Noticing that an animal is actually a wild shaped druid casting a spell
- Thread starter just__al
- Start date
Well, wildshape is a supernatural ability... so the "animal" would show up as magical, WRT detect magic or arcane site, etc.
And, the odds are pretty good, that if you see an animal all decked out with magic items... he's the Druid in the party!
Are you trying to counter? The natural spell feat doesn't make this any more dificult then normal...
Mike
And, the odds are pretty good, that if you see an animal all decked out with magic items... he's the Druid in the party!
Are you trying to counter? The natural spell feat doesn't make this any more dificult then normal...
Mike
Last edited:
just__al
First Post
Specifically, an enemny druid will show up on scene as an animal. His magic items will be subsumed in his form and he'll probably take his first action to summon nature's ally 3. I want to know what the party needs to do to be able to notice that the "Horse" is actually a druid casting SNA 3 in case they'd like to disrupt his concentration.mikebr99 said:
And rereading the feat I see that they still make somatic gestures and noises so a spell casting horse wouldn't be any more difficult to notice than a normal spell caster and perhaps somewhat comical.
Last edited:
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
This is not explicitly called out in the rules. We can piece something together from some general principles...
The general rule of thumb is that the concentration required to cast a spell is unambiguous to any attentive observer, regardless of the whether there are or are not vocal or somatic components. IMO this is really a "combat-centric" mechanic to completely avoid arguments over whether or not you can tell who is casting or whether you are allowed an AoO.
It would be no fun if you follow this standard rule outside of combat. So we are fudging things here.
IMO there are two relevant checks: Spellcraft, and Sense Motive vs. Bluff. I would add in generous circumstance modes. I would give each character observing both checks. Note that Spellcraft is trained only. I would make the Spellcraft check base DC 10 (it would be 15+ if you were trying to identify the exact spell).
Off the top of my head, here is a laundry list of circumstance mods I would apply to the observer for both checks:
Observer has 0 ranks in Knowledge Nature, -2
Observer has 5+ ranks in Knowledge Nature, +2
Observer unfamiliar w/animal type, e.g. a city slicker seeing a bear, -2
Effect of spell not immediately obvious, -4
Caster is mostly concealed, e.g. squirrel peering through the leaves while in a tree, -4
Caster in plain sight and spell has somatic components, +2
Observer distracted, e.g. inattentive guard, -5
Caster's animal form fits into scene seemlessly, e.g. one of a flock of pigeons, -5
Spell casting time longer than one action, +4
I did not include Spot checks because a hidden caster will never be noticed. This is also for the sake of simplicity. If caster were far away, I would add in a Spot check, too, of DC 10 plus distance mods (-1 per 10'). Failure would mean that the observer is effectively distracted (see above).
Observers would get a Listen check against DC 0 (remember distance mods) to notice there is something there. Spellcasting with vocal components is in a clear, loud voice, regardless of physical form.
The general rule of thumb is that the concentration required to cast a spell is unambiguous to any attentive observer, regardless of the whether there are or are not vocal or somatic components. IMO this is really a "combat-centric" mechanic to completely avoid arguments over whether or not you can tell who is casting or whether you are allowed an AoO.
It would be no fun if you follow this standard rule outside of combat. So we are fudging things here.
IMO there are two relevant checks: Spellcraft, and Sense Motive vs. Bluff. I would add in generous circumstance modes. I would give each character observing both checks. Note that Spellcraft is trained only. I would make the Spellcraft check base DC 10 (it would be 15+ if you were trying to identify the exact spell).
Off the top of my head, here is a laundry list of circumstance mods I would apply to the observer for both checks:
Observer has 0 ranks in Knowledge Nature, -2
Observer has 5+ ranks in Knowledge Nature, +2
Observer unfamiliar w/animal type, e.g. a city slicker seeing a bear, -2
Effect of spell not immediately obvious, -4
Caster is mostly concealed, e.g. squirrel peering through the leaves while in a tree, -4
Caster in plain sight and spell has somatic components, +2
Observer distracted, e.g. inattentive guard, -5
Caster's animal form fits into scene seemlessly, e.g. one of a flock of pigeons, -5
Spell casting time longer than one action, +4
I did not include Spot checks because a hidden caster will never be noticed. This is also for the sake of simplicity. If caster were far away, I would add in a Spot check, too, of DC 10 plus distance mods (-1 per 10'). Failure would mean that the observer is effectively distracted (see above).
Observers would get a Listen check against DC 0 (remember distance mods) to notice there is something there. Spellcasting with vocal components is in a clear, loud voice, regardless of physical form.
Last edited:
Yes, the casting would be obvious. But it should be worth noting that an animal casting a spell doesn't mean the animal is a wildshaped druid. It could be an awakened animal as well. AFAIK, there would be no way to determine the difference between the two without the use of a spell.LokiDR said:
Sejs
First Post
Spellcasting even while Wild Shaped is obvious, you must speak (or make appropriate sounds for the form) in a firm voice, and gesture as appropriate for the spell being cast.
Noticing this would be a DC 0 Spot (to see it) or Listen (to hear it) check, appropriatly modified for distance and other factors. So, it would be a DC 0 Spot check to see the horse right in front of you moving all strange-like (though a layman may not recognise it as a spell.. that's more a function of Spellcraft), DC 10 to see the horse 100 feet away doing so, and maybe say DC 20 to see the horse that's 150 feet away and standing in heavy undergrowth.
Noticing this would be a DC 0 Spot (to see it) or Listen (to hear it) check, appropriatly modified for distance and other factors. So, it would be a DC 0 Spot check to see the horse right in front of you moving all strange-like (though a layman may not recognise it as a spell.. that's more a function of Spellcraft), DC 10 to see the horse 100 feet away doing so, and maybe say DC 20 to see the horse that's 150 feet away and standing in heavy undergrowth.
just__al said:
It would be abvious that the animal is casting a spell.
If the spell were silent and stilled it would not be so obvious. Or you could us my Subtle Spell feat in the NBoF...
SUBTLE SPELL [Metamagic]
COPYRIGHT 2001, Scott Metzger
You know how to disguise the use of material, verbal, and somatic components; thus making your spell casting difficult to recognize.
Prerequisite: Spellcraft skill.
Benefit: When you cast a subtle spell those who could observe you must make a Spot check opposed by your Spellcraft check to identify that you are casting a spell. A subtle spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
Normal: Without this feat spell casting is automatically recognized as spell casting.
Notes: Casting a subtle spell still draws an attack of opportunity. If the person taking the attack of opportunity fails the opposed Spot check they still get the attack of opportunity but do not know why you let your guard down.
Balance: 4.16 (Purp 4.60, Pow 4.00, Port 4.20, Comp 4.00, Rule 4.00)
Lonely Tylenol
First Post
It might be perfectly obvious that the thrush in the tree over there is waving its wings around and shuffling its feet, maybe chirping loudly. But what is the likelihood that someone figures out it's the source of the Flame Strike? Especially if there are a bunch of other thrushes flocking in the tree chirping loudly and flitting from branch to branch. Unless the viewer expects a druid, I'd have to say that locating the source of a spell is extremely unlikely. Perhaps if a horse were pointing a hoof at the target...but there's no indication that the horse has to do anything that weird. Perhaps it needs to toss its head and whinny, which horses do anyway.
The only reason why people know that another humanoid is casting a spell is that they say strange words loudly and move their hands in patterns. But natural spell is there specifically because animals can't speak and don't have hands. So I think it should take an expert to be able to pick it out. Spot check to notice the animal doing something cotemporaneously with the spell going off, Knowledge: Nature check to notice something odd about what the animal is doing, to distinguish it from the other random natural events going on at that moment. Spellcraft to identify the spell. Ridley's Cohort's circumstance modifiers look pretty good. I wouldn't use bluff/sense motive, just because there's no precedent in the bluff skill for concealing spell components.
The only reason why people know that another humanoid is casting a spell is that they say strange words loudly and move their hands in patterns. But natural spell is there specifically because animals can't speak and don't have hands. So I think it should take an expert to be able to pick it out. Spot check to notice the animal doing something cotemporaneously with the spell going off, Knowledge: Nature check to notice something odd about what the animal is doing, to distinguish it from the other random natural events going on at that moment. Spellcraft to identify the spell. Ridley's Cohort's circumstance modifiers look pretty good. I wouldn't use bluff/sense motive, just because there's no precedent in the bluff skill for concealing spell components.
