Spells that mimic Sleight of Hand?

[killem2]

Any out there?

[Yuki Akuma]

Joke answer: Prestidigitation.

[Glimbur]

Cheat. Invisibility. Dimension Door. Which part of sleight of hand did you want to replicate?

[killem2]

Cheat. Invisibility. Dimension Door. Which part of sleight of hand did you want to replicate?

Replicating the DC 20 of lifting an item off a person.

[LTwerewolf]

Arguably Charm person. Why steal when you can just have them hand it to you?

[Flickerdart]

Guidance of the Avatar doesn't mimic Sleight of Hand, but gives you a big fat bonus on the check.

[Qwertystop]

There's an Enchantment (Compulsion) with the effect of "target gives you whatever they're holding".

[Hirax]

Entice gift. Sort of.

[killem2]

Well the person is a ghost wizard, level 8, who doesn't want to be noticed, when he is lifting his old spell book off the person who took it, so he can still prepare his spells with out a trace of them knowing.

[DoughGuy]

Wouldn't mage hand work?

[Qwertystop]

Well the person is a ghost wizard, level 8, who doesn't want to be noticed, when he is lifting his old spell book off the person who took it, so he can still prepare his spells with out a trace of them knowing.

So you're putting the same question into two different threads?

[killem2]

So you're putting the same question into two different threads?

I wouldn't say so. One is understanding the ghost template, how it works with a wizard, how to incorporate it into an adventure.

This thread, I am trying to find specific spells and didn't want to bog down the discussion of ghost progressions. It is a specific question, and got lost way to easily. Like most threads on these forums, topics at hand get turned into all kinds of suggestions and I'd rather not have that happen in one thread and try and keep it coherent.


Wouldn't mage hand work?



How in the hell did I miss such a simple spell. I thought there was something like this. This should do it. Does one have to roll against this to detect if it is happening?

[JeminiZero]

The closest I'm aware of is Phantasmal Thief (SpC 155), but that is a level 5 spell.

[killem2]

The closest I'm aware of is Phantasmal Thief (SpC 155), but that is a level 5 spell.

This is very awesome, a bit higher level, but never the less it works. I think what I was looking for, was right under my nose in that level 0 spell. When my players rest, unless they tell me that they are purposely securing all their belongings in some fashion to prevent theft, I assume they are at the very least just sat beside them in a neat pile, like a spell book would be inside a back pack.

[TuggyNE]

How in the hell did I miss such a simple spell. I thought there was something like this. This should do it. Does one have to roll against this to detect if it is happening?

Mage hand wouldn't work if the object was attended, which means it can't replicate Sleight of Hand.

Telekinesis would, however, with a Will save, and Ghosts even get it as an option.

[killem2]

Mage hand wouldn't work if the object was attended, which means it can't replicate Sleight of Hand.

Telekinesis would, however, with a Will save, and Ghosts even get it as an option.

So, if they are asleep, mage hand can work, or is being a sleep still ruled as attention?

[TuggyNE]

So, if they are asleep, mage hand can work, or is being a sleep still ruled as attention?

As far as I know being asleep does not affect whether an object is attended or not. The description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#object) basically says that if the object is touching the character it's attended, and that's about it.

[Spuddles]

As far as I know being asleep does not affect whether an object is attended or not. The description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#object) basically says that if the object is touching the character it's attended, and that's about it.

Unconscious creatures are always willing. Though I dunno if their items would be.

[TuggyNE]

Unconscious creatures are always willing. Though I dunno if their items would be.

Unconscious creatures are always valid targets for willing-only spells, yes. That may or may not mean they always voluntarily give up their saving throws on all spells. (I'm inclined to believe the slight difference in language, combined with common-sense, suggest that the correct resolution of the ambiguity is that they are not the same thing.)

[Ravens_cry]

While not a spell per sae, Arcane Tricksters get Ranged Legerdemain (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/arcaneTrickster.htm#rangedLegerdemain), which allows the use of Sleight of Hand at range but only initially once per day and at a somewhat increased DC.

[Flickerdart]

Unconscious creatures are always willing. Though I dunno if their items would be.
This, for some reason, is a very common mistake.


Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing
This rule appears under the "Target or Targets" section of "Aiming a Spell". It's pretty clear that it only relates to what a spell can target. The text dealing with saving throws is much further down, in the section called "Saving Throws". Under the subsection "Voluntarily Giving Up a Saving Throw", we have the following rule:

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

Ergo, a creature does not forfeit its saving throws when unconscious or asleep, because being willing and giving up your saving throw are not the same thing.

[Spuddles]

The RAI is pretty clear, agreed, but the text actually reads "unconcious creatures are automatically considered willing" without caveats.

[Flickerdart]

The RAI is pretty clear, agreed, but the text actually reads "unconcious creatures are automatically considered willing" without caveats.
Yes, but the very same section defines what willing means, and it has nothing to do with saving throws.

[Spuddles]

Yes, but the very same section defines what willing means, and it has nothing to do with saving throws.

Ah, I see now what you're saying.