Results 1 to 7 of 7
Thread: Surreptitious Spell Casting (wa
-
11-02-1998, 05:46 AM #1Mark A VandermeulenGuest
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
-
11-02-1998, 07:47 PM #2Gary V. FossGuest
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
-
11-02-1998, 09:45 PM #3Mark A VandermeulenGuest
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
-
11-02-1998, 10:09 PM #4Jan ArnoldusGuest
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 ;-)
-
11-02-1998, 10:42 PM #5Gary V. FossGuest
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
-
11-03-1998, 08:44 AM #6Pieter SleijpenGuest
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?
-
11-12-1998, 06:16 PM #7gingerprinceGuest
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
-
Combat Casting
By Arjan in forum MainReplies: 0Last Post: 11-05-2011, 01:01 AM -
Casting Time
By Arjan in forum MainReplies: 0Last Post: 11-05-2011, 01:01 AM -
Casting Spells
By Arjan in forum MainReplies: 0Last Post: 11-05-2011, 01:01 AM -
Casting DC
By BRadmin in forum MainReplies: 0Last Post: 06-18-2007, 02:50 AM -
Surreptitious Spell Casting (was El
By Gary V. Foss in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 0Last Post: 11-01-1998, 11:54 PM
Bookmarks