Pathfinder: Are Witch Hexes Subtle by default unless stated otherwise?

[Raine_Sage]

Ok so let me explain what I'm asking:

A wizard wants to cast sleep on a guard without tipping the other guard off. However because this is a Spell that requires Verbal, Somatic, and Material components (either the actual materials or an arcane focus), it will be fairly obvious that he's doing something weird when he starts muttering spells and dusting the guy with rose petals. In order to disguise what he is doing a Wizard would need the Conceal Spell feat which is by no means a foolproof method of non-detection and also extends the needed casting time.

A witch wants to use the slumber hex on a guard without tipping the other guard off. Slumber is listed as a supernatural ability, not a spell or a spell-like ability. It lists no verbal, somatic, or material requirements. It uses a standard action, but no specific type of action is specified. The witch could, as far as I can tell, just smile and nod at him and should he fail the will save then he falls asleep with his buddy none the wiser. Obviously if he succeeds on his will save then he knows she tried to Hex him and should respond accordingly.

Am I interpreting this right? Obviously some hexes, like cackle, do specify the witch needs to be making a noise or performing some specific action, but most of them don't.

[Sensate8]

Yes, that's correct. Spell like and supernatural abilities have no components so they're undetectable, except if detect magic or the like is running. I don't believe anyone gets a spellcraft check either, unless it's on the visible effects (suddenly falling asleep).

Spell like abilities require concentration whilst casting and can therefore be interrupted (they provoke an AoO if you're threatened) but supernatural abilities have no such problems. Many of the barbarian rage powers are supernatural for example.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Yes, that's correct. Spell like and supernatural abilities have no components so they're undetectable, except if detect magic or the like is running. I don't believe anyone gets a spellcraft check either, unless it's on the visible effects (suddenly falling asleep).

Spell like abilities require concentration whilst casting and can therefore be interrupted (they provoke an AoO if you're threatened) but supernatural abilities have no such problems. Many of the barbarian rage powers are supernatural for example.

Yep, any guards posted to a truly important post should be equipped with a Detect Magic wand to be sure

[Gnaeus]

Yep, any guards posted to a truly important post should be equipped with a Detect Magic wand to be sure

???
So all important guards should be spellcasters or have +19 UMD
But if they were spellcasters they could just take DM as a cantrip and cast it without the wand
And they should be spamming a charge whenever anyone comes within 30 or 60 feet and every minute after
And concentrating on it rather than paying attention
So that if a bad guy shows up and they or their buddy falls over asleep they will know something is wrong?

I can see why guards may want detect wands (like to see if the guy going in to see their boss is covered in an illusion (in the unlikely event that a guy who needs a wand to detect magic would be able to make his spellcraft checks)) but I don’t see how it helps this problem much.

[Geddy2112]

Correct. Unless the hex has obvious physical requirements or visual effects, a witch need only will to do them. Things like slumber and hostile acts will break invisibility though, but ward or helpful actions won't. It should also be known that succeeding on the save gives the target a tingle or feeling they were targeted by a hostile effect but does not reveal the source or nature of it. A witch in a crowd of people targeting a guard with slumber is no more suspicious than anyone else in the crowd unless they are doing something else to be suspicious.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

???
So all important guards should be spellcasters or have +19 UMD
But if they were spellcasters they could just take DM as a cantrip and cast it without the wand
And they should be spamming a charge whenever anyone comes within 30 or 60 feet and every minute after
And concentrating on it rather than paying attention
So that if a bad guy shows up and they or their buddy falls over asleep they will know something is wrong?

I can see why guards may want detect wands (like to see if the guy going in to see their boss is covered in an illusion (in the unlikely event that a guy who needs a wand to detect magic would be able to make his spellcraft checks)) but I don’t see how it helps this problem much.
It's not a "problem," it's a basic assumption of how security must work in a magical setting for it not to be a joke. There has to be some way for non-casting guards (likely Fighters or Slayers themselves) to know when magic is being used without needing to see a man waggling his fingers and chanting (magic items for example) or only spellcasters can make competent guards for any high-profile position such as a castle or a prison holding an important criminal/PC.

It was a joke anyway though

[Alcore]

Obviously if he succeeds on his will save then he knows she tried to Hex him and should respond accordingly.

Am I interpreting this right? Obviously some hexes, like cackle, do specify the witch needs to be making a noise or performing some specific action, but most of them don't.

Correction for the first part; without detect magic and/or other aids he wouldn't know who hexed him. Or even if he was hexed or simply spelled (which is more of a meta difference).


Yes but it isn't necessarily the only. Much is left to interpretation of spell like abilities. Monsters can silently cast without even moving. Witches can, and could, do a lot without any signal but do you want your witch to function like that?

It does add some pleasent mystic to do a bit of stage magic. :smallwink:

[Arbane]

or only spellcasters can make competent guards for any high-profile position such as a castle or a prison holding an important criminal/PC.


You can replace 'guards' with almost any profession, and it's still true in 3.Xland. :smallconfused:

(I'd say always-on item of Detect Magic, like goggles or a monocle, myself.)

[Crake]

Ok so let me explain what I'm asking:

A wizard wants to cast sleep on a guard without tipping the other guard off. However because this is a Spell that requires Verbal, Somatic, and Material components (either the actual materials or an arcane focus), it will be fairly obvious that he's doing something weird when he starts muttering spells and dusting the guy with rose petals. In order to disguise what he is doing a Wizard would need the Conceal Spell feat which is by no means a foolproof method of non-detection and also extends the needed casting time.

A witch wants to use the slumber hex on a guard without tipping the other guard off. Slumber is listed as a supernatural ability, not a spell or a spell-like ability. It lists no verbal, somatic, or material requirements. It uses a standard action, but no specific type of action is specified. The witch could, as far as I can tell, just smile and nod at him and should he fail the will save then he falls asleep with his buddy none the wiser. Obviously if he succeeds on his will save then he knows she tried to Hex him and should respond accordingly.

Am I interpreting this right? Obviously some hexes, like cackle, do specify the witch needs to be making a noise or performing some specific action, but most of them don't.

The hostile tingle from succeeding on a save only applies to spells, not supernatural abilities. If the guard passed his save, he wouldn't know the witch tried to do anything at all, and even if there WAS a hostile tingle, he would have no way of identifying the witch as the source.


Yep, any guards posted to a truly important post should be equipped with a Detect Magic wand to be sure

Detect magic only detects spells and magic items, neither of which supernatural abilities falls under, so it wouldn't detect anything at all in this case. Supernatural abilities are distinctly not spells, because they cannot be dispelled, and completely ignore spell resistance.

[death390]

don't forget if you are using the backwards compatability rules. you can use sleight of hand to mask the casting of a spell (races of stone 3.5 book). so while yes you do need somatic and verbal components you can mask that you are making them.

"SLEIGHT OF HAND
(DEX; TRAINED ONLY)
Sleight of Hand is a well-known skill of rogues, thieves,
and street magicians everywhere. It also has a practical
use to the magic-using world, allowing spellcasters to cast
their spells while avoiding the notice of others.
Check:
When casting a spell, you may make a Sleight
of Hand check to make your verbal and somatic compo-
nents less obtrusive, muttering magic words under your
breath and making magic gestures within your sleeves.
Your Sleight of Hand check is opposed by any observer’s
Spot check. The observer’s success doesn’t prevent you
from casting the spell, just from doing it unnoticed.
Action:
None. You make the check as part of your normal
spellcasting.
Try Again:
Yes, but after an initial failure, you take a –10
penalty on a second Sleight of Hand attempt against the
same target (or while the same observer who noticed your
previous attempt is watching you)."

bolded for emphasis, the bolded part means that you don't have to yell "taste the rainbow" when you use color spray, just mutter it. you dont need to make wide sweeping gestures with a hand to cast, make the signs in your sleeves or behind your back.

[Crake]

don't forget if you are using the backwards compatability rules. you can use sleight of hand to mask the casting of a spell (races of stone 3.5 book). so while yes you do need somatic and verbal components you can mask that you are making them.

"SLEIGHT OF HAND
(DEX; TRAINED ONLY)
Sleight of Hand is a well-known skill of rogues, thieves,
and street magicians everywhere. It also has a practical
use to the magic-using world, allowing spellcasters to cast
their spells while avoiding the notice of others.
Check:
When casting a spell, you may make a Sleight
of Hand check to make your verbal and somatic compo-
nents less obtrusive, muttering magic words under your
breath and making magic gestures within your sleeves.
Your Sleight of Hand check is opposed by any observer’s
Spot check. The observer’s success doesn’t prevent you
from casting the spell, just from doing it unnoticed.
Action:
None. You make the check as part of your normal
spellcasting.
Try Again:
Yes, but after an initial failure, you take a –10
penalty on a second Sleight of Hand attempt against the
same target (or while the same observer who noticed your
previous attempt is watching you)."

bolded for emphasis, the bolded part means that you don't have to yell "taste the rainbow" when you use color spray, just mutter it. you dont need to make wide sweeping gestures with a hand to cast, make the signs in your sleeves or behind your back.

That is so stupid, considering there's both a feat and a skill trick that do the exact same thing, then suddenly they make it into a base use of the skill?

[Sensate8]

The hostile tingle from succeeding on a save only applies to spells, not supernatural abilities. If the guard passed his save, he wouldn't know the witch tried to do anything at all, and even if there WAS a hostile tingle, he would have no way of identifying the witch as the source.



Detect magic only detects spells and magic items, neither of which supernatural abilities falls under, so it wouldn't detect anything at all in this case. Supernatural abilities are distinctly not spells, because they cannot be dispelled, and completely ignore spell resistance.

Supernatural abilities are magical and stop working in anti magic fields, so they would be picked up by Detect Magic.

Whether the enemy gets a tingle after saving against a supernatural ability is an interesting question. I think RAW they don't, but we usually play that they do (assuming RAI).

[Crake]

Supernatural abilities are magical and stop working in anti magic fields, so they would be picked up by Detect Magic.

If you have a read of the detect magic spell, it tells you what it detects, and it only detects spells and magic items. Supernatural abilities may be magical, but they have no auras, or if they do, they aren't ones detected by detect magic. Keep in mind that supernatural abilities are very different from spells and SLAs, their magic is fundamentally different, to the point that dispel magic cannot unweave them, not even disjunction can. If dispel magic can't dispel them, why would detect magic detect them?


Whether the enemy gets a tingle after saving against a supernatural ability is an interesting question. I think RAW they don't, but we usually play that they do (assuming RAI).

That is debatable as to whether it's RAI or not, but the tingle is only ever mentioned with regards to spells, nothing else.

[Sensate8]

If you have a read of the detect magic spell, it tells you what it detects, and it only detects spells and magic items. Supernatural abilities may be magical, but they have no auras, or if they do, they aren't ones detected by detect magic.

Detect magic says it detects auras and then provides a quick guide for determining the strength of spells and items. It doesn't explicitly state supernatural abilities are not detected so it may just be they're too varied and unusual to summarise in the spell description.

Looking at the occult handbook it seems some supernatural abilities do have auras, although a dragons frightful presence is probably quite obvious when you encounter it.

That's as much research as I can do on my phone. I also discovered that d20pfsrd has two different and differing sections describing supernatural abilities and neither is quite the same as my memory of the CRB. I'll just prefix all my answers with "as far as I can tell..." :-)

[Gnaeus]

While I agree completely with crake, I still think there are bigger problems.

Concentrating on a spell is a standard action. Perception checks while distracted (and I would certainly think concentrating on a spell would qualify as a distraction) is a -5 to perception checks. Given that every population chart I’ve ever seen has sneaky types outnumbering caster types by a very large margin, and most guards are likely to be low level martials to begin with, unless you have multiple guards and a guy whose specific job is magic detection your chances of being evaded or backstabbed by a goblin rogue because you are playing with a wand are better than your chances of figuring out hostile magic via detect.

Edit: not a -5 on checks, +5 on DC.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

You can replace 'guards' with almost any profession, and it's still true in 3.Xland. :smallconfused:

(I'd say always-on item of Detect Magic, like goggles or a monocle, myself.)
Don’t you think that any small improvement to that status quo is worth it? You’re right about the superiority of always-on items for this job though. I like helmets of DM myself!

That is so stupid, considering there's both a feat and a skill trick that do the exact same thing, then suddenly they make it into a base use of the skill?
The really stupid thing is that this isn’t more common. Too much is locked behind feats.

While I agree completely with crake, I still think there are bigger problems.

Concentrating on a spell is a standard action. Perception checks while distracted (and I would certainly think concentrating on a spell would qualify as a distraction) is a -5 to perception checks. Given that every population chart I’ve ever seen has sneaky types outnumbering caster types by a very large margin, and most guards are likely to be low level martials to begin with, unless you have multiple guards and a guy whose specific job is magic detection your chances of being evaded or backstabbed by a goblin rogue because you are playing with a wand are better than your chances of figuring out hostile magic via detect.

Edit: not a -5 on checks, +5 on DC.
Hence the always-on item!

[Crake]

Hence the always-on item!

There's no such thing as an "always on" item of detect magic, since it requires concentration. What you're describing is either a permanencied arcane sight, or an item that has continuous arcane sight.

[Sensate8]

Given the prevalence of magic I think it would be quite normal to have a young apprentice wizard or two hired to assist in gate duty. They wouldn't actively engage in manhandling dubious visitors but they could use the Detect Magic cantrip at will to watch people coming and going. The simple fact that they were known to be around somewhere might cause enemies to think twice. In fact the uncertainty of where they are at any particular time is part of the deterrence, unless time is taken to watch their routine and see how they operate.

The guards could also call on them to take a look at individuals they have cause to suspect. Alternatively given that there are only going to be so many people passing through the gates it would be easy enough to scan them all and rest at other times. That wouldn't pick up an invisible rogue sneaking through when no one else was visiting but a very wet and muddy gate area would be tricky to sneak through if nothing else was happening at the time.

[Forrestfire]

There's no such thing as an "always on" item of detect magic, since it requires concentration. What you're describing is either a permanencied arcane sight, or an item that has continuous arcane sight.

While that is true, lantern of auras (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/h-l/lantern-of-auras/) comes pretty close, being concentration-free, constant detect magic in a large area, that anyone in the area can see the auras of.

Given it only costs 2,000gp, I'd probably start with that as far as serious security measures go in Pathfinder.

[Dragovon]

So I'm currently playing a witch and this hadn't come up yet in that game...but this thread motivated me to research it...and to get an answer that I'm good with I even went back to 3/3.5 to get info. So here's what I found: Detect magic detects spells, spell-like, and magic items (of which supernatural are not...partially because apparently level is not applied to it). Interestingly back in 3.0 DMB errata, supernatural abilities could be dispelled as if they were spells and also MM says caster level is usually equal to HD except when explicitly stated otherwise. That said...all of this seems to have faded away...and I find little in the way of a concrete answer, though I did find that Keith Baker once said (though not canon) that they (supernatural abilities) would detect as magic while they are being triggered but not otherwise. I expect that this is the rule that I will be using at my table going forward. Otherwise I have to deal with dopplegangers detecting as magic while assuming a form (plus succubi, dragons, druids, etc...). Every incorporeal undead ever (as well as plenty of other things) detecting magic just because. And on and on. The game ramifications for allowing supernatural to always detect seems more a detriment than a benefit...and in fact I expect part of the reason supernatural abilities exist is so that in a fantasy game you can have surprises for the players without their detecting magic constantly and thereby noticing everything.

[BowStreetRunner]

Detect magic says it detects auras and then provides a quick guide for determining the strength of spells and items. It doesn't explicitly state supernatural abilities are not detected so it may just be they're too varied and unusual to summarise in the spell description.

Looking at the occult handbook it seems some supernatural abilities do have auras, although a dragons frightful presence is probably quite obvious when you encounter it.

That's as much research as I can do on my phone. I also discovered that d20pfsrd has two different and differing sections describing supernatural abilities and neither is quite the same as my memory of the CRB. I'll just prefix all my answers with "as far as I can tell..." :-)

I find it interesting that Arcane Sight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/arcaneSight.htm) specifically states that if you concentrate on a creature "you can determine whether it has any spellcasting or spell-like abilities". It does not mention supernatural abilities though.