I don't see a reason for RAI to be perceives rather than sees.
Really? You don't? So by your reasoning a spell can not be identified by it's verbal component?
I don't see a reason for RAI to be perceives rather than sees.Really? You don't? So by your reasoning a spell can not be identified by it's verbal component?
By the raw no.
By the RAI I'm not sure.
How I'd do it is to allow it with a -4 penalty (because you can't see the wizard and what if anything is in his hand, so you're missing the somatic and material component)
So by your interpretation even though a wizard has cast the same spell he is observing being cast hundreds of times in his life and used the same verbal component he can't recognize it when he hears it? So he can memorize exactly how he has said a verbal component but when he hears it out of someone else's mouth he suddenly has a lapse of memory?
I'm sorry, I just can't get behind that. Either by RAW or RAI. Any dev I'm sure would be behind me on this one too. It just doesn't make logical sense. I realize that my opinion of changing "see" to "perceive" may not be popular but I have to think that it would be more well received than that.
LazarX: That is not true. Combat Casting does not negate the Still Spell part of the equation. You can't use Combat Casting to cast a spell while paralized or while purposefully trying to remain completely still. A look or gesture is not required even for Still Spell. That is why I can definately see both sides of the AoO coin.
So by your interpretation even though a wizard has cast the same spell he is observing being cast hundreds of times in his life and used the same verbal component he can't recognize it when he hears it? So he can memorize exactly how he has said a verbal component but when he hears it out of someone else's mouth he suddenly has a lapse of memory?
I'm sorry, I just can't get behind that. Either by RAW or RAI
It is undeniably Raw. The word is see.
It is also exceedingly silly, I agree with you. The rules have a LOT of things that are sillier (like cleave working or not working depending on magnetic north for example)
I mean, if you want to be REALLY silly, a paralyzed caster can get off a stilled, silenced, material eschewed spell.. but still suffers an AoO for it.
I think its fine (if not necessary) to go off the raw, but deciding that a necessary deviation IS raw just leads to trouble.
There is a hole in your logic. In order to continue with the counterspell you have to make a Spellcraft check. Without that Spellcraft check there is no counterspell. We now refer to the Spellcraft section which says you must see the spell being cast. The counterspell section doesn't need to say as the spell being cast because the Spellcraft section takes care of that. It's not rocket science. There is a particular order in which this all happens. You can't go from A to C by skipping B.
No. Nice try, but no.
The counter-spelling section of the rules does NOT say to go to the Spellcraft section of the book and apply the usages of the skill that are noted therein. It defines how your check works then and there.
You're trying to take a (hypothetical) section of the book that defines how to... say... use Acrobatics to walk on hot coals without taking damage, and then forcing a player to use the definition of "using Acrobatics to jump" during that Acrobatics check.
I'd accept application of general skill rules, but not a specific application. Counter-spelling tells you what to do. No need to go looking for more rules to make it more complicated.
You know that you can't target something that you don't see? So unless you are using See invisibility or some similar effect you can't counter an invisible spellcaster.
That's fine by me... but the spell won't be invisible once it leaves the caster's possession. The rules tell us what a fireball looks like. The spell is visible. I don't see the caster but that's okay... I don't need to see the caster. I need to see the spell.
Invisible casters don't produce invisible spells. Worst illusionist ever.
|
There is a hole in your logic. In order to continue with the counterspell you have to make a Spellcraft check. Without that Spellcraft check there is no counterspell. We now refer to the Spellcraft section which says you must see the spell being cast. The counterspell section doesn't need to say as the spell being cast because the Spellcraft section takes care of that. It's not rocket science. There is a particular order in which this all happens. You can't go from A to C by skipping B.No. Nice try, but no.
The counter-spelling section of the rules does NOT say to go to the Spellcraft section of the book and apply the usages of the skill that are noted therein. It defines how your check works then and there.
You're trying to take a (hypothetical) section of the book that defines how to... say... use Acrobatics to walk on hot coals without taking damage, and then forcing a player to use the definition of "using Acrobatics to jump" during that Acrobatics check.
I'd accept application of general skill rules, but not a specific application. Counter-spelling tells you what to do. No need to go looking for more rules to make it more complicated.
Counterspells page 207: If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level).
I just nullified your whole argument. Please go and read up on the rules please.
The only bypass to this is using Dispel Magic.
Dispel Magic as a Counterspell: You can usually use dispel
magic to counterspell another spell being cast without
needing to identify the spell being cast. Dispel magic doesn’t
always work as a counterspell (see the spell description).
Unless you are using Dispel Magic to counterspell you must identify the spell being cast which requires a Spellcraft check in which the Spellcraft check requires that you see the spell being cast.
I think some precedent is in order here. Because the Pathfinder rules set was based off of 3.5, it is only fair to see how previous incarnations of the rules were applied. So, on page 138 of the Rules Compendium we have these relevant entries on the table.
Spellcraft
Task Time Retry DC
After rolling a save — No 25 + spell
against a spell targeted level
at you, identify that spell
Identify a spell — No 15 + spell
being cast2 level
2 You must be able to hear or see the spell’s verbal or somatic components.
So, by the table, you can’t identify a spell being cast unless you can see the somatic, or hear the verbal components. Material components are a moot point. After the spell has been cast upon you and you attempt a save, you get a check, but at +10 to the DC.
It is undeniably Raw. The word is see.
And verbal components are not? Or are you saying that somehow the verbal component differs by caster? Show me THAT in RAW.
Are you asking because this actually occurred, or is this simply an exercise in game theory?
I cannot envision casters keeping many of these hyper-meta'd spells in memory, for starters. Players are frequently very conservative with their spell slots and try to get as many useful spells in as possible. At least they do in my games.
It could be useful if you know you are going to face an improved counterspeller though.
But do not try this trick versus a specialist Abjurer of any real level as they almost always have more than one Dispel Magic in memory.
As to the actual question: I have to agree. I do not think they would/should be allowed a spellcraft check to identify the spell being cast (unless they have a Detect Magic running) and in turn that would negate any opportunity to counterspell except via a dispel magic spell (which is not always applicable).
It is worth noting that wizards in general are a really bright bunch.
Any NPC Wizard with an INT of 14+ (& that is pretty much all of them) is going to fall for this only once. Better make it count.
I think the problem is here is the interpretation ‘when’ the spell is being countered. shallowsoul’s argument is it happens after the opponent begins to cast, but before the spell has come to it’s culmination.
Where Anguish is arguing the caster is able to actually cast the spell, and it is countered once it is completed.
I am going to have to agree with shallowsoul on this one. And mainly for the reason that you ready an action for counterspelling, and how readying an action is worded:
Pathfinder SRDYou can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
So how I read that is you are interrupting his standard action and countering at the time of casting, not once the spell has left the caster’s hands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also don't forget that a Silent, Stilled, Eschew Material Fireball is going to use up a 5th level spell slot.
I'd rule (as GM) that if you are willing to raise a spell's level slot by 2 just to avoid counterspelling, then it works!
'Cuz it's cool. :)
|
The only thing I will say about the visual effects is they don't happen until the spell has triggered and by then it's too late. Spellcraft states that it's as the spell is being cast.So, per this discussion and your arguments in the other thread, if someone cast a "Silenced, Stilled and uses Eschew Materials" Fireball at my wizard, I not only wouldn't know what had happened, but wouldn't even be able to go looking for a spell that would do the same thing.
I'm quite sure you would relize a fireball had detonated. As would everyone else in the area. No spellcraft check required.
That knowledge would come after the fact, however.
Raw, you can't see or hear the spell being cast, so you can't counter at all.
I am apt to agree that if you can't see the spell being cast, you cannot counter, by RAW. However, by RAW, it never once says that you cannot see a Stilled, Silenced, Eschewed spell.
Art as RAW? LOL
I never said that the art was RAW. I stated exactly what the RAW was, said that the RAW doesn't clarify anything, and went on to say that I based my assumptions off of art. Please read my posts as they were written before trying to laugh off something I didn't say.
Not seeing components is not the same as not seeing a spell being cast.
Sure it is. What else would you be seeing?
First off, many spells don't have a visible effect. (the ones that do really don't take much identification after being cast)
Where did you get this? Why do many spells not have additional visual effects? This is an assumption I think, and certainly not RAW.
The point I'd like to make about invisibility, is that it makes the creature invisible, as well as it's gear. It never makes that ever increasing ball of arcane magic invisible, and therefore you can see the spell, which is what counter-spell requires.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is undeniably Raw. The word is see.And verbal components are not? Or are you saying that somehow the verbal component differs by caster? Show me THAT in RAW.
Ok, I didn't say that Verbal components don't exist. I didn't say that was in raw, so its a complete and total strawman.
The rules say you cannot Identify a spell SOLEY on the verbal components. You have to be able to SEE them cast the spell.
even though a wizard has cast the same spell he is observing being cast hundreds of times in his life and used the same verbal component he can't recognize it when he hears it? <------ Is an inordinately sensible position but it isn't raw. It is absolutely insane that a wizard can't identify the words to a spell he's used 100 times from around the corner.
But absolutely insane is what the raw is sometimes. That's why there are DM's. Give the caster a penalty and have them roll to ID it anyway.
There are verbal components (raw) -----> The Verbal components don't vary much by spellcaster (reasonably interpreted from the raw)---> The spellcaster can identify the spell soley from the verbal component (reasonable interpretation but completely counter to the raw)
I don't disagree with any point of your logic, so please don't say that I am. I agree that your conclusion makes enough sense to override the raw, but that it doesn't change the words that are clearly there.
I'm actually okay with either side of this argument, but a lot of people here like claiming that things are RAW that are not.
The RAW does NOT say that you cannot see a still, silenced, eschewed spell. It doesn't say that you explicitly can see it either. Please refrain from saying "This is RAW" when it certainly is not.
A stealth check can certainly make it so that your actions are not seen. Any GM worth his salt would allow bonuses to doing so while not moving.
Side Note:
I'm in the general school of thought that if anything happens in the game that you cannot defend against with a die roll (or a series of die rolls such as "combat" itself), you're doing it wrong. Either the enemy has to hit you, or you can perceive the ambush, etc. Nothing is free, but you can get lots of bonuses to make it seem that way. There probably ARE a few things in this game that are automatic that I am not thinking of right now, but this is a school of thought, not a black and white house rule.
Where did you get this? Why do many spells not have additional visual effects? This is an assumption I think, and certainly not RAW.
First off, if a product doesn't say it grows hair then it doesn't. If charm person doesn't specify a visual manifestation then it doesn't have one. Can you, raw, show me a visual effect of charm person?
Secondly,
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.linky
The point I'd like to make about invisibility, is that it makes the creature invisible, as well as it's gear. It never makes that ever increasing ball of arcane magic invisible, and therefore you can see the spell, which is what counter-spell requires.
By the time you see the ball of fire coming for you its probably too late. That's why you have to identify the spell mid cast and can't just wait to see its effect.
Where did you get this? Why do many spells not have additional visual effects? This is an assumption I think, and certainly not RAW.First off, if a product doesn't say it grows hair then it doesn't. If charm person doesn't specify a visual manifestation then it doesn't have one. Can you, raw, show me a visual effect of charm person?
Secondly,
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.linky
The point I'd like to make about invisibility, is that it makes the creature invisible, as well as it's gear. It never makes that ever increasing ball of arcane magic invisible, and therefore you can see the spell, which is what counter-spell requires.By the time you see the ball of fire coming for you its probably too late. That's why you have to identify the spell mid cast and can't just wait to see its effect.
I am apt to agree that if you can't see the spell being cast, you cannot counter, by RAW. However, by RAW, it never once says that you cannot see a Stilled, Silenced, Eschewed spell.
That's basically what i said in my next line, mostly as an excuse to say to hell with it and make a reasonable house rule/ half remembered something from 3.5 and slap a -2 penalty for each component they're missing.
I think it was out of complete magic. I'll see if i can find it.
If charm person doesn't specify a visual manifestation then it doesn't have one. Can you, raw, show me a visual effect of charm person?
Secondly,
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.
Yeah, I'll buy that. As I said, I'm not strongly on one side of this argument or the other. If a GM told me that Charm doesn't have a visual effect, I'd shrug and say "You're the boss".
I'd be a little more curious to see if he says that Fireball doesn't, considering that there is a pea sized ball of energy in the spell description that is taking a standard action to create.
Either way, all viable house ruling/understanding of the core. Not RAW, but reasonable interpretation? Yeah okay.
Fireball is counter-able though. It's not "too late" because you get your Spellcraft check as an immediate free action, and counter-spell is a readied action that goes before the completion of the standard action. Nothing "too late" about that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'll buy that. As I said, I'm not strongly on one side of this argument or the other. If a GM told me that Charm doesn't have a visual effect, I'd shrug and say "You're the boss".
If charm person has a visual effect, what spells is the line "a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force " talking about?
Any spell without a raw description of what it looks like doesn't look like anything. Or to put it another way, by raw how many flying monkies shoot out of a repeating crossbow when you fire it?
Fireball is counter-able though. It's not "too late" because you get your Spellcraft check as an immediate free action, and counter-spell is a readied action that goes before the completion of the standard action. Nothing "too late" about that.
If you can see that pea sized ball heading somewhere its probably too late: the spell has already been cast. A counter spell goes off before/during the actual casting of a spell like any other readied action. Thats why you need to identify the spell AS its being cast and not wait for the end and the visual effects.
I could see a DM letting a fireball be dispelled mid flight, but for things like charm person there's nothing to intercept at all.
a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force
To me, I think the key word here is obvious. A small flash of blue light is a physical effect, but certainly not an obvious one. For example, an explosion is an obvious physical effect. I wouldn't count a weird multi-colored prism ball that blinks out of existence the moment it forms... as obvious.
Once again though, I think any GM has the right to say that spells don't have additional physical effects. It's not RAW, but it's not RAW that there is either. I personally just like to think that drawing on arcane energy has lots and lots of flavor, and the rules don't contradict it. In fact, it makes the rules for counter-spelling a little easier to manage since the opportunity always presents itself without a stealth check.
If you can see that pea sized ball heading somewhere its probably too late:
So you like to think that the physical description just immediately comes into effect only upon spell completion? That's cool I guess, but once again it's GMs discretion. I certainly prefer thinking that the 3 seconds it takes to cast a standard action spell is full of the coalescence of red energy into the shape of a pea-sized ball. Otherwise, the three seconds leading up to spell completion is boring. Also, the idea of a spell "fizzling" is more fun that way.
"The red energy begins taking form when the nearby fighter takes advantage of your lack of defenses! The eldritch ball disperses back into the ether before your eyes and you know the spell is lost!"
LazarX: That is not true. Combat Casting does not negate the Still Spell part of the equation. You can't use Combat Casting to cast a spell while paralized or while purposefully trying to remain completely still. A look or gesture is not required even for Still Spell. That is why I can definately see both sides of the AoO coin.If you are not casting on the defensive while you're threathened... then you're going to provoke the AOO, because you're lowering your defensive actions by spellcasting.
If you are, whether you're using the combat casting feat or not, you're incorporating defensive motions into spell casting. That's what the check is for.
Casting defensively requires a concentration check. The concentration check is for, according to the CRB, concentrating. Combat Casting simply makes somebody better at concentrating while being threatened. Nothing about the section even implies somatic components being a factor.
So yeah, Combat Casting and Still Spell work together just fine.
On-Topic: We had penalties to ID in our games for missing components, like if you heard a spell being cast from around the corner, so this is a similar scenario in that respect. I believe we've done -2 and -5 depending on the game, so I'm not sure where the rules would stand here. It also made me a little miffed when Cityscape had that Invisible Spell feat, as it basically translated into +20 to the dc to ID a spell being cast for free (Spellcraft being so much like Perception, and needing to see the spell being cast).
|
You know that you can't target something that you don't see? So unless you are using See invisibility or some similar effect you can't counter an invisible spellcaster.That's fine by me... but the spell won't be invisible once it leaves the caster's possession. The rules tell us what a fireball looks like. The spell is visible. I don't see the caster but that's okay... I don't need to see the caster. I need to see the spell.
Invisible casters don't produce invisible spells. Worst illusionist ever.
You are fond of citing this but you aren't reading it all:
How Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing to ready an action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. You may still move at your normal speed, since ready is a standard action.
If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell's level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent's spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can't do either of these things.
To complete the action, you must then cast an appropriate spell. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (or have a slot of the appropriate level available), you cast it, creating a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.
Read it again, carefully: it design a target "an opponent as the target of the counterspell". The target is the opponent, not the spell.
You dn't see the opponent, you can't target him for counterspelling and you can't counterspell.So your idea of how it work fail at the first point: you can't target the caster if you can't see him, s you have no way to counterspell.
How Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing to ready an action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. You may still move at your normal speed, since ready is a standard action.
It doesn't say you have to target an opponent, it says you must select an opponent. You cannot target a creature you cannot see. This was made clear by RAW. What is unclear is if you can select an invisible opponent, which is not specified in RAW.
|
|
Raw, you can't see or hear the spell being cast, so you can't counter at all.I am apt to agree that if you can't see the spell being cast, you cannot counter, by RAW. However, by RAW, it never once says that you cannot see a Stilled, Silenced, Eschewed spell.
Art as RAW? LOLI never said that the art was RAW. I stated exactly what the RAW was, said that the RAW doesn't clarify anything, and went on to say that I based my assumptions off of art. Please read my posts as they were written before trying to laugh off something I didn't say.
Not seeing components is not the same as not seeing a spell being cast.
Sure it is. What else would you be seeing?
First off, many spells don't have a visible effect. (the ones that do really don't take much identification after being cast)
Where did you get this? Why do many spells not have additional visual effects? This is an assumption I think, and certainly not RAW.
The point I'd like to make about invisibility, is that it makes the creature invisible, as well as it's gear. It never makes that ever increasing ball of arcane magic invisible, and therefore you can see the spell, which is what counter-spell requires.
You are trying to make rule base on the art in the books. Yes, you aren't claiming that it is RAW, but you are claiming that the book art is a valid source for the rules, so yes, "Art as RAW and a laught2 is entirely appropriate.
You whole idea is ludicrous as it will make invisibility almost useless for a caster: "Look the light display, there is a invisible caster there".
|
|
How Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing to ready an action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. You may still move at your normal speed, since ready is a standard action.It doesn't say you have to target an opponent, it says you must select an opponent. You cannot target a creature you cannot see. This was made clear by RAW. What is unclear is if you can select an invisible opponent, which is not specified in RAW.
as the target
And rules are very clear, you can't target something you don't see. You can target his/its square but not the opponent.
If it were my game, I'd say it couldn't be countered, unless you somehow knew beforehand what spell they would cast when.
You are trying to make rule base on the art in the books. Yes, you aren't claiming that it is RAW, but you are claiming that the book art is a valid source for the rules, so yes, "Art as RAW and a laught2 is entirely appropriate.
I was making an interpretation on the rules when they are obviously unclear about "see" a spell. I am NOT making a claim that the book art is a valid source for the rules. I have never said that my viewpoints and interpretations are the rules. Once again, please stop putting words in my mouth. Most of my posts have been about how people should CEASE saying that their interpretations are the RAW.
I said that hands glow in pictures, and that's good enough for me. I see absolutely no reason why you're attacking this, and being disrespectful while doing so.
as the target
Yes, you are right. I stand corrected. I didn't see that and you are correct on the perspective of invisible casters. I will not allow counter-spelling of invisible casters from now on.
Ya know I can understand the question.
And I think it would be difficult to identify the spell.
But I wonder why is this being asked? Does the DM plan to continuously throw sillent stilled spells at the party? If so, why?
Speaking as a GM...
Rather than apply a rough rule across the board, I would treat this on a case by case basis. How I would treat it would depend on a number of factors:
- Visual effects (which can also include any agreement players and GMs come to about the visual "fluff" of a spell--does the caster's hands or eyes glow whenever they cast a spell, etc.), especially for evocation, etc.
- Obvious immediate results (stone to mud, or even confusion if the target starts wandering around funny -- a Spellcraft check may still be needed if it's not obvious what happened was the result of a spell, but I'd allow a Spellcraft check to determine whether it could be a spell effect and what it was)
- They know the caster, they've seen the caster cast spells before, and anything else that might be mitigating factors.
I would also probably apply a penalty, which could vary depending upon the above circumstances. For example, maybe add +10 to the DC (which is a total of 25+spell level) when it is difficult but not entirely impossible to recognize a spell being cast. And/or maybe require even something like a Sense Motive check--if they are familiar with the caster, the viewer may have come to learn the body language that a caster has when they are casting metamagic spells, and if they succeed on the Sense Motive check, they could then make the Spellcraft check.
As for countering, I think you'd have to know that the spell was in the caster's arsenal--but say if an enemy caster widened his eyes and a fireball appears in front of his face which then shot out and struck the party, I would allow a PC to then prepare a counter to fireball, which he could apply as soon as he sees the fireball appear in front of the caster. I might apply penalties to the countering check depending on the various circumstances as well.
I'd always try to find a reason a PC COULD use the skill check, and then if I absolutely could not come up with one, then say that they could not do it. (
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, I think the key word here is obvious. A small flash of blue light is a physical effect, but certainly not an obvious one. For example, an explosion is an obvious physical effect. I wouldn't count a weird multi-colored prism ball that blinks out of existence the moment it forms... as obvious.
Once again though, I think any GM has the right to say that spells don't have additional physical effects. It's not RAW
It is raw, just as its raw that repeating crossbows don't shoot flying monkeys because the repeating crossbow makes no mention of shooting flying monkeys.
There is no mention or hint anywhere of all spells having special effects and glowy lights, so by raw they don't.
hmmm.. now i want to make a repeating crossbow that does shoot flying monkeys... or would that be ammunition...
It is raw, just as its raw that repeating crossbows don't shoot flying monkeys because the repeating crossbow makes no mention of shooting flying monkeys.
No, but it DOES say that crossbows shoot bolts. :) So the RAW covers this one.
I understand your point however. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that not everything needs to be stated. Some things can be implied based upon common sense and the general rules of the real world as a baseline.
Walking off a cliff makes you fall, and there's no secret Golarian answer to where babies come from.
I agree with you on this and fully support your "common sense" mentality for most things.
Magic, however, is not common sense. It's magic. Every fantasy book I've ever read changes how it functions and how it's approached. We have no real world representation, and there's no baseline for how it works. Making any "common sense" assumption just doesn't seem RAW to me when it comes to something so divinely perspective as magic.
What I'm saying is, I understand your interpretation, but I respectfully disagree.
Also, I'd go with magical crossbow. Ammunition is only circumstantially worth the cost for the same effect, and I bet you want those monkeys out there at least three times per combat.
|
|
I'm actually okay with either side of this argument, but a lot of people here like claiming that things are RAW that are not.
The RAW does NOT say that you cannot see a still, silenced, eschewed spell. It doesn't say that you explicitly can see it either. Please refrain from saying "This is RAW" when it certainly is not.
A stealth check can certainly make it so that your actions are not seen. Any GM worth his salt would allow bonuses to doing so while not moving.
Side Note:
I'm in the general school of thought that if anything happens in the game that you cannot defend against with a die roll (or a series of die rolls such as "combat" itself), you're doing it wrong. Either the enemy has to hit you, or you can perceive the ambush, etc. Nothing is free, but you can get lots of bonuses to make it seem that way. There probably ARE a few things in this game that are automatic that I am not thinking of right now, but this is a school of thought, not a black and white house rule.
There are actually more than three ways that represent some spells.
Components
A spell’s components explain what you must do or
possess to cast the spell. The components entry in a spell
description includes
abbreviations that tell you what type
of components it requires. Specifics for material and
focus components are given at the end of the descriptive
text. Usually you don’t need to worry about components,
but when you can’t use a component for some reason or
when a material or focus component is expensive, then
the components are important.
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation.
To provide a verbal component, you must be able to
speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the
incantation
(and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been
deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a
verbalcomponent
that he tries to cast.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and
precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one
hand free to provide a somatic component.
Material (M): A material component consists of one or
more physical
substances or objects that are annihilated
by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost
is given
for a material component, the cost is negligible.
Don’t bother to keep track of material components with
negligible
cost. Assume you have all you need as long as
you have your spell component pouch.
Focus (F): A focus component is a prop of some sort.
Unlike a material component, a focus is not consumed
when the spell is cast and can be reused. As with
material components, the cost for a focus is negligible
unless a price is given. Assume that focus components
of negligible cost are in your spell component pouch.
Divine Focus (DF): A divine focus component is an
item of spiritual signif icance. The divine focus for a
cleric or a paladin is a holy symbol appropriate to the
character’s faith. The divine focus for a druid or a ranger
is a sprig of holly, or some other sacred plant.
If the Components line includes F/DF or M/DF, the
arcane
version of the spell has a focus component or a
material
component (the abbreviation before the slash)
and the divine version has a divine focus component (the
abbreviation after the slash).
These are the things that represent a spell be it arcane or divine.
Chaos Ha mmer
School evocation [chaotic]; Level cleric 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area 20-ft.-radius burst
Duration instantaneous (1d6 rounds); see text
Saving Throw Will partial; see text; Spell Resistance yes
You unleash chaotic power to smite your enemies. The power
takes the form of a multicolored explosion of leaping, ricocheting
energy. Only lawful and neutral (not chaotic) creatures are harmed
by the spell.
The spell deals 1d8 points of damage per two caster levels
(maximum 5d8) to lawful creatures (or 1d6 points of damage per
caster level, maximum 10d6, to lawful outsiders) and slows them for
1d6 rounds (see the slow spell). A successful Will save reduces the
damage by half and negates the slow effect.
The spell deals only half damage against creatures who are
neither lawful nor chaotic, and they are not slowed. Such a
creature can reduce the damage by half again (down to onequarter)
with a successful Will save.
Notice the part I have in bold, it is very important. It says that in order to cast the spell you need verbal and somatic. This means that there is speech and precise hand movements involved in the casting of the spell. Take those away and you have a spell that just happens. There is a purpose for Still and Silent spells, they didn't leave them there for the hell of it.
|
|
Ya know I can understand the question.
And I think it would be difficult to identify the spell.But I wonder why is this being asked? Does the DM plan to continuously throw sillent stilled spells at the party? If so, why?
Because it's a legitimate question.
Are we not allowed to challenge rules and ask questions if something seems wrong?
|
|
The spell description has nothing to do with this what so ever. You look in the section called components and you look to see if it has V, S, M etc.... That is where your RAW comes in. Remove those little letters and you are left with nothing to see or hear until after the spell is cast. That is where some of you are getting confused. Effects of spells happen after it's gone off. This isn't Dragonball Z where he can see someone burst into flame as they prepare their attack.
Ya know I can understand the question.
And I think it would be difficult to identify the spell.But I wonder why is this being asked? Does the DM plan to continuously throw sillent stilled spells at the party? If so, why?
Because it's a legitimate question.
Are we not allowed to challenge rules and ask questions if something seems wrong?
Can you ask? Absolutly.
Can i ask why you are so interested? Did a player spring this on you? DO you plan on having an encounter using this? It does seem like you are loosing two levels of spells to use this.
I think i agree with you that it would be very difficult to understand what was being cast before the spell was "released".
After? well it depends.
But I am asking you. Assuming that everyone agrees with you, how you plan on using this interpertation.
I removed a post. It would be great to have a discussion without people talking down at others.
I don't think you can, and that is the same logic that makes it so you can't spellcraft or counter SLA's.
This came up in another post a while back on a different issue. A dev did step in. I will try to find it.
Here is a more official answer:
In short by RAW you can use spellcraft, but he understand if a GM wished to rule otherwise.
Hey there Everybody]The rules here are certainly not clear, because they generally assume that the act of casting a spell has some noticeable element. Notice I did not say component, because I think the rules are silent on parts of spellcasting that are codified components versus those that occur without any sort of codification, such as the wiggle of a finger, change in breathing and other flavor bits that happen when a spellcaster makes the magic happen, as it were.
Back to the topic at hand, since the rules are silent here, I think it is well within the GMs purview to impose a penalty to the Spellcraft check to identify a spell without components (V, S, M). Since there is no real increase for spells with just one, I would guess that this penalty is not very large, perhaps only as much as -4.
This is, of course, up to your GM to adjudicate.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingEdit: I should also note that I also agree with James, that a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.
Now that I look at it again, I'd have to revise my earlier position, and say that calling the target of the counterspell the spell, and citing it as invisible is not RAW. The target is indeed the spellcaster, not the spell. However, I still think that you can use spellcraft/counterspell on a spell with no components since its MAGIC anyway... just the only appropriate application of the Perception penalties for that Spellcraft check would be +5 for terrible conditions and possibly +5 for being distracted, not the +20 for invisibility (unless of course the caster was also invisible).as the targetHow Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing to ready an action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. You may still move at your normal speed, since ready is a standard action.It doesn't say you have to target an opponent, it says you must select an opponent. You cannot target a creature you cannot see. This was made clear by RAW. What is unclear is if you can select an invisible opponent, which is not specified in RAW.
Actually, I might have to go back on myself on this. I was just looking through the rules to be sure, and I can't find the rule that says you can't target an invisible creature as I thought it was stated.
The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance).
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies.
Interesting. I'd say the rules basically say you can't target an invisible creature unless you pinpoint him. Then concealment goes on to say that you cannot attack an invisible creature, but may attack into the square. Add all this up and I'd say you can't counter-spell an invisible creature because you can't select him as your target for your readied action (since selecting his square is only specified for an attack).
Very convoluted, but seems to me that it's addressable this way as not being able to counter.
shallowsoul:
Your last posts were finally not saying that things were RAW that were not. Thank you! I'm glad you're allowing your perspective and interpretation to be valued as exactly that. You stated the RAW, then stated your interpretation and final conclusion the way it should be done and I'm glad your wording has calmed down from claiming RAW where it wasn't.