Detecting a silent spell that has only a verbal component ..

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:03:03 GMT,
Jukka.Sinisalo@kemira-growhow.remthis.com.invalid (Jukka Sinisalo) scribed
into the ether:

>[I found an older thread dealing with a similar issue, but not quite]
>
>If a sorcerer casts a silent spell with only a verbal component
>(or silent and still spell that has only S, V), what are the
>chances that someone else can notice that a spell
>is being cast?
>
>Let's say four persons are walking on a road (or scouting
>carefully in a dungeon), and one of them (the sorcerer)
>casts a silent and still Arcane sight.
>
>What are the chances one of the other three notices
>something is going on?
>
>It's a full round action for the sorcer, after all, so
>that may be noticeable. Would you allow a spot
>check opposed by the sorcerer bluff? Something
>else?

He'd have to stop walking...I'd think that the other people would notice if
he suddenly stood in place for no apparent reason.

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jukka Sinisalo wrote:
> [I found an older thread dealing with a similar issue, but not quite]
>
> If a sorcerer casts a silent spell with only a verbal component
> (or silent and still spell that has only S, V), what are the
> chances that someone else can notice that a spell
> is being cast?

Effectively none, the Sorcerer isn't doing anything.

> Let's say four persons are walking on a road (or scouting
> carefully in a dungeon), and one of them (the sorcerer)
> casts a silent and still Arcane sight.

Why are your eyes glowing blue? The spellcasting may be
invisible, but the effects are not.

> What are the chances one of the other three notices
> something is going on?

What are the chances they see his eyes? A relatively low
DC spot roll would do it IMAO (probably DC 5 at most).
For more subtle spells there is a spellcraft roll at
DC 20+spell level if you can see any of the effects of
the magic. If the spell requires a save the characters
always know if they succeed at a save (but not what they
have saved against or who cast the spell).

> It's a full round action for the sorcer, after all, so
> that may be noticeable. Would you allow a spot
> check opposed by the sorcerer bluff? Something
> else?

Sense Motive vs. Bluff, with a +5 or more to the bluff
since it is an easy one. Normal walking pausing to look
at a flower or search the woods or whatever for a few
seconds is NOT noticable.

> How about a wizard or cleric doing the same thing?
> Even they have to spend an action doing it, and
> also the concentration required to cast a spell
> may be noticeable.

I would give no roll at all for a prepared spell unless
the caster is talking at the same time.

DougL

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com wrote:

> >[I found an older thread dealing with a similar issue, but not quite]
> >
> >If a sorcerer casts a silent spell with only a verbal component
> >(or silent and still spell that has only S, V), what are the
> >chances that someone else can notice that a spell
> >is being cast?
> >
> >Let's say four persons are walking on a road (or scouting
> >carefully in a dungeon), and one of them (the sorcerer)
> >casts a silent and still Arcane sight.
> >
> >What are the chances one of the other three notices
> >something is going on?
> >
> >It's a full round action for the sorcer, after all, so
> >that may be noticeable. Would you allow a spot
> >check opposed by the sorcerer bluff? Something
> >else?
>
> He'd have to stop walking...I'd think that the other people would notice if
> he suddenly stood in place for no apparent reason.

When people are travelling in D&D, they are assumed to walk at their
speed. So even strictly by the book, a wizard wouldn't noticably stop. A
sorcerer would, since casting metamagicked spells is a full-round action
for sorcerers.

But I think this is getting to hung up on rules meant primarily for
combat spellcasting.

I'd allow the sorcerer or wizard to cast a spell unnoticed if it was
metamagicked so it didn't have any components. I'd allow sense motive
opposed by caster's bluff only if the players asked for it or the NPCs
had reason to be suspicious.

Still and Silent aren't all that great already, I don't think they need
to be weakened further.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> I'd allow the sorcerer or wizard to cast a spell unnoticed if it was
> metamagicked so it didn't have any components. I'd allow sense motive
> opposed by caster's bluff only if the players asked for it or the NPCs
> had reason to be suspicious.
>
> Still and Silent aren't all that great already, I don't think they need
> to be weakened further.
>
I'm inclined to agree for the same reasons, BUT the general consensus (which
I also agree with) on use of Spell-like Abilities was that they *are*
noticeable (since they require concentration) and therefore can be reacted
to and even Readied against. Classic example is paladin's Detect Evil. I
don't know any DM that'd let you get away with running that all the time
without getting caught.

I've room to go either way. But I'd want SLA's to follow the same rules as
still, silent spells.

Spinner

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Spinner wrote:
>
> I'm inclined to agree for the same reasons, BUT the general consensus (which
> I also agree with) on use of Spell-like Abilities was that they *are*
> noticeable (since they require concentration) and therefore can be reacted
> to and even Readied against. Classic example is paladin's Detect Evil. I
> don't know any DM that'd let you get away with running that all the time
> without getting caught.

Allow me to introduce myself, then. ;-)

-Bluto

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

bprentic@uwo.ca wrote:

> > I'd allow the sorcerer or wizard to cast a spell unnoticed if it was
> > metamagicked so it didn't have any components. I'd allow sense motive
> > opposed by caster's bluff only if the players asked for it or the NPCs
> > had reason to be suspicious.
> >
> > Still and Silent aren't all that great already, I don't think they need
> > to be weakened further.
>
> I'm inclined to agree for the same reasons, BUT the general consensus (which
> I also agree with) on use of Spell-like Abilities was that they *are*
> noticeable (since they require concentration) and therefore can be reacted
> to and even Readied against. Classic example is paladin's Detect Evil. I
> don't know any DM that'd let you get away with running that all the time
> without getting caught.
>
> I've room to go either way. But I'd want SLA's to follow the same rules as
> still, silent spells.

Agreed.

However, I'm not sure it's possible to come up with a hard, codified way
of dealing with it with which I'd be happy.

I definitely run spell-like and Still Silent spell use as noticable in
combat: you can ready against them, they provoke AoOs...

But I tend to run them as unnoticable outside of combat, unless someone
is specifically paying attention.

OTTH, even outside of combat, using at will SLAs non-stop is bound to
get noticed quickly (for some arbitrary value of "quickly").

To back this up with a real world example: try multiplying 42 x 17 in
your head. It definitely takes concentration, and it could probably be
noticed if you tried to do it in a fist fight. However, if you're just
walking, it would take someone really paying attention to you to notice
you're "doing" anything. And if just kept on and on doing arithmetic in
your head, after a while someone would probably notice even if they
weren't paying special attention.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:03:03 GMT,
Jukka.Sinisalo@kemira-growhow.remthis.com.invalid (Jukka Sinisalo)
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Let's say four persons are walking on a road (or scouting
> carefully in a dungeon), and one of them (the sorcerer)
> casts a silent and still Arcane sight.
>
> What are the chances one of the other three notices
> something is going on?

Well, as Arcane Sight makes your eyes glow blue, while the others may
not notice the spell being cast, they'll see those nice blue
side-lights.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

DougL wrote:
>>It's a full round action for the sorcer, after all, so
>>that may be noticeable. Would you allow a spot
>>check opposed by the sorcerer bluff? Something
>>else?
> Sense Motive vs. Bluff, with a +5 or more to the bluff
> since it is an easy one. Normal walking pausing to look
> at a flower or search the woods or whatever for a few
> seconds is NOT noticable.

Give a bonus for Spellcraft as well.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

~consul wrote:
> DougL wrote:
> >>It's a full round action for the sorcer, after all, so
> >>that may be noticeable. Would you allow a spot
> >>check opposed by the sorcerer bluff? Something
> >>else?
> > Sense Motive vs. Bluff, with a +5 or more to the bluff
> > since it is an easy one. Normal walking pausing to look
> > at a flower or search the woods or whatever for a few
> > seconds is NOT noticable.
>
> Give a bonus for Spellcraft as well.

I could easily see a +2 synergy bonus for 5 ranks in spellcraft
on the Sense Motive roll. Makes sense.

DougL