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.
And the rules do say when there are balls of fire and flashes of light.
I'm saying that unless it IS stated, raw says its not there. RAW says to cast a spell you have to Speak, gesture with one hand, and hold some batguana/whatever (the crossbow bolt in my example). RAW does not say that you glow, have pretty sparkly lights all about you, or physically manifest all spells somehow.(the monkey). In fact raw explicitly states that there are spells without obvious physical manifestations. If there were subtle physical manifestations there would be spot checks for them. Raw by exclusion is still raw.
Its not a dm's call, subjective, or just "ok". Its what the rules are. You don't tell someone that its an ok dm's call if the repeating crossbow doesn't shoot flying monkeys because it didn't say it didn't.
I'm saying that unless it IS stated, raw says its not there.
I dunno, I think you're viewing this way too black and white, particularly when throwing the all important RAW out there. Your interpretation can be reversed to seem ludicrous just as easily. It's... actually always easy to reverse somebody's opinion or stance on them to seem ludicrous by using extreme black and white examples.
You're saying that sex doesn't exist because it's not stated. Apparently we don't have RAW sex.
You're saying that meat doesn't change color as it's cooked because it's not explicitly stated. I guess we only have RAW meat.
This is actually kinda' fun. :)
Anyway, all I'm saying is RAW is only what is stated, and not what is assumed. Something not stated is not RAW to not be there.
RAW does not say that you glow
Show me RAW that says you don't glow. The point is, RAW is very limited and can't tell you any more than what is there. RAI becomes MUCH more important in that fashion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Show me RAW that says you don't glow
I did, previously, with the magic section that covered spells without obvious physical effects. That was more than sufficient to demonstrate my point.
There is a huge difference between the unwritten assumption that physics in D&D works just like irl unless given a rule otherwise and the ludicris position that the rules have to try to state everything they don't do or its not raw.
the ludicris position that the rules have to try to state everything they don't do or its not raw.
The rules HAVE to state everything or it's now RAW. It's RAW. "Rules as Written" is only what's written. RAW is the rules... as... written.
I think you're confusing RAW with RAI (rules as intended).
I did, previously, with the magic section that covered spells without obvious physical effects.
Oh, it did prove your point. I interpret that sentence differently and proved my point as well. That's what respectful debate is.
However, it seems you didn't register what I was getting at. A spell can have a subtle physical effect and not have an obvious physical effect. Reading the rules, it doesn't state that there are not subtle physical effects throughout casting.
Without going against a single rule, I can have my subtle physical effects. They are useful for explaining magic, for adding flavor, and for simplifying the AoO and counter-spelling. I don't have to talk myself out of a weird hole but just saying magic is neato and has subtle physical effects.
Once again, this is my interpretation. It's not RAW, but it also doesn't go against RAW. Just like your interpretation doesn't go against RAW.
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.
This came up in another thread where Shallow was going into detail about the "meta-gamingness" of casters assuming they can simply roll a check to see if they know a spell exist without ever having seen it, and then go buy a scroll of it. This led to the issue of casters having to experience a spell to know about it and identify it.
The question was posed by me since I see his view as an extreme method of PC control. As in Don't want them having a spell make sure they never get a chance to ID it which is why i wanted to know if the spell could still be identified without components.
P.S. And its good to know that both JJ and JB agree that by raw yes you still can thanks Wraith.
Silent stilled spells may be a corner case, but invisible casters are not.
Oh, it did prove your point. I interpret that sentence differently and proved my point as well. That's what respectful debate is.
No. You didn't debate. You metadebated. You tried to change the rules from "I can prove I'm right" to "You can't prove i'm wrong". The latter proves anything you want it to and effectively makes discussion impossible.
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.
This came up in another thread where Shallow was going into detail about the "meta-gamingness" of casters assuming they can simply roll a check to see if they know a spell exist without ever having seen it, and then go buy a scroll of it. This led to the issue of casters having to experience a spell to know about it and identify it.
The question was posed by me since I see his view as an extreme method of PC control. As in Don't want them having a spell make sure they never get a chance to ID it which is why i wanted to know if the spell could still be identified without components.
P.S. And its good to know that both JJ and JB agree that by raw yes you still can thanks Wraith.
I was hoping they would agree with me and the Sage, but even if not a GM now has PF developer input.
If it matters to anyone the reason why the 3.5 ruling was different is because there is nothing to identify since silent stilled spells, SLA's and psionics were all mental actions. That is why you can't identify SLA's as mentioned in my last post.
Going back to psionics you could make a check(forgot which one) to suppress any evidence that you had used a power.
As to Mr.Shallow since he is using RAW such spells can still be identified. :)
No. You didn't debate. You metadebated. You tried to change the rules from "I can prove I'm right" to "You can't prove i'm wrong". The latter proves anything you want it to and effectively makes discussion impossible.
Yeah, you're right about that. I guess I wasn't exactly debating as much as holding firm my affirmations and right to have them. The point is still valid though. People's interpretations are not any more correct than another. I simply want to respect your interpretation and have mine respected as well. Either viewpoint is not in contrast to the RAW so there's no point in arguing it that way. I may have "meta-debated" (which is a cool word, thanks!), but it still served the purpose to show how moot it is to argue over RAW when that's not the issue.
That's my real sticking point and why I keep coming back to this thread. I keep seeing people quoting the rules, interpreting them in their own perspective, and saying "I'm right and you're wrong". I'm hoping people can understand that they are voicing an opinion, and not a fact. I like my interpretation and added it to the forum because I was hoping others would too.
|
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.
Where is this "strict reading" that James is talking about. I have read the part up and down, left and right and it clearly states under Spellcraft that you must see the spell being cast.
Wiggling of the fingers is where your Somatic components come in.
Speaking and breathing funny are where your Verbal components come in.
Materials are where your materials components come in.
Now to be honest, the original Spellcraft rules say the same thing except in 3.5 you had to see or hear it being cast.
Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear
the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No
action required. No retry.
Now to be honest, James and Jason didn't come up with the original Spellcraft. Now if their intention is for you to be able to counterspell, even though you have no clue and goes against the RAW wording of spellcraft, then I feel the rules need to be corrected and worded better. It seems to me all they did in Pathfinder was copy Spellcraft and leave out a few words.
I really want to know which part of the rules James was reading.
The strict reading is that penalties aren't applied based on assumptions. Much like the list of things i posted in the Can you see yourself when invisible thread is the sudden ability to not identify in this circumstance.
If the rules don't spell out that something changes another rule then it doesn't change it. Here is a further example of your method of ruling taken to the extreme.
Blindsight is something the standard Lich from the bestiary can use for so many minutes a day. So if said Lich were to fill a room with deeper darkness and a fog cloud by your rules since it can't "see" the caster of a spell it can't counter spell even though using its other senses it can tell exactly what its opponents doing.
I removed another post. Can we stop with the 'Nuh-unh!' arguing style, please?
|
|
The strict reading is that penalties aren't applied based on assumptions. Much like the list of things i posted in the Can you see yourself when invisible thread is the sudden ability to not identify in this circumstance.
If the rules don't spell out that something changes another rule then it doesn't change it. Here is a further example of your method of ruling taken to the extreme.
Blindsight is something the standard Lich from the bestiary can use for so many minutes a day. So if said Lich were to fill a room with deeper darkness and a fog cloud by your rules since it can't "see" the caster of a spell it can't counter spell even though using its other senses it can tell exactly what its opponents doing.
You are once again incorrect.
Technically, if we use your logic from your first sentence then anything outside of the RAW components is an assumption. No place in the rules does it say anything about a spellcaster giving you "any" inclination a spell is being cast outside of V,S,M.
Please show me a quote from the book that proves I am wrong.
I removed another post. Can we stop with the 'Nuh-unh!' arguing style, please?So we can't point out when someone is wrong?
Not if you're going to be a jerk about it.
Your post above this one is much more diplomatic than the one that was removed.
"You are wrong and here is why" is always more constructive than "Nope. Try again."
"I disagree and here is why" is usually even better.
No. You didn't debate. You metadebated. You tried to change the rules from "I can prove I'm right" to "You can't prove i'm wrong". The latter proves anything you want it to and effectively makes discussion impossible.Yeah, you're right about that. I guess I wasn't exactly debating as much as holding firm my affirmations and right to have them. The point is still valid though. People's interpretations are not any more correct than another. I simply want to respect your interpretation and have mine respected as well. Either viewpoint is not in contrast to the RAW so there's no point in arguing it that way. I may have "meta-debated" (which is a cool word, thanks!), but it still served the purpose to show how moot it is to argue over RAW when that's not the issue.
That's my real sticking point and why I keep coming back to this thread. I keep seeing people quoting the rules, interpreting them in their own perspective, and saying "I'm right and you're wrong". I'm hoping people can understand that they are voicing an opinion, and not a fact. I like my interpretation and added it to the forum because I was hoping others would too.
That is incorrect. One interpretation can be more correct if it is what the devs intended. The fact that they can not prove it without a shadow of a doubt does not make it any less right.
It is like the mirror image debates I was in. I was correct, but until the devs came along with the FAQ to go into detail on how the rule worked I did not have 100% proof that I Was right.
Now to be honest, James and Jason didn't come up with the original Spellcraft. Now if their intention is for you to be able to counterspell, even though you have no clue and goes against the RAW wording of spellcraft, then I feel the rules need to be corrected and worded better. It seems to me all they did in Pathfinder was copy Spellcraft and leave out a few words.
I really want to know which part of the rules James was reading.
That is true, but since the adapted to PF they get to decide how it works for their system. Under 3.5 which is ruling I prefer a silent stilled spell can not be spellcraft.
PF's devs don't like that reading of it though, and I am sure they have a copy of the 3.5 FAQ which says silent stilled spells were purely mental actions.
The strict reading is that penalties aren't applied based on assumptions. Much like the list of things i posted in the Can you see yourself when invisible thread is the sudden ability to not identify in this circumstance.
If the rules don't spell out that something changes another rule then it doesn't change it. Here is a further example of your method of ruling taken to the extreme.
Blindsight is something the standard Lich from the bestiary can use for so many minutes a day. So if said Lich were to fill a room with deeper darkness and a fog cloud by your rules since it can't "see" the caster of a spell it can't counter spell even though using its other senses it can tell exactly what its opponents doing.
You are once again incorrect.
Technically, if we use your logic from your first sentence then anything outside of the RAW components is an assumption. No place in the rules does it say anything about a spellcaster giving you "any" inclination a spell is being cast outside of V,S,M.
Please show me a quote from the book that proves I am wrong.
Coupla things here
1. Fighters can still make AoO against still silenced eschewed spells correct? If so then based on that alone I can tell he is casting a spell.
2. Once again your the one making assumptions whats funny is we are looking at a point where I can't quote you anything any more than I can quote a rule saying that my character can needs to go to the bathroom. However I can show you spots in the rules where things might imply penalties like you would think but once again there are no listed penalties and to add them would be a houserule.
3. Way to ignore the part on blindsight its easier to keep qouting your one line and then demand use prove you wrong than simply accept that you can see the spell being cast even without components.
1. AoO's are not because you know the person is casting. It is because their guard is down. As an example SLA's also provoke.
2. PF devs agree with Talonhawke. You don't like their opinion fine, but you can't just use the rules when they are convenient for you Shallow.
3. Blindsight does not allow anyone to see so by the most strict interpretation they can not use spellcraft if they can not see the caster.
I am sure that if an FAQ is forced to come of this the devs will stick with their previous statements so now that we know PF intent it is pointless to claim otherwise. I guess I may as well hit the FAQ button though.
I think I might agree with GreenMeera on this, although the interpretation is very esoteric; a caster trained in the magic arts might have senses beyond sight to see a spell being cast.
I remember a similar issue with Mage: The Ascension, in that I had previously ruled that "you can't see a bullet coming at you" until I came to realize that a Mage COULD (with the appropriate Spheres), which comes back to the idea that such supernatural masters sense things we cannot.
So what are they "seeing"? The Will-Working. A captured wizard could fool his guards, but not his highly-trained nemesis who is standing over him interrogating him.
Still, a -5 on the DC for every component of V,S,M that is missing is a pretty sensible idea. My 2cp.
That is incorrect. One interpretation can be more correct if it is what the devs intended. The fact that they can not prove it without a shadow of a doubt does not make it any less right.
It is like the mirror image debates I was in. I was correct, but until the devs came along with the FAQ to go into detail on how the rule worked I did not have 100% proof that I Was right.
Very true, but that's the difference between RAW (rules as written) and RAI (rules as intended). You can't prove somebody's interpretations more correct or incorrect with RAW, but you can with RAI.
I love when the devs clarify their intentions! Can you point me to the mirror image thread so that I may see? I had a few questions about Mirror Image myself and would love to see if this helps.
Where is this "strict reading" that James is talking about. I have read the part up and down, left and right and it clearly states under Spellcraft that you must see the spell being cast.
...
I really want to know which part of the rules James was reading.
He's reading the same parts that you are! The difference is that you are operating under an assumption that is not in the RAW. You DO have to see the spell as it is being cast, this much is clear in Spellcraft like you are saying. However nowhere in the RAW does it say that removing the V, S, and M components make the spell unseen. That's the key to what he was trying to say.
Create any reason for it that you will. Maybe characters in Golarian have Heads Up Displays built into their retinas. Maybe the gods intervene during every spell that is cast. There's also
other flavor bits that happen when a spellcaster makes the magic happen
This one is my favorite because it's the simplest explanation and doesn't go against RAW. Fine Print: This is MY favorite explanation that doesn't go against RAW, however MY explanation is not RAW, but it's starting to seem it could be close to RAI after reading Jason Bulhman's post.
This is what's fun about being a GM, you can house-rule things to make sense or you can ignore the rules if you hate them. If you want to go exclusive RAW and RAI, you have to find explanations for the poorly worded or described bits I'm afraid. They're trying to explain an entire reality in several hundred pages. There's going to be some stretches of the imagination or exercises in common sense if you want this to work out.
then I feel the rules need to be corrected and worded better.
I agree with you so many times over.
@ Grenmeera: This blog is has some information on the spell
PS:I do agree many of the rules are not as clear as they could be.
I'll this on AoO
Something is making that guy lapse in his defenses. If he is just standing there when it happens then I know he isn't
Retrieving or manipulating an item in such a way that provokes.
Making any sort of attack that provokes.
Moving out of a threatened square.
Using a magic Item that provokes.
Lighting a torch.
Stablizing anyone.
Using a skill that provokes.
Controling a frightened mount
Loading a crossbow
Standing up from prone.
So all that is left from the basics is a spell or spell-like ability.
Now I don't know if you can identify a spell-like or not they are cast but they aren't spells. But if they can't be then something has to differentiate between the two when its happening if one can be identified and one can't.
|
Where is this "strict reading" that James is talking about. I have read the part up and down, left and right and it clearly states under Spellcraft that you must see the spell being cast.
Wiggling of the fingers is where your Somatic components come in.
Speaking and breathing funny are where your Verbal components come in.
Materials are where your materials components come in.
The fundamental issue is that you are attempting to put forth the argument that all there is to seeing the spell is seeing the components. But - and this is the key bit - "see the spell" is not automatically the same as "see the components."
This is made extremely obvious in the case of, for instance, the oft-referred-to fireball, where the "bead of flame" the spell produces would of course be visible regardless of the presence or absence of any components whatsoever. In other cases, the rules are silent one way or the other. A GM would certanly be free to rule that there is no such perceptible element to a spell - but the rules do not state that it is the case, and the Spellcraft rules do not state that components must be observed to identify a spell. All that is necessary is that you see the spell itself. The only internally-coherent interpretation I can see is that all spells produce a visible manifestation, one that can be identified using the Spellcraft skill. It is not RAW, because RAW is silent on the matter - but there is no way to argue that the RAW requires you to see the components in order to identify a spell.
This is made extremely obvious in the case of, for instance, the oft-referred-to fireball, where the "bead of flame" the spell produces would of course be visible regardless of the presence or absence of any components whatsoever. In other cases, the rules are silent one way or the other. A GM would certanly be free to rule that there is no such perceptible element to a spell - but the rules do not state that it is the case, and the Spellcraft rules do not state that components must be observed to identify a spell. All that is necessary is that you see the spell itself. The only internally-coherent interpretation I can see is that all spells produce a visible manifestation, one that can be identified using the Spellcraft skill. It is not RAW, because RAW is silent on the matter - but there is no way to argue that the RAW requires you to see the components in order to identify a spell.
Wow, that's... basically what I've been saying all along on both points. Nice summary!
First off, loved Darkwing Duck, so nice name!
Can a peasant (trickster Cleric in disguise) walk into a bar and subtly cast Charm Person on someone or is there an obvious ball of light and crackle of energy apparent to everyone in the bar when he does so?
My ruling when I GM is that Charm Person has a small soft glow of blue energy. This can, like all things, be hidden with a Stealth check and possibly a Bluff check depending upon if he's in conversation while doing it. Sitting down at a table and hiding it under the table, in a crowded bar, will get TONS of bonuses to the stealth check.
Can a Sorcerer covertly cast Major Image to deceive a band of villains and defeat them without fighting or is there going to be a blatant light show which instantly gives away that he's using magic when he casts his illusion?
Adding in the ability to hide yourself or what you're up to as mentioned above, there's also the unrelenting question for those who are unfamiliar with the arcane: Did that spell caster just summon this horror, or is it an illusion? Attempting to actively disbelief a summon can be a horrible mistake. Also, without ranks in Knowledge: Arcana or Spellcraft, that band of villians may have very little reason to understand what's happening right now.
|
|
There is a common problem that I am seeing pop up. I am going to use the above Fireball example. You don't see that tiny bead until after the spell is complete. Affects happen after the spell is cast, not during. All you have to do is actually read the rules on Spellcraft and Counterspelling and you will see why I am right according to the rules. Now the designers may have meant it a different way than 3.5 was but their writing of the RAW doesn't show their RAI.
For one thing it makes the feats Silent Spell and Still Spell less effective and it opens up arguments at the table. If you can say that a spells effect is happening as you cast the spell without RAW to back you up then what's stopping someone from saying that a spells effect doesn't appear during casting.
I challenge someone to go through the rulebook and find me anything that supports the opposition and one of the designers opinions on it. I can promise you that you won't find anything to back it up but you will find RAW that backs up what I claim.
It worries me when devs step and making a ruling without officially changing anything in their material. I don't want Pathfinder to end up a hodgepodge of designers rulings with no official changes.
|
|
Besides the rather obvious interpretation that fireball can be identified, there are more interesting cases (such as Charm Person, Major Image, and Detect Lie) which need to be considered.
Can a peasant (trickster Cleric in disguise) walk into a bar and subtly cast Charm Person on someone or is there an obvious ball of light and crackle of energy apparent to everyone in the bar when he does so?
Can a Sorcerer covertly cast Major Image to deceive a band of villains and defeat them without fighting or is there going to be a blatant light show which instantly gives away that he's using magic when he casts his illusion?
Fireball: When the bead leaves your finger there is no rolling that Spellcraft check because it's too late.
Regards to spells with no obvious physical effects.
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
|
|
Thanks to Hobbun this strengthens my argument.
You 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.
Shallowsoul For the third time please show me anything by RAW other that the word see that supports your postion.
Find a peice of text that says that these feats fundamentally change it. I'll take anything really I will. But guess what those feats change nothing they don't make it harder to ID the spell or to counterspell it. They don't give it any bonus to attack rolls or DC from surprise or deny dex because you don't know whats coming. You still provoke AoO from your casting just as if you were waving your hands around.
Guess what if a feat or spell has effects that change how something works then its listed somewhere. Much like how casting a Quickened Spell actually does prevent AoO.
Much like the afformentioned blindsight arguement you are now going to ignore this probably in favor of demanding that someone prove something by RAW, much like some posters when actions after death comes up, full and well knowing they can't.
|
|
First off, loved Darkwing Duck, so nice name!
Can a peasant (trickster Cleric in disguise) walk into a bar and subtly cast Charm Person on someone or is there an obvious ball of light and crackle of energy apparent to everyone in the bar when he does so?My ruling when I GM is that Charm Person has a small soft glow of blue energy.
Do you see the problem with this? The designer Jason is trying to rule in favor of a rule that has to be implemented by using a houserule. There are no rules for special effects that happen at the time of casting except for Verbal, Somatic and Material components.
They should have just stuck with the 3.5 version or just rewrite the whole rule as they intend it to be.
|
|
Shallowsoul For the third time please show me anything by RAW other that the word see that supports your postion.
Find a peice of text that says that these feats fundamentally change it. I'll take anything really I will. But guess what those feats change nothing they don't make it harder to ID the spell or to counterspell it. They don't give it any bonus to attack rolls or DC from surprise or deny dex because you don't know whats coming. You still provoke AoO from your casting just as if you were waving your hands around.
Guess what if a feat or spell has effects that change how something works then its listed somewhere. Much like how casting a Quickened Spell actually does prevent AoO.
Much like the afformentioned blindsight arguement you are now going to ignore this probably in favor of demanding that someone prove something by RAW, much like some posters when actions after death comes up, full and well knowing they can't.
Do you see a rule anywhere about spellcasters having some kind of Superman vision when it comes to spell being cast, besides the usual spells that must be cast first and ongoing?
Like I said ignore the arguement and keep going.
|
|
Shallowsoul For the third time please show me anything by RAW other that the word see that supports your postion.
Find a peice of text that says that these feats fundamentally change it. I'll take anything really I will. But guess what those feats change nothing they don't make it harder to ID the spell or to counterspell it. They don't give it any bonus to attack rolls or DC from surprise or deny dex because you don't know whats coming. You still provoke AoO from your casting just as if you were waving your hands around.
Guess what if a feat or spell has effects that change how something works then its listed somewhere. Much like how casting a Quickened Spell actually does prevent AoO.
Much like the afformentioned blindsight arguement you are now going to ignore this probably in favor of demanding that someone prove something by RAW, much like some posters when actions after death comes up, full and well knowing they can't.
Here is the problem. You are trying to somehow find a RAW explanation to back you up but it isn't happening because there isn't one. The RAW actually backs me up but the designers didn't want it to be that way so they are either going to change it or they're not and hope people come to the boards for a rules clarification. It's all in black and white.
Please show your work then how does RAW back you up.
Here's Mine
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 verbal component 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 significance. 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).
Nothing here about not having them being any harder. Lets check on Metamagic.
The modifications made by these feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user. A spellcaster can't use a metamagic feat to alter a spell being cast from a wand, scroll, or other device.
Metamagic feats that eliminate components of a spell don't eliminate the attack of opportunity provoked by casting a spell while threatened. Casting a spell modified by Quicken Spell does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Whether or not a spell has been enhanced by a metamagic feat does not affect its vulnerability to counterspelling or its ability to counterspell another spell (see Magic).
So not only do you still provoke outside of quicken but that bolded line seems to say that your just as counterable with or without them. But lets look at a few in case we are missing a specific rule.
Silent Spell (Metamagic)
You can cast your spells without making any sound.
Benefit: A silent spell can be cast with no verbal components. Spells without verbal components are not affected.
Level Increase: +1 (a silent spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.)
Special: Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this feat.
Still Spell (Metamagic)
You can cast spells without moving.
Benefit: A stilled spell can be cast with no somatic components. Spells without somatic components are not affected.
Level Increase: +1 (a stilled spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.)
Nothing on the feats to make it harder.
Here's one that makes it harder.
Spell Bluff
You know the principles of arcane dueling, and when fighting other spellcasters, you have learned to hide the true nature of your spells until the last possible moment.
Prerequisites: Bluff 5 ranks, Spellcraft 5 ranks.
Benefit: If another spellcaster tries to counterspell your casting, she adds +4 to her Spellcraft DC when trying to determine your spell.
Because you have studied how to mask the recognizable elements of your spellcasting, you gain a +2 bonus on your Spellcraft checks to identify and counter an opponent's spell if it is a spell you know or have in your spellbook
Hmmm Level five at the earliest and only adds a +4DC and only when they counter spell.
So in short a complete lack of any penalty to spellcraft for using them and even something pointing out that the get no harder to counterspell as a general rule.
Here is the problem. You are trying to somehow find a RAW explanation to back you up but it isn't happening because there isn't one. The RAW actually backs me up but the designers didn't want it to be that way so they are either going to change it or they're not and hope people come to the boards for a rules clarification. It's all in black and white.
The RAW doesn't back you up. The RAW says what the RAW says. Nothing more. Nothing less.
You interpret spells to mean that there is nothing else to them. That is not RAW, that is your interpretation. It is your assumption.
You could be correct.
But the RAW doesn't say you are.
I challenge someone to go through the rulebook and find me anything that supports the opposition and one of the designers opinions on it. I can promise you that you won't find anything to back it up but you will find RAW that backs up what I claim.
Nobody can do this. The RAW is unclear, which is the true problem. I cannot find RAW that backs up my interpretation, just like there is no RAW that backs up yours. Please don't say that the RAW backs you up when it does not. Nowhere does it say that you cannot see a silent, stilled, eschewed spell. I challenge you to find that.
As far as counter-spells go, you are correct that you cannot counter a spell after it goes off. You are making an assumption when you say that the pea sized bundle of energy, or any similar sign, doesn't exist during casting.
Actually, for a terminology question... when a spell "fizzles", what is fizzling? You're interpretation makes it sound like there's absolutely nothing there until completion, but when a spell fizzles and isn't completed, what fizzled?
I'm of the mind that a silenced, stilled spell with eschewed components CANNOT be identified when cast.
I personally think the rules are pretty clear on the matter.
There are no rules for covertly casting I could find. In fact even under those circumstances your still provoking so even then your not covert enough to not be noticed.
Second RAW says nothing about lacking componets making it harder to ID or Counter.
Third as i noted above the Rules even say that meta-magic feats cannot make it harder to counterspell as a general rule. Making a spell impossible to ID is making it harder to counterspell.
In short I'm not disagreeing with you DD or RD. But I am saying that I'm gonna need to see some rules on the matter backing up your side.
So far your side says that spells are invisible until the exact moment they are finished being cast and that means if they have no components they can't be seen.
My side says there is something that gives away whats going on and can be checked against.
I'm of the mind that a silenced, stilled spell with eschewed components CANNOT be identified when cast.
I personally think the rules are pretty clear on the matter.
Where do the rules clearly state that a stilled, silent, eschewed spell cannot be identified? This is actually what most of the thread is about. You could be right, I just don't see where the rules say this.
To make it impossible to covertly cast a spell adds nothing and takes away much from the game.
I'm wondering where you got the idea that it's impossible to covertly cast a spell? I'd think a mage being able to quickly become a covert assassin and have absolutely no stealth roll would be a bit... odd. Even invisibility takes a stealth check (with a +20 bonus).
I'm not overly fond of the idea that a wizard is a better assassin than the Assassin class.
Note that the Spellcraft rules are very clear that identifying a spell being cast involves the same modifiers as per Perception.
Still, silent, and eschew materials are going to affect that Perception check
I agree with you fully up to this point.
As there is nothing to see
This is the part that is not in the rules and assumed.
I'm not overly fond of an arcane caster unable to subtly cast an illusion.
Me either! That would suck! I get the impression that you're saying that I'm implying that would happen?
Once again, if you succeed at a stealth check, in which I would create a large number of circumstance bonuses in a crowded bar, or hiding in the bushes using all the rules for perception and stealth, then you have subtly cast an illusion. Not a big deal or difficult to do.
Actually, Darkwing Duck, I want to give you additional credit.
You have stated that you agree with the op and others. You have mentioned what you like and don't like, and you have stated your view of the rules.
At no point did you claim you knew the RAI based off the RAW for no reason. You're being reasonable. You have your opinion and it's so much easier to respect because you're being reasonable.
So far your side says that spells are invisible until the exact moment they are finished being cast and that means if they have no components they can't be seen.
Why would a spell have any visible manifestations at all if it is not even yet cast?
I can understand casting a spell still provoking--the caster needs to divert his attention away from defending himself to concentrate on casting the spell (unless he casts defensively, at the risk of botching the spell with the added distraction). That, however, in no way helps the case of those who oppose my belief. Noticing the person under your sword has let his guard down/seems distracted does NOT mean you know he is casting a spell.
And as DD said above, does taking away the option for stealth casting really help the game any?
Never said it was a good thing.
This is the last time I'm going to ask this then I'm gonna just wait.
Can anyone cite any rule/feat/archetype or anything to support the conclusion that said spell is impossible to ID and thus Counter?
Never said it was a good thing.
This is the last time I'm going to ask this then I'm gonna just wait.
Can anyone cite any rule/feat/archetype or anything to support the conclusion that said spell is impossible to ID and thus Counter?
We did. In the OP.
I'll repeat it for you.
Action: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
As I said, if the spell hasn't been cast yet, there obviously won't be any visible manifestations to witness. If you are in the middle of casting it, the only things to see are the various components. If there are no components, there is literally nothing for you to see, and thus the spell cannot be identified, much less countered.
As far as I can see, it is VERY clearly spelled out in the RAW.
But hey, that's just my "opinion."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Whether or not a spell has been enhanced by a metamagic feat does not affect its vulnerability to counterspelling or its ability to counterspell another spell (see Magic).
Once again note that Metamagic cannot make it harder to counterspell.
Making it impossible to ID means I cannot counter it.
Though i did find one feat to back you up slightly.
Secret signs lets you make a check to hide your casting of spells with only somatic components.
Howevernote that its not metamagic and not applicable to the above ruling.