it's just like movement along the ground: you can use a move action to move, and a standard action to cast a spell.

 

[Nail]

Taking another direction, then: would a druid casting with Natural Spell and Still Spell be recognized?

This points at the central question, one which I think we can safely divorce from the discussion of the Natural Spell feat:

Do non-spell casters recognize spell-casting when they see it?

Who cares if it's a druid wildshaped into a pig, or a town bard, performing in front of a live audience! Do people without any special skill recognize magic as it is cast? (I'm not talking about knowing what spell it is; the rules are clear enough on that. Nor am I talking about inducing AoOs - that's all about letting down your guard, not spell-casting per se.)

Consider the implications before you answer, please. If you say "no", then that means a bard could cast a spell in the middle of a tavern, and no one would be the wiser. If you say "yes", then anyone should recognize a squirrel casting a spell, since magic is so widespread. It is D&D, after all.

I think the answer is "yes", for the record.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

This points at the central question, one which I think we can safely divorce from the discussion of the Natural Spell feat:

Do non-spell casters recognize spell-casting when they see it?

I would say "no."
Non-spellcasters might see something that they think is magic, and be inclined to believe it is magic, especially if they see a visible effect. However, they could also fail to recognize actual spellcasting in certain situations and mis-identify fake casting as real.

If the elven archer prays for accuracy, concentrates, aims, and lets an arrow fly, how can a human onlooker tell whether or not he just cast True Strike? Is it the language of magic that is so well-known and distinctive? If it is the language, then how are onlookers identifying wildshaped druid casters? If it is not the language, then how are still spells identified?

So, you admit that not allowing for automatic detection of spellcasting is a "House Rule". Thats good. If you want to make that House Rule in your game thats fine. If you want to discuss the merits of the house rule, exactly how to run it, and what it may or may not do to game balance than ask in the House Rule forum. Its not that I don't think its a logical House Rule. Its just that I think discussion of House Rules belongs in the House Rules forum.

I think that discussion about the Rules belongs in the "Rules" forum. That entails more than "What is the strict constructionist interpretation of the rules as written?"
Discussion about the rules can also be "Do the rules as written make any sort logical sense?" or "What is the apparent intent of the designers in writing this rule?"

Sage rulings and FAQ are both part of the Rules; in the past, they have made rulings tossing out bizzarely counter-intuitive literalist applications of the rules as written. This seems to set a precedent on bizzarely counter-intuitive literalist applications. The alleged ability of untrained persons to recognize still casting implies that the language of magic is the identifying trait. Therefore, untrained persons would not recognize a wildshaped druid casting a still spell, because the language is different. You are saying "It doesn't matter how they recognize magic, they just do," correct?

You *have* to postulate some house rules for the rules to make any logical sense. Maybe spellcasting always has some visible component of sparkling pixie dust around the caster, fine, at least now you can explain how untrained people can recognize spellcasting.

 

[Nail]

Is it the language of magic that is so well-known and distinctive?

Yes. Moreover, the invocation of magic is recognizable regardless of the component(s) used.

YMMV. ....But consider the implications.

 

[smetzger]

If the elven archer prays for accuracy, concentrates, aims, and lets an arrow fly, how can a human onlooker tell whether or not he just cast True Strike?

They just can, it doesn't make logical sense. But those are the rules. Just like 6 second rounds, grappling horses, only falling on your turn, and numerous other warts. I am not saying that it makes complete sense, just that those are the rules.

Is it the language of magic that is so well-known and distinctive? If it is the language, then how are onlookers identifying wildshaped druid casters? If it is not the language, then how are still spells identified?

The rules do not address the 'why'. You are free to make up whatever you think makes sense.

 

[smetzger]

I think that discussion about the Rules belongs in the "Rules" forum. That entails more than "What is the strict constructionist interpretation of the rules as written?"
Discussion about the rules can also be "Do the rules as written make any sort logical sense?" or "What is the apparent intent of the designers in writing this rule?"

Those questions are fine. But I don't think its valid for a person to argue in the Rules forum that since it doesn't make sense logically for people to auto-recognize squirrel spellcasting then squirrels spell casting is not auto-recognizable. If someone wants to argue the validity of a rule in the Rules Forum then they need to use the RAW, not some stuff about squirrel chatter.