Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Identifying a spell that's Stilled, Silenced and uses Eschew Materials.


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1 to 50 of 360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spellcraft

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.

Now it says clearly that in order to do the above, you must be able to clearly see the spell as it's being cast.

If a spell is Silenced, Stilled and uses Eschew Materials then there is nothing that implies the spell is even being cast. I believe you can't use Spellcraft in this situation because there is nothing telling you that the spell is being cast.

It's the same if you had the deaf and blind conditions, there would be no way for you to see or hear the spell being cast.

I say a Spellcraft check would not be allowed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I guess it would depend if the spell had any visual effect.

If not, I agree - no spellcraft check.


So remeber your only one class option 2 feats and a trait from being uncounterable.

Or Since they are still casting the spell and you can still see them casting you can still identify that spell.


DaveMage wrote:

I guess it would depend if the spell had any visual effect.

If not, I agree - no spellcraft check.

I agree, you could identify it if the spell had a visual effect.

Also, some spells require touch, so that might be suspicious.

And for those spells like Charm Person, etc. I'd maybe do sense motive or perception (IE "Hey, Fred is acting Strange." "Merisiel never says no to gold...")

Silver Crusade

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.

Silver Crusade

Depends if the other person had detect magic running. If they did I would allow a check. Otherwise tough luck to the witnesses without a visual reprentation

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah detect magic or arcane sight should work against this.

Silver Crusade

thedarkelf007 wrote:
Depends if the other person had detect magic running. If they did I would allow a check. Otherwise tough luck to the witnesses without a visual reprentation

Yeah, I agree with that.


What does knowing magic is happening have to do with it shallow??

By your earlier ruling you stll have nothing to base your check on

Nothing is being said done or used? and there isnt even a register on detect magic until its cast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I seem to remember a 3.5 rule that increased the spellcraft identification DC by +5 for every spell component that was missing. However, I don't know if I am remembering correctly and I haven't seen anything like this in PF. - Gauss


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
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.

Why do you say that any visual effects don't happen until the spell has triggered? I see nothing in the books to indicate this.

I've always been under the impression that visual magical energy gathers throughout the entire process. Almost all Pathfinder art shows glowing hands/staves/whatnot.

The caster may not be moving (Still metamagic), but the ball of glowing blue crackling energy is getting bigger.

Now, certainly I'd agree that being able to recognize the energy may be difficult without the verbal, somatic, or material cues. Generally I favor circumstance penalties (GMs can do these whenever) than flat out ignoring a RAW for identifying.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:

Spellcraft

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.

Now it says clearly that in order to do the above, you must be able to clearly see the spell as it's being cast.

If a spell is Silenced, Stilled and uses Eschew Materials then there is nothing that implies the spell is even being cast. I believe you can't use Spellcraft in this situation because there is nothing telling you that the spell is being cast.

It's the same if you had the deaf and blind conditions, there would be no way for you to see or hear the spell being cast.

I say a Spellcraft check would not be allowed.

I don't see a question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

This is entirely up to interpretation. For instance...

"you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast"

Who? You.
What? The spell.
When? As it is being cast.

Good news... in this game, spells "happen" as part of the action wherein they are cast. If a wizard with Silent Spell who is under greater invisibility who casts fireball can still have his spell identified. (Which makes perfect sense.) As long as you attempt the identification before the spell is resolved, it is during the same action in which it is being cast. Effectively the casting and the resolution are one and the same. There is no "and then".

It is nonsensical to suggest that a sorcerer who gets plastered by the above fireball is unable to determine what happened to him. To strive to interpret the rules to render a nonsensical result is pointless. One should always try to interpret the language used in the rulebook such that the resulting interpretation a} makes consistent in-game sense and b} improves the play of the game.

Let me be clear... I am of the opinion that you are identifying THE SPELL as it is being cast (at you or someone else), not you are identifying THE SPELL AS IT IS BEING CAST. Subtle emphasis.

Now, since we're done with TRYING to interpret rules so they don't make sense, let's expand our research somewhat.

Counter-spelling.

"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."

Hey look. The counter-spelling rule doesn't mention "as it is being cast" at all. You just... get a check, using your Spellcraft score. Succeed and you identify the spell. That's what it says.

If that usage of the Spellcraft skill Just Works it seems quite reasonable to bolster the viewpoint that the general usage isn't mindlessly punitive.

So, to be clear. If THE SPELL cannot be clearly seen as it is being cast, you can't identify it. Further, casting and resolving are (generally) done during the same game action time-period. Anything that interrupts the casting interrupts the spell. Shrug.

Once again, it is nonsensical to deliberately parse the words such that the ruling result is counter-intuitive, nonsensical, inconsistent, or negatively impacts game-play. THAT is the most important takeaway of my post. Don't sweat the minutia. Arguing against the specifics and the details of this post are beside the point.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Oh, also if the caster is attempting to cast stealthily to avoid counter-spells (which seems to be the idea), I'd allow a Stealth check with circumstance bonuses depending upon the situation.

A tied up wizard with his hands behind his back against a wall could probably conceal the unfathomable mystical energy after applying said feats without much problem.

Hands glowing? Fine... keep them behind your back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade

Anguish wrote:

This is entirely up to interpretation. For instance...

"you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast"

Who? You.
What? The spell.
When? As it is being cast.

Good news... in this game, spells "happen" as part of the action wherein they are cast. If a wizard with Silent Spell who is under greater invisibility who casts fireball can still have his spell identified. (Which makes perfect sense.) As long as you attempt the identification before the spell is resolved, it is during the same action in which it is being cast. Effectively the casting and the resolution are one and the same. There is no "and then".

It is nonsensical to suggest that a sorcerer who gets plastered by the above fireball is unable to determine what happened to him. To strive to interpret the rules to render a nonsensical result is pointless. One should always try to interpret the language used in the rulebook such that the resulting interpretation a} makes consistent in-game sense and b} improves the play of the game.

Let me be clear... I am of the opinion that you are identifying THE SPELL as it is being cast (at you or someone else), not you are identifying THE SPELL AS IT IS BEING CAST. Subtle emphasis.

Now, since we're done with TRYING to interpret rules so they don't make sense, let's expand our research somewhat.

Counter-spelling.

"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."

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.

Silver Crusade

The only three ways, by RAW, that show a spell is being cast is verbal, somatic and material components. Hands glowing and what not have no mechanical purpose so you can't sit there and add that in. Those three feats eliminate those three things so essentially the spell just happens without any warning. You have to go through using Spellcraft before you can identify or counterspell. Now Spellcraft requires that you "see" the spell as it is being cast, well you have eliminated your only means of knowing a spell has been cast so therefore you can't identify or counterspell it.


Nope because you keep placing your houserules in the wrong forum section.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
The only three ways, by RAW, that show a spell is being cast is verbal, somatic and material components.

Where are you getting this idea? The RAW never says that those are the only three ways to show a spell. Please don't make bold claims that says the RAW proves your point when the RAW doesn't mention anything relating to your point.

As far as I can find, it never says ANYTHING about what visually happens when a spell is cast in order to "see" it. You're assuming that there's only those methods, while others are assuming that there are more methods (based upon art in the book). The RAW doesn't address this at all. I'd say this is a GM's discretion, but considering that counter-spell is already difficult and rarely used, I'd lean in favor of the counter-spell.

This is one of the few posts you've made about the rules where I'd agree that your argument is possible (though I'd think unlikely). Don't misquote the rules and destroy your own argument by saying something is absolute when it is not.


What, no one can sense arcane/divine/other power being drawn upon and figure out what's happening?

Party wizard: "That man over there. He's drawing upon strong elemental power. I can almost feel the fire he touches."
Party fighter: "What's that mean?"
Wizard rolls Spellcraft check with penalties, as the caster has the Silent and Still spell feats plus Eschew materials.
Wizard: "It's a ...."
GM: Reflex saves guys.
Wizard: "...fireball."


Id like to add that if you are affected by a spell, you can do a knowledge (Arcana) check to know what just happened


Gauss wrote:
I seem to remember a 3.5 rule that increased the spellcraft identification DC by +5 for every spell component that was missing. However, I don't know if I am remembering correctly and I haven't seen anything like this in PF. - Gauss

I recall such a thing, too. I always just thought it was a houserule our group used to address this issue. Perhaps it actually did come from somewhere official.


Talonhawke wrote:

So remeber your only one class option 2 feats and a trait from being uncounterable.

Or Since they are still casting the spell and you can still see them casting you can still identify that spell.

Unless you had something like Detect Magic up how would you even know they were casting a Silent, Still, no component spell until you saw some sort of effect?


That concentration on thier face as their guard drops provoking an AoO.

Notice how the fighter still gets his free attack on that wizards even though he never says a word moves a muscle or pulls out bat poop? If he can still take that AoO then something is going on with that caster.


Talonhawke wrote:

That concentration on thier face as their guard drops provoking an AoO.

We're talking about identifying spells. But yes, if a caster you're fighting standing right in front of you just gets a dumb look on his face and stops moving I can see your point, but then again he could just stay on his guard (ie cast defensively) if he succeeds you wouldn't know what had happened til it was done.


Nope see when he does that he is now delibratile moving and guarding his actions in such away that he leaves no opening but now based on the fact that he is keeping back away from the fighter and still has a look of concentration on his face (now from the check to cast while keeping your guard up) its still evident he is casting.

At no point can i not tell he is casting there maybe a DC boost to the check to identify (though there isnt one by RAW) but i can identify it nonetheless.


Talonhawke wrote:


At no point can i not tell he is casting there maybe a DC boost to the check to identify (though there isnt one by RAW) but i can identify it nonetheless.

But you are identifying it based on what criteria? The fact he might be casting something? Because the only clues are movements, vocals, or components, and none are there.

On an unrelated note, can I roll to see what exactly someone is thinking based on the observation that they might currently be thinking?


And unless you can quote the text nothing states that i need any of those things to identify. i only need to see it cast.

In fact to those who think i can't identify a spell under these circumstances back it up with rules. The only qouted rules so far don't list components of any sort simply that you must see the spell being cast.

Silver Crusade

Seems to be two camps here, those that think there are more components, and those that don't.

Each spell could have Verbal, Somatic and Material components, but does not list a visual component.

Should this be an oversite? because I know I would take a feat that made the visual aspect undetectable like the other three.

Arcane site can see the school of the spell and help you understand what is being cast. One of my players characters (a wizard) perpetually walks around in a detect magic haze on the off chance he sees something useful.

And to spent feats on Silent and Still Spell, and Eschew Material is quite the investment if there is no payoff.

Each on their own has their uses, but combined should give an advantage.

In my 3.5 games I have allowed multiple selection of Eschew Material with each additional feat granting the caster to ignore 10 times the level previous. (i.e. 1 feat = 1gp, 2 feats = 10 gp, 3 feats = 100 gp).

So I am with Shadowsoul and not let them roll.

Counterspell might be different, but I'd need to read the rules on that again before I would go either way.


I make it a personal rule to always attack casters who aren't pulling out bat poop, waving their hands around or saying whacky words but have a dumb look on their face. Just on basic principle, you know. If they don't have the common courtesy to tell me what they are doing I don't want to find out the hard way. Even if it is a friendly caster. Maybe next time he can tell me WTF he is doing first. If he is smart he will learn something from the experience.

Actually, Im going to make a disagreement on this whole topic that I'm sure will not be very popular. I don't think "see" was the term that Paizo (and WotC by extension) intended. I think what they meant was "perceive". In fact, I think that is what we are all arguing based on. Because if it was just "see" then you wouldn't have to silent the spell. But we know that there are other ways to perceive a spell being cast other than seeing it cast, right? What ways are there to perceive it? ...well, that isn't specifically spelled out in the rules.

So personally I am on the fence on this one. The rules side of me agrees with Talonhawke. You can still AoO them by RAW so something else is definately going on there even if it is a "dumb look". On the other hand the game balance side of me thinks that if someone made the significant investment of using 2 feats that increase spell level and a class ability to be able to pull off an undectable spell then I think it is certainly within the realm of balance to allow it to not be detectable by any means. It isn't RAW, but it seems reasonable.

Also, Talonhawke, you need to change your picture back. Thank you.

Shadow Lodge

Raw, you can't see or hear the spell being cast, so you can't counter at all.

Other raw, You do see and hear the spell being cast, but there's no sound, so you can counter it...

3.5 had a much more sensible approach: each material component that would normally be in the spell and wasn't imposed a -2 penalty on the spellcraft check to identify it, so if you had an invisible wizard hasting up his friends it was a little harder to ID the words.

By the raw something as simple as invisibility completely stops any attempt to ID the spell.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thedarkelf007 wrote:
Depends if the other person had detect magic running. If they did I would allow a check. Otherwise tough luck to the witnesses without a visual reprentation

What difference will it make?

a) You must concentrate on detect magic to notice something;
b) you nee 3 rounds to get a reading, the first round you know only that there is magic in the direction in which you are scanning.
c) nowhere in the rules it say that you register as "using magic" while casting a spell. it will detect the compelted spell, but not the act of casting.

d) beside all the above, you still will have little clue about what is being casted.

Talonhawke wrote:

So remeber your only one class option 2 feats and a trait from being uncounterable.

Or Since they are still casting the spell and you can still see them casting you can still identify that spell.

And an increase of 2 for the level of the spell. A "uncounterable" firelball as a 5th level spell. Terrific.

Personally I would increase the spellcraft check difficulty for each missing element, to follow the KISS principle I would use a +2 DC for each missing element from the components used by the original spell.
if I was willing to use more complicated rules a +2 DC for missing material components (generally you can see that the caster is manipulating something, but unless you are very close it is hard to see what he is manipulating, so generally people is used to identify a spell with limited knowledge on its material components) and a 5 DC each for a missing somatic or verbal component.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Anguish wrote:

This is entirely up to interpretation. For instance...

"you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast"

Who? You.
What? The spell.
When? As it is being cast.

Good news... in this game, spells "happen" as part of the action wherein they are cast. If a wizard with Silent Spell who is under greater invisibility who casts fireball can still have his spell identified. (Which makes perfect sense.) As long as you attempt the identification before the spell is resolved, it is during the same action in which it is being cast. Effectively the casting and the resolution are one and the same. There is no "and then".

It is nonsensical to suggest that a sorcerer who gets plastered by the above fireball is unable to determine what happened to him. To strive to interpret the rules to render a nonsensical result is pointless. One should always try to interpret the language used in the rulebook such that the resulting interpretation a} makes consistent in-game sense and b} improves the play of the game.

Let me be clear... I am of the opinion that you are identifying THE SPELL as it is being cast (at you or someone else), not you are identifying THE SPELL AS IT IS BEING CAST. Subtle emphasis.

Now, since we're done with TRYING to interpret rules so they don't make sense, let's expand our research somewhat.

Counter-spelling.

"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."

Hey look. The counter-spelling rule doesn't mention "as it is being cast" at all. You just... get a check, using your Spellcraft score. Succeed and you identify the spell. That's what it says.

If that usage of the Spellcraft skill Just Works it seems quite reasonable to bolster the viewpoint that the general usage isn't mindlessly punitive.

So, to be clear. If THE SPELL cannot be clearly...

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.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GrenMeera wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
The only three ways, by RAW, that show a spell is being cast is verbal, somatic and material components.

Where are you getting this idea? The RAW never says that those are the only three ways to show a spell. Please don't make bold claims that says the RAW proves your point when the RAW doesn't mention anything relating to your point.

As far as I can find, it never says ANYTHING about what visually happens when a spell is cast in order to "see" it. You're assuming that there's only those methods, while others are assuming that there are more methods (based upon art in the book). The RAW doesn't address this at all. I'd say this is a GM's discretion, but considering that counter-spell is already difficult and rarely used, I'd lean in favor of the counter-spell.

This is one of the few posts you've made about the rules where I'd agree that your argument is possible (though I'd think unlikely). Don't misquote the rules and destroy your own argument by saying something is absolute when it is not.

Art as RAW? LOL

If you read JJ comments on the guys doing Paizo art you will discover that most of them don't have the foggiest idea of what is the game, so using art as a reference for rules is the worst option possible.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Gauss wrote:
I seem to remember a 3.5 rule that increased the spellcraft identification DC by +5 for every spell component that was missing. However, I don't know if I am remembering correctly and I haven't seen anything like this in PF. - Gauss
I recall such a thing, too. I always just thought it was a houserule our group used to address this issue. Perhaps it actually did come from somewhere official.

One of the possible sources for that was in Forgotten Realm, Player guide to Faerun, the feat Spell thematics gave your spells a peculiar aspect and one of the effects was a +4 to the spellcraft DC. it is not the same thing but it can be the origin of the idea.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Anguish wrote:

This is entirely up to interpretation. For instance...

"you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast"

Who? You.
What? The spell.
When? As it is being cast.

Good news... in this game, spells "happen" as part of the action wherein they are cast. If a wizard with Silent Spell who is under greater invisibility who casts fireball can still have his spell identified. (Which makes perfect sense.) As long as you attempt the identification before the spell is resolved, it is during the same action in which it is being cast. Effectively the casting and the resolution are one and the same. There is no "and then".

It is nonsensical to suggest that a sorcerer who gets plastered by the above fireball is unable to determine what happened to him. To strive to interpret the rules to render a nonsensical result is pointless. One should always try to interpret the language used in the rulebook such that the resulting interpretation a} makes consistent in-game sense and b} improves the play of the game.

Let me be clear... I am of the opinion that you are identifying THE SPELL as it is being cast (at you or someone else), not you are identifying THE SPELL AS IT IS BEING CAST. Subtle emphasis.

Now, since we're done with TRYING to interpret rules so they don't make sense, let's expand our research somewhat.

Counter-spelling.

"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."

Hey look. The counter-spelling rule doesn't mention "as it is being cast" at all. You just... get a check, using your Spellcraft score. Succeed and you identify the spell. That's what it says.

If that usage of the Spellcraft skill Just Works it seems quite reasonable to bolster the viewpoint that the general usage isn't mindlessly punitive.

So, to be clear. If THE SPELL

...

Diego a deaf oracle can do it with only one level and with magical heritage can have one spell they know that has no level increase.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Raw, you can't see or hear the spell being cast, so you can't counter at all.

Other raw, You do see and hear the spell being cast, but there's no sound, so you can counter it...

3.5 had a much more sensible approach: each material component that would normally be in the spell and wasn't imposed a -2 penalty on the spellcraft check to identify it, so if you had an invisible wizard hasting up his friends it was a little harder to ID the words.

By the raw something as simple as invisibility completely stops any attempt to ID the spell.

You wanna claim raw show some rules.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
Diego a deaf oracle can do it with only one level and with magical heritage can have one spell they know that has no level increase.

So one archetype, of one class, with a specific trait can cast 1 spell without increase in the spell level. Broken. ^_^


It was never about the brokenness its about how by the rules you can still make the ID.

Shadow Lodge

i remember that the Force missle mage (my favorite PrC ever) has an image of a mage "still spell" casting a magic missle, the picture has magical spinning lines of force showing the casting. so if thats how spell casting works in this game, you having silent and still wouldnt cancel out the magical "swirls" made as a byproduct of casting the spell. if thats true then a spell craft could still be used to identify the spell based on how the magical energies formed around you.

BUT if those magical energies were just for show, and those dont actually form in the sense of game mechanics then i would say, "yes you can bypass the opposed spell craft to counter spell."

i guess its an issue of how you choose to play it. me, i love the idea of blue lines of energy forming in my eyes around my body as i cast my spell. a big dramatic showing of magical energy, so i guess i would say you could still counter spell me.


Quote:

Spellcraft

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.

Perception wrote:


Distance to the source, object, or creature +1/10 feet
Through a closed door +5
Through a wall +10/foot of thickness
Favorable conditions1 –2
Unfavorable conditions1 +2
Terrible conditions2 +5
Creature making the check is distracted +5
Creature making the check is asleep +10
Creature or object is invisible +20
1 Favorable and unfavorable conditions depend upon the sense being used to make the check. For example, bright light might increase the DC of checks involving sight, while torchlight or moonlight might give a penalty. Background noise might reduce a DC involving hearing, while competing odors might penalize any DC involving scent.
2 As for unfavorable conditions, but more extreme. For example, candlelight for DCs involving sight, a roaring dragon for DCs involving hearing, and an overpowering stench covering the area for DCs involving scent.

Seems to me that the lack of words and movement as well as some components would definitely qualify as unfavorable conditions -- I could easily see calling it terrible conditions. If combat is going on distracted would probably apply as well.

I would point out however that simply casting provokes an AoO -- even when you are paralyzed... so make sense of it how you will.

Shadow Lodge

Talonhawke wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Raw, you can't see or hear the spell being cast, so you can't counter at all.

Other raw, You do see and hear the spell being cast, but there's no sound, so you can counter it...

3.5 had a much more sensible approach: each material component that would normally be in the spell and wasn't imposed a -2 penalty on the spellcraft check to identify it, so if you had an invisible wizard hasting up his friends it was a little harder to ID the words.

By the raw something as simple as invisibility completely stops any attempt to ID the spell.

You wanna claim raw show some rules.

Sure

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. -Spellcraft

While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.

Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.


I believe buhlman has stated in a thread all spellcasting can be seen regardless of components. On phone though so cant search for source.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.

Going by RAW this doesn't matter though as it says "sees", not "perceives".

This is why I said that I think the RAI is "perceives". Can we at least agree that it means perceives? I think that would make this discussion a whole lot easier.

Shadow Lodge

Lune wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.

Going by RAW this doesn't matter though as it says "sees", not "perceives".

This is why I said that I think the RAI is "perceives". Can we at least agree that it means perceives? I think that would make this discussion a whole lot easier.

I wasn't implying it could, i just don't like starting a quote from raw mid sentence. The you can't be seen is the important part there.

I don't see a reason for RAI to be perceives rather than sees.

Lantern Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

...

3.5 had a much more sensible approach: each material component that would normally be in the spell and wasn't imposed a -2 penalty on the spellcraft check to identify it, so if you had an invisible wizard hasting up his friends it was a little harder to ID the words.

...

I have 3.5 and cant find this anywhere, mind directing me to where this is?

90% of the rules in pf and dnd assume 2 things,

1, that the situation is normal and not completely out of whack with what is expected because a player is smart.

2, Most importantly the writers expect for GMs to have the knuts to up and call on what they think is sensible instead of trying to discern what a book says about an unexpected happenings.

If a player cant find a rule quickly then make call and carry on, if no one can find an applicable rule by next session(do I need to add "or a reasonable amount of time?" as this also clearly falls under point 2) then let everyone make arguments for why that call should or shouldnt become houserule.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Raw, you can't see or hear the spell being cast, so you can't counter at all.

Other raw, You do see and hear the spell being cast, but there's no sound, so you can counter it...

3.5 had a much more sensible approach: each material component that would normally be in the spell and wasn't imposed a -2 penalty on the spellcraft check to identify it, so if you had an invisible wizard hasting up his friends it was a little harder to ID the words.

By the raw something as simple as invisibility completely stops any attempt to ID the spell.

You wanna claim raw show some rules.

Sure

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. -Spellcraft

While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.

Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.

Not seeing components is not the same as not seeing a spell being cast.

Lantern Lodge

The intelligent thing is to realize that the RAW assumes normal spellcasting without any feats added, and thus [edit]when use those feats together[/edit] spellcraft can be used when you see the spell go off which would be to late to counterspell.

Besides in one of the add on books(sry I don't remember which) their was a skill trick to use sleight of hand to disguise the casting of a spell as normal conversational gestures with the desc implying that it could be used to trick people into believing that you didn't cast the spell(when using silent as well) which further implies that they would tell a normal casting by way of gestures and words.

Further, the aoo is a mechanical thing and doesn't even come close to real combat so shouldn't even bother tying that in but here goes anyway,

the wizard is constantly on guard against the fighters attacks(otherwise ac would be flat footed) and the aoo is caused by the lapse in the wizards attn to his opp and not because the fighter saw something and atkd.

The concept for combat is that during the whole thing, even between turns, everyone is swinging and parrying but atks represent the strikes that have a chance to actually hit vs the strikes meant to keep an opp on guard which might actually hit if that opp zigs instead of zags.

thus the aoo doesn't come from anyone knowing that the wizard is casting.

Shadow Lodge

Talonhawke wrote:
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)

Identifying the spell is important for counterspell, which means you have to start the counterspell BEFORE the spell takes effect (thats why you can't wait till after they've cast to identify it) So even if you house rule charm person having a bright purple halo around the targets head by the time you see it its too late to counterspell.

1 to 50 of 360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Identifying a spell that's Stilled, Silenced and uses Eschew Materials. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.