Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jlhorner1974" data-source="post: 541672" data-attributes="member: 8628">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.</blockquote>

Verification