Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Mark A Vandermeulen
    Guest

    Surreptitious Spell Casting (wa

    On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Gary V. Foss wrote:

    > On a semi-related note: Just how obvious do you guys think spellcasting is? I mean
    > some spells that have only verbal and somatic components could potentially be cast
    > without the targets realizing it. The Hypnotism spell should definitely be this way.
    > Charm Person has such a quick casting time that it could easily be disguised or
    > hidden. Just how loud to the verbal components have to be? Spoken in a normal tone of
    > voice, I'd say. (Exception being, of course, the Shout spell....) The Charm Person
    > spell has a 120 yard range. You could easily cast the spell on someone at the other
    > end of a football field and they wouldn't even notice it. They'd just find you
    > amazingly charming when you walked, introduced yourself and asked them to hold off the
    > red dragon for "a round or two" while you made your escape.
    >
    > Are intelligence checks in order for this sort of thing? What do you
    guys think?

    I pretty much agree with you assessments here. I certainly think that
    spell casting should have the possibility of surreptivity (?) and that the
    more creative the player is the more likely the character is to pull it
    off. The stuff with the bard is exactly the sort of thing I would reward a
    character for doing. That's an excellent example.

    I would say normal voice should be sufficient; I would probably assess
    penalties for a PC trying to cast at a whisper (while remaining hidden,
    for example). As far as somatic components, I might differ from you there
    a little bit. My personal conception of the Way Magick Works is the spells
    are Causality Knotworks in the Mebhaighl Webwork of Reality (which
    probably reveals influence from WW's M:tA), and that the somatic
    components are either helpful or essential to the mental agility that must
    go on to form these Knotworks, or Sigils. So I tend to view somatic
    components as fairly obviously of a magical nature. Doesn't necessarily
    need to be that way, though. Perhaps as wizards improve in skill and
    understanding, the no longer need to rely on the words and gestures as
    much, and so they can be cast at whispered voice and with inconspicuous
    gestures when the wizard's maximum spell level is three or four levels
    above the spell he's trying to cast on the quiet.

    Mark VanderMeulen
    vander+@pitt.edu

  2. #2
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Surreptitious Spell Casting (wa

    Mark A Vandermeulen wrote:

    > On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Gary V. Foss wrote:
    >
    > > On a semi-related note: Just how obvious do you guys think spellcasting is? I mean
    > > some spells that have only verbal and somatic components could potentially be cast
    > > without the targets realizing it. The Hypnotism spell should definitely be this way.
    > > Charm Person has such a quick casting time that it could easily be disguised or
    > > hidden. Just how loud to the verbal components have to be? Spoken in a normal tone of
    > > voice, I'd say. (Exception being, of course, the Shout spell....) The Charm Person
    > > spell has a 120 yard range. You could easily cast the spell on someone at the other
    > > end of a football field and they wouldn't even notice it. They'd just find you
    > > amazingly charming when you walked, introduced yourself and asked them to hold off the
    > > red dragon for "a round or two" while you made your escape.
    >
    > I pretty much agree with you assessments here. I certainly think that
    > spell casting should have the possibility of surreptivity (?) and that the
    > more creative the player is the more likely the character is to pull it
    > off. The stuff with the bard is exactly the sort of thing I would reward a
    > character for doing. That's an excellent example.
    >
    > I would say normal voice should be sufficient; I would probably assess
    > penalties for a PC trying to cast at a whisper (while remaining hidden,
    > for example). As far as somatic components, I might differ from you there
    > a little bit. My personal conception of the Way Magick Works is the spells
    > are Causality Knotworks in the Mebhaighl Webwork of Reality (which
    > probably reveals influence from WW's M:tA), and that the somatic
    > components are either helpful or essential to the mental agility that must
    > go on to form these Knotworks, or Sigils. So I tend to view somatic
    > components as fairly obviously of a magical nature. Doesn't necessarily
    > need to be that way, though. Perhaps as wizards improve in skill and
    > understanding, the no longer need to rely on the words and gestures as
    > much, and so they can be cast at whispered voice and with inconspicuous
    > gestures when the wizard's maximum spell level is three or four levels
    > above the spell he's trying to cast on the quiet.

    The way I think I'll rule on this in the future if it ever comes up again (and I'm pretty
    sure it will) is that a spellcaster can cast a spell surreptitiously if he successfully makes
    a Spellcraft proficiency check. Ability checks for proficiencies in my campaign are an
    average of the relevant ability and the character's level rounded up, so this will reflect
    the spellcaster's skill improving the way you describe.

    I'll give bonuses/penalties to that check based on how the spellcaster is trying to hide his
    efforts, the distance and activities of any observers and the spell in question. Hiding a
    spell by weaving it into a poem should be pretty easy compared to casting a Lightning Bolt
    while boogying on the dance floor. The casting time of a spell will also be a negative
    modifier. It's easier to hide casting a spell with a 1 segment casting time compared to
    casting a spell with a 6 segment casting time. In fact, maybe that should be doubled as a
    negative modifier. Keeping a spell unnoticed that takes 36 seconds to cast would be pretty
    tough. Hmmm.... I'll have to experiment and see how that works.

    A successful check will not necessarily fool others with Spellcraft, however, as they can
    make a proficiency check to recognize that a spell was cast. Someone able to cast the
    surreptitiously cast spell themselves will recognize not only that a spell was cast, but the
    spell type per the standard description of the Spellcraft proficiency. Those who are unable
    to cast the spell (a priest witnessing a bard cast a mage spell for example) will only
    recognize that a spell was cast.

    Dealing with spells that require a saving throw on the part of the target is harder. Should
    a character automatically recognize that saving throw as an attack? Would a he even notice
    it? I'm thinking of a requiring a wisdom or intelligence check in order to recognize a
    saving throw as having resulted from someone casting a spell if that person didn't notice the
    spell being cast. Does that sound reasonable?

    The reason I'm dedicating so much time to this is because it has come up in my campaigns in
    the past, and I think it would be a pretty powerful weapon for elves to use in maintaining
    their lands. Charming humans and sending them away (or keeping them captive for years as
    love slaves like dryads do, or whatever other use elves wanted to put them to) would seem
    like a pretty peaceful response to the way the Gheallie Sidhe operates. Humans would start
    to get the hint pretty quickly when their fellows vanished whenever they went into elven
    lands and only return decades later like Rip Van Winkle....

    Gary

  3. #3
    Mark A Vandermeulen
    Guest

    Surreptitious Spell Casting (wa

    On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Gary V. Foss wrote:

    > The way I think I'll rule on this in the future if it ever comes up
    again (and I'm pretty
    > sure it will) is that a spellcaster can cast a spell surreptitiously if
    he successfully makes
    > a Spellcraft proficiency check. Ability checks for proficiencies in my
    campaign are an
    > average of the relevant ability and the character's level rounded up,
    so this will reflect
    > the spellcaster's skill improving the way you describe.

    That's a good idea. I may have to use that.

    > I'll give bonuses/penalties to that check based on how the spellcaster
    is trying to hide his
    > efforts, the distance and activities of any observers and the spell in
    question. Hiding a
    > spell by weaving it into a poem should be pretty easy compared to
    casting a Lightning Bolt
    > while boogying on the dance floor.

    Yeah, but John Travolta could do it. :)

    > A successful check will not necessarily fool others with Spellcraft,
    however, as they can
    > make a proficiency check to recognize that a spell was cast. Someone
    able to cast the
    > surreptitiously cast spell themselves will recognize not only that a
    spell was cast, but the
    > spell type per the standard description of the Spellcraft proficiency.
    Those who are unable
    > to cast the spell (a priest witnessing a bard cast a mage spell for
    example) will only
    > recognize that a spell was cast.

    I would probably still rule that the spell is cast as though the caster
    were at least one level lower in terms of effect, even if the proficiency
    check was successful. There should be some trade-off for secrecy.

    > Dealing with spells that require a saving throw on the part of the
    target is harder. Should
    > a character automatically recognize that saving throw as an attack?
    Would a he even notice
    > it? I'm thinking of a requiring a wisdom or intelligence check in
    order to recognize a
    > saving throw as having resulted from someone casting a spell if that
    person didn't notice the
    > spell being cast. Does that sound reasonable?

    Sounds good to me. Should work pretty well against my PC's, too, because
    they are by now used to me asking them for proficiency rolls without any
    explanation (and sometimes I do it just to keep them on their toes.

    Mark VanderMeulen
    vander+@pitt.edu

  4. #4
    Jan Arnoldus
    Guest

    Surreptitious Spell Casting (wa

    At 11:47 2-11-98 -0800, you wrote:
    >Mark A Vandermeulen wrote:
    >
    >Hiding a spell by weaving it into a poem should be pretty easy compared to
    casting a >Lightning Bolt while boogying on the dance floor.

    Now I know why they invented disco dancing ;-)

  5. #5
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Surreptitious Spell Casting (wa

    Jan Arnoldus wrote:

    > At 11:47 2-11-98 -0800, you wrote:
    > >Mark A Vandermeulen wrote:
    > >
    > >Hiding a spell by weaving it into a poem should be pretty easy compared to
    > casting a >Lightning Bolt while boogying on the dance floor.
    >
    > Now I know why they invented disco dancing ;-)

    You know that move with his hip thrust out and one hand pointing up at the
    sky? That could actually be the somatic component for Call Lightning
    spell.... That spinning hands thing could be what you do when casting a
    Confusion spell. There is, of course, the omnipresent Otto's Irresistible
    Dance that Mr. Travolta seemed able to cast on the country as a whole. I
    haven't quite come up with a magical explanation for polyester yet, though....

    Gary

  6. #6
    Pieter Sleijpen
    Guest

    Surreptitious Spell Casting (wa

    In the Spells&Magic there are some rules concerning your questions. In
    this book they indeed suggest an intelligence check and give a bonus or
    penalty depending on the subtility of the spell. In my campaign world
    many elven spells are songs (afterall they teached these to the bards),
    esspecialy enchantment/charm spells. So it is redicolous easy to hide
    their casting in a song unless someone knows about this casting system
    (other elves and true bards). In Dark Sun there is also a proficiency
    that makes it possible for mages to hide there spells.

    So, yes I do allow the secret casting of magic. The verbal component
    does prevent silent casting though, that is something on an other level.
    How loud is this verbal component anyway? Is it always the same or can a
    mage whisper a spell?

  7. #7
    gingerprince
    Guest

    Surreptitious Spell Casting (wa

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Pieter Sleijpen
    >Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 3:52 AM
    >
    >
    >>The verbal component does prevent silent casting though, that is something
    >>on an other level. How loud is this verbal component anyway? Is it always
    >the
    >>same or can a mage whisper a spell?
    >>
    >I allow mages, but not priests, to research a silent version of spells. In
    >general I permit one these solutions: 1) bump the silent version up a
    level,
    >or 2) introduce a new componant, usually a material in place of the verbal.
    >
    >I like getting my players researching spells, because I want them to dabble
    >in spell design a bit. Creating your own spell is after all the mark of a
    >wizard who has arrived.
    >
    >Kenneth Gauck
    >c558382@earthlink.net


    There were rules in an issue of Dragon a while back for researching
    spells that were very interesting. Also in my campaign I created a house
    rule whereby a mage of 10th level could cast spells without one of the
    components Verbal somatic or material. Then two at 15th and all three at
    twentieth, obviously higher level spells and ones that required a special
    component eg Magic Jar are exceptions.

    Nick

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Combat Casting
    By Arjan in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2011, 01:01 AM
  2. Casting Time
    By Arjan in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2011, 01:01 AM
  3. Casting Spells
    By Arjan in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2011, 01:01 AM
  4. Casting DC
    By BRadmin in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-18-2007, 02:50 AM
  5. Surreptitious Spell Casting (was El
    By Gary V. Foss in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-01-1998, 11:54 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.