ready action vs silent still spell

[hong]

What does QED stand for?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=qed

Therefore you can assume that an archer with no spell training or spellcraft ranks would ASSUME that when he sees a spell caster cast they would do something, like move or speak. If the archer does not see this he would be hard pressed to ID if a spell is being cast.

Why? When you come right down to it, casting a spell basically drawing power from (wherever a spell's power comes from) and channeling it into whatever form the caster wants. This is clearly an act that takes a significant effort on the caster's part, and distracts him at least momentarily (provokes AoOs, requires Concentration checks if disrupted, etc).

So it's not a trivial thing to cast a spell. An archer may not necessarily know that the spellcaster is casting any given spell, but if he sees the caster "zone out" for a moment, chances are he's going to figure _something_ is up. And what's the most logical thing to happen, if it's a spellcaster doing things? They're most likely casting a spell. Hence he fires his arrow.

To take a real world example, I would like to say that I am watching a clown and I am going to shoot the clown when he attempts to blow up a balloon. If the clown has a special ability that allows him to blow up his balloon with out moving or blowing air into the balloon how am I going to tell when he starts blowing up this balloon?

Still Spell doesn't mean you cast a spell without moving. It means you cast a spell _without somatic components_. You still need to concentrate, and this can be betrayed by your actions. To use your analogy, think of the clown as having a special ability to blow up the balloon by pressing a remote control that fires a gun. He doesn't have to aim the gun (Still Spell), but he still has to press the remote control (concentrate). This can be a clue for an alert observer.

In the end, though, thinking too hard about fantasy is bad. Rule it how you like. Trying to get too deep will just get you into all sorts of contradictions.

 

[Zulkir of Dartmouth]

Well I think that anyone that has had the patience to read all two long sad pages, of this long sad thread, is amazing and deserves a great ending for this thread. And here it is.

You can;

1) Let the archer fire the arrow, even though there is no real rules stating that he could fire on the wizard that has done nothing but stand still and not say anything.

OR,

2) Let the wizard get away with the very precisely prepared spell that omits any sign that he is actually casting a spell.
Which by the way has been killed with supporting rules by both DnD Rules Machine and I for the last two long sad pages.

But, the decision is up to you.

If you do have to make a call like this with hong playing in your game, I feel sad for you. Because you hear about his larger peanus. And quantum electrodynamics, (don't ask me why.)
Which could be quite distracting to the other players.


Well with all that said I would like to say one last thing;



THE ARCHER WOULD NOT GET HIS SHOT!!!!

 

[the Jester]

Well I think that anyone that has had the patience to read all two long sad pages, of this long sad thread, is amazing and deserves a great ending for this thread.

Well, I agree with that much!

Personally, I'd say that you have to be able to identify the trigger of your ready action in order to take it. I'd say that an archer with no spellcraft would most likely not know that the wizard was casting a spell. He'd know the wizard was doing something, but I'm very tight with ready actions, so I wouldn't give him the shot. Maybe the wizard is concentrating to activate a magic item; maybe he's activating a psionic ability. Who knows? Not the archer.

That said, there is no clear rule on this one in the books and I can definitely see both sides of the argument.

It's like the invisible guy who moves through your threatened area. If you know he's there you might be able to get an aoo, but if you don't, no way- not in my campaign. Despite the fact that the FAQ indicates you do.

 

[hong]

2) Let the wizard get away with the very precisely prepared spell that omits any sign that he is actually casting a spell.
Which by the way has been killed with supporting rules by both DnD Rules Machine and I for the last two long sad pages.

How disingenuous.

1) A spell without V and S components is not the same as an undetectable spell. Refer to the rebuttal of your own analogy, since that seems to be your preferred method of argument.

2) Metamagic feats do not have to be "precisely prepared" (evidence: sorc, bard). Any conclusions reached about their effects must take into account how these spontaneous spellcasters would use them as well.

3) You don't take Still Spell to avoid being detected. You take it to negate those darned arcane spell failure chances.

 

[Darklone]

Thanks guys, I do have to say I enjoyed your talk tremendously.

I have to agree with hong though.

Example: An invisible person runs past your hero. Assuming your hero is not flatfooted or has the Combat Reflexes feat, he gets an AoO without knowing the position.

The rules are formulated passive in that way. If you do something, you suffer AoOs.

In this case, if you cast, you suffer AoOs or readied actions. Nothing in the feat description says otherwise.

As for that argument about not having a problem while standing still in combat... Now this is silly. If you do this, you would get chopped to pieces at once.

 

[Hypersmurf]

3) You don't take Still Spell to avoid being detected. You take it to negate those darned arcane spell failure chances.

And to cast while grappled.

I have to agree - the Spellcraft check to identify a spell being cast is completely different to identifying that a spell is being cast.

Player: "I ready an action to counterspell."
DM: "He starts casting."
Player: "Do I roll a Spellcraft check to identify?"
DM: "No - no verbal or somatic components, you can't identify it."
Player: "Fine, I attempt to counter with Dispel Magic."

As for archers not knowing that Still Spells can exist, that's crazy. Let's look at a modern example.

Player 1: "He's got a gun? Fine, I ready an action to attack if I hear a gunshot."
Player 2: "Hey, there might not be a gunshot... remember, some guns have silencers..."
Player 1: "Good point - I'll amend that. I'll attack if he fires his gun."

Just because most spells cast have Verbal and Somatic components, and because most spells don't have Metamagic applied, doesn't mean that Metamagic is obscure or unknown.

Player: "I'll ready an action to smack him if he attacks."
DM: "He kicks you."
Player: "Does my ready action trigger?"
DM: "No, he didn't use his sword. Most people attack with their sword, so you weren't expecting it when he kicked you."

To me, it seems that in a world where Metamagic is known to exist, if someone is specifically watching someone to see if they cast a spell ("I ready an action to shoot him if he casts"), then the fact that that person takes a Standard Action, which provokes Attacks of Opportunity, and fills the description of the Ready trigger, there's enough there to trigger the action.

Even a Quickened spell can provoke AoOs or trigger Readied actions. If that can do it, the a Standard Action's worth of Concentration should be plenty...

-Hyp.

 

[Maldur]

I have to agree with Hong as well.

The archer can make the attack. I would however require a spot check to see if the archer notices the less obvious clues that the wizard is actually casting or just concentrationg hard on something else.

btw I would not call Hong an idiot, he might use very weird examples or other ' not quite normal' language. But the man is actually quite knowledgable

He does require some getting used to though.

 

[IceBear]

Guys, hong and a few others (that have recently posted)have been on these boards longer than Zulkir and DND Rule Machine. This HAS been debated in the past and it was the concenus of the board that IF the archer could detect that a spell was being cast then he would get a readied action. Most people decided to go with a Spot check. That's why Hong is arguing this opinion.

Since no one here has seen a stilled, silent spell being cast we have no idea what signs there might be that magic is being cast, and since there is no where in the rules that states that you CAN'T ready against a silent, stilled spell then it's really up to the DM.

And off topic, I treat AoO like Hong. By the rules if you're invisible and drink a potion you would suffer an AoO. I always had trouble with that until I realized it isn't so much that the attacker is getting a free attack as it is the defender isn't defending against the attacker's swings.

Actually, in all fairness to Zulkir and DND Rule Machine, a lot of the crux of the past debate was the fact that you would get an AoO against a silent, still spell then there must be a way of detecting it. However, I believe that was based on the logic that an AoO was a free attack in response to an action as opposed to an attack that get's through because the defender lowered his defences. With this new mindset, I would make the Spot check for the archer to be very high.

IceBear

 

[dcollins]

There's also the example of a "spell-like ability", which according to the rules functions just like a spell, has no components of any sort (somatic, varbal, or material), and yet still provokes attacks-of-opportunity. It seems to imply that the user of such an ability is making some change to their behavior to provoke that AOO.

It's up to the DM to determine the in-game flavor of exactly what this change in behavior is. Whatever it is, it seems reasonable that spells with no components entail the same effort, and remain subject to both AOOs and specific ready actions.

 

[Zulkir of Dartmouth]

Guys, hong and a few others (that have recently posted)have been on these boards longer than Zulkir and DND Rule Machine. This HAS been debated in the past and it was the concenus of the board that IF the archer could detect that a spell was being cast then he would get a readied action. Most people decided to go with a Spot check.

Hey I understand that guys,

But I want you to know I see that you are a respected poster on this board and I am not attacking you at all. So please don't get so defensive.

and,

And what would be the DC of the Spot? And how did you calculate it?

I am not trying to be an ass here, but I know that this will be most likely be up to the DM. But I like to base my rules on existing rules and I also like to be able to explain this to others. So if you could do this for me I would appreciate it.

So once again, I would like to see that side of the argument, and I understand that there is no specific rules about this. But how would calculate the DC of the spot check in your game? I think that this might be good.

Ready actions don't magically communicate special knowledge. If the archer had some pertinent ability to recognize spells without visual or auditory clues, then I would allow him the ready action. It may be a high spot, sense motive, spellcraft, or some other skill, or it might be some kind of ESP. The most straightforward (and rules-supported) of these would be a Spot check, modified for distance, and with a -20 circumstance penalty for doing an 'impossible' task (spotting a spell with no somatic components).

A Spot check modified for distance and with a -20 penalty sounds good. But what would you guys call the DC?

I am thinking it would have to be over 20. And lets say the archer is at 40 ft (-4 to check), and a -20 circumstance. That means our archer would need a 44 check to spot the wizard cast so he could fire his arrow.

But I would like to know what you guys think.