[3.X] Magic FX?

[virgileso]

Once you get past stuff like the chanting, how obvious is it that you're casting a spell? Ignoring the obvious stuff like fireballs, can you visually tell if something is enchanted with things such as magic weapon?

If you were a master of Silent and Still spells, what spells are available if you didn't want witnesses to even know magic was happening around them?

[Karmea]

There's a skill trick for that, Conceal Spellcasting. Sleight of Hand check to hide that you're casting anything.

Invisible Spell (http://dndtools.eu/feats/cityscape--53/invisible-spell--1684/) helps with stealthy casting also.

[Slipperychicken]

As for magic spells, let me direct you to the appropriate Spellcraft (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm) DC.


20 + spell level
Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.

I believe that being struck with, or wielding the weapon in question should be sufficient to allow this check. After all, a Magic Weapon spell improves both tohit and damage, and such effects are plausibly detectable by the user (who notices he swings more accurately and harder) or target (who notices the wielder's weapon strikes better and may overcome his DR).

As for "being aware that magic is happening around him", there are obvious things like the spells' measurable effects (which would allow a Spellcraft check), also the spells' auras, and the fact that characters who attempt a save against a spell may attempt a Spellcraft check to identify it.


25 + spell level
After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was. No action required. No retry.


20 + spell level
Identify materials created or shaped by magic, such as noting that an iron wall is the result of a wall of iron spell. No action required. No retry.

Huh. I didn't even know half this stuff was in the rules at all.

[virgileso]

What if the observers do not have any ranks in Spellcraft, which is a trained only skill?

[DarkSonic1337]

If they're forced to roll a save then they feel hostile intent whether or not they pass the save (and obviously if they fail the save most spells will do something bad to them...and they'd notice). Spells that target also cause them to feel hostile intent even if there's no save. Spells with verbal components are spoken in a loud and clear voice, spells with somatic components involve broad gestures that are hard to conceal, and spells with material components involve reaching into a bag and pulling them out for them to vanish into thin air as part of casting the spell.

Of course, you can use eschew materials, still spell, and silent spell on an invisible spell that affects an area in a non violent way and people wouldn't even notice. Well at least not without spellcraft trained and/or magical detection.

[TuggyNE]

What if the observers do not have any ranks in Spellcraft, which is a trained only skill?

Then … they have no clue what the subtle, nigh-invisible waves of magical energy or odd effects mean? If you can't make the check, you can't make the check.

Same as a failed Spot check, really: it's not necessarily that you saw nothing, just that you couldn't make anything useful of what you did see and it looked like meaningless background movement or patterns.

[Diarmuid]

I believe that being struck with, or wielding the weapon in question should be sufficient to allow this check. After all, a Magic Weapon spell improves both tohit and damage, and such effects are plausibly detectable by the user (who notices he swings more accurately and harder) or target (who notices the wielder's weapon strikes better and may overcome his DR).

As for "being aware that magic is happening around him", there are obvious things like the spells' measurable effects (which would allow a Spellcraft check), also the spells' auras, and the fact that characters who attempt a save against a spell may attempt a Spellcraft check to identify it.


I wouldnt allow a skill check from getting hit with a magical weapon as opposed to a nonmagical one unless there was some obviously observable effect on the magical one. A Flaming sword, might have wreathes of flames, Spellcraft. A +1 sword likely does nothing (if it were giving off light like the DMG says something like 50% of all magic weapons do, then sure).

I've always assumed that there has to be something observable to warrant the spellcraft check.

That guy's kinda hard to see, Spellcraft check to identify his Blur spell.
That guy just kicked down that door, no spellcraft to determine he's under a Bull's Strength spell.

[Slipperychicken]

I wouldnt allow a skill check from getting hit with a magical weapon as opposed to a nonmagical one unless there was some obviously observable effect on the magical one. A Flaming sword, might have wreathes of flames, Spellcraft. A +1 sword likely does nothing (if it were giving off light like the DMG says something like 50% of all magic weapons do, then sure).

I've always assumed that there has to be something observable to warrant the spellcraft check.

That guy's kinda hard to see, Spellcraft check to identify his Blur spell.
That guy just kicked down that door, no spellcraft to determine he's under a Bull's Strength spell.

The Bull's Strength might be detectable if you see the subject before and after casting, as it may artificially enlarge the subject's muscles, or otherwise alter his body structure. I mention it because many tables I've played at describe the subject's muscles enlarging under the spell.


What if the observers do not have any ranks in Spellcraft, which is a trained only skill?

Then they better hope they have a good Wizard on their team. Otherwise, they're kinda boned.

[virgileso]

Then they better hope they have a good Wizard on their team. Otherwise, they're kinda boned.Oh, the witnesses being able to put up a fight isn't the problem; it's a matter of whether they can tell magic was afoot & alert the authorities of unauthorized wizards.

[Slipperychicken]

Oh, the witnesses being able to put up a fight isn't the problem; it's a matter of whether they can tell magic was afoot & alert the authorities of unauthorized wizards.

In that case, it really depends on what you're casting, how, and to what purpose.

[virgileso]

In that case, it really depends on what you're casting, how, and to what purpose.That is what I was asking from the start.
Once you get past stuff like the chanting, how obvious is it that you're casting a spell? Ignoring the obvious stuff like fireballs, can you visually tell if something is enchanted with things such as magic weapon?

If you were a master of Silent and Still spells, what spells are available if you didn't want witnesses to even know magic was happening around them?What spells are there that fulfill this purpose?