New Feats: "Conceal Casting", and "Cast on the Run"

[Sixchan]

This idea was already brought up on the original thread, and it seems like a good tactic to me. However, I think the cheks would be a Spot to guess he might be casting a spell (although I would have this automaticly pass if the caster specified doing something like moving his lips or wiggling his fingers slightly), and then a sense motive check to recognise the bluff.

But why would the mage just look to be concentrating when he could move his arms elaborately and speak made up words?

 

[jlhorner1974]

I was actually intending that he would make up lot of words and flailing with his arms.

It's MORE effective if the party sees his false signals.

But if you have a high level party and you've sprung silent, still spells on them before, how cool would it be to have an Improved Invis BBEG create an illusion of himself casting a silent, still spell that was FAKE (and have the PCs celebrate as they think they have detected and disrupted the silent, still spell when they actually MISSED the roll to tell if it was fake) right before the BBEG casts a REAL silent, still spell out of thin air (using an extra partial haste action or something).

Is that cool or what?

 

[Mordane76]

I guess it's just my perception of the feats in question. I have that view that if it's still and silent, then it's STILL and SILENT. No kiss-kiss, no bang-bang. And while I know one of the major benefits of Still Spell is to bypass Arcane Spell Failure in armor, it just seems to me like... well... everything that Zulkir and Rules Machine had to say.

So the general consensus was Spot...

I have to agree more with Sense Motive; but not necessarily the wizard's need to Bluff; preparation of the spells was enough, and I think that the wizard should be considered to be taking 20 on that "Bluff" check automatically. I also think that ranks in Spellcraft could create a Synergy with Sense Motive when attempting ascertain a stilled, silent spell being cast.

jlhorner1974: Isn't there a feat in one of the splatbooks, or perhaps it was in the Netbook of Feats, called Powerless or Fake Spell? Actually...

Reading through Bluff, I'd say the wizard faking would get a bonus, because the archers want to believe that the wizard is casting a spell -- they even gone so far as to ready an action to attack him when he does. I might be reaching, though... The wizard faking would at least be able to do so at no penalty. So, I'd say yes -- Bluff's description handles what you're talking about beautifully; drawing attention, making someone look where you want, and do want you want them to do, kinda like a magical Fast-Talk.

 

[Sixchan]

I was actually intending that he would make up lot of words and flailing with his arms.

It's MORE effective if the party sees his false signals.

But if you have a high level party and you've sprung silent, still spells on them before, how cool would it be to have an Improved Invis BBEG create an illusion of himself casting a silent, still spell that was FAKE (and have the PCs celebrate as they think they have detected and disrupted the silent, still spell when they actually MISSED the roll to tell if it was fake) right before the BBEG casts a REAL silent, still spell out of thin air (using an extra partial haste action or something).

Is that cool or what?

Heh heh. Sounds like something I'd do to my party. In fact, I'd better make a note of this one! Thanks!

 

[the Jester]

Hm, you might want to put in a better definition of 'defensive spells' for Cast While Moving (may I suggest Cast on the Run as a name? ). Like, maybe spells with target of the caster only or something.

 

[Sixchan]

I said you can cast a defensive spell on yourself, but I'll clarify it in the description.

Edit: All better. Thanks!

 

[jlhorner1974]

Mordane76: Yeah, it's very possible that's how the fake spell idea got in my head, because I had seen it in some fashion before. It may be in a netbook or a non WotC book, because I do vaguely remember this somehow, now that you said it.

I agree that Bluff does seem to represent this nicely.

I also agree with some kind of synergy bonus in that this specific use of Bluff should give bonuses or penalties that should somehow reflect the bluffer's knowledge of spells. Maybe a circumstance modifier could be given based on Spellcraft ranks, if the target knows something of the silent, still spell tactic (or has been affected by it before), or if the wizard is simulating a spell she actually has memorized. Or you could just simply allow anyone to bluff casting a spell but assign a HUGE circumstance penalty if the bluffer cannot cast spells or has no knowledge of spells (ranks in Spellcraft).

After all, a character who knows nothing about Spellcraft and has never cast a spell should not be able to concoct a convincing bluff of a fake spell, but a high level wizard should be able to create a very realistic bluff by actually making the correct gestures and speaking the correct words but simply not focusing or channelling the arcane energy -- in a sense, she's just "going through the motions". But even in the is case, the simulation of the spell would have tiny flaws (compared to a real spell) that a trained person could notice.

I think that spellcasters are powerful as it is, and Still Spell and Silent Spell already have value in their bypassing of hold/silence/grapple effects and preventing the identification and counterspelling with the exact same spell (because it is impossible to use spellcraft on a silent, still spell, which we all seem to agree on).

I'm all for having silent and still spells be almost impossible to detect, but the word "almost" is important. To allow silent, still spells to be completely undetectable and unable to be responded to is a bit much IMHO (althought this is what the rules seem to imply).

I would like for there to be a small chance that a highly skilled character (even a non spellcaster) could detect that a silent, still spell is being cast from very subtle clues. I don't have a problem with a DC in the 40s or 50s to detect it in some cases, but there should be a chance.

I tend to subscribe to the Magic: the Gathering design theory.
Every ideal strategy should have some ideal counterstrategy, though it is okay that not everyone will have the means necessary to do so.

 

[Al]

I know it's not core rules, but T&B states categorically that Silent and Still Spells can be identified using Spellcraft:

Tome and Blood, p.19:

'You can use Spellcraft to identify a spell even if the spell has no verbal, somatic or material component- there's no mistaking the concentration magic requires. However, you still must be able to see or hear the spellcaster

.

It does allow a modifier to the Spellcraft DC (+4 for a Still and Silent Spell) but it is unequivocal. It also balances Still and Silent somewhat. So, Spellcraft to identify any spells, Silent, Still, both or otherwise.

However, having said that, the presumption with the archer is that Spellcraft was not being used (assuming it is a reasonably standard archer). In this event, Sense Motive would probably be more reasonable, and I would rule that this would indeed be opposable by a Bluff check.

 

[Mordane76]

You can use Spellcraft to identify a spell even if the spell has no verbal, somatic or material component- there's no mistaking the concentration magic requires. However, you still must be able to see or hear the spellcaster

This statement is the statement that I needed to make all the above discussion about Still/Silent and Readied Actions gel. If there is "no mistaking the concentration magic requires," then it is safe to say that a ranger COULD possibly recognize this concentration, and that someone else COULD possibly recognize someone who is faking a magic spell.

Thank you, AI!

 

[Sixchan]

While there may be no mistaking it, I'd still prefer a feat that can allow the caster to look like he is not concentrating. After all, if someone with bluff can tell lies without blushing or laughing (or in the case of RL, even pass a polygraph), then I'd guess that some mages would be able to conceal the concentration. Mind you, even if T&B isn't core rules, the above spells certainly aren't.