Still spell is now utterly useless?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 361 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Paulicus wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Neat necro.

Well, there is now this:
** spoiler omitted **

Where is that from?
Mostly likely the Dirty tricks Toolbox... along with the awesome Dirty Fighting Feat :P

No, it's not from the Dirty Tactics Toolbox.


Thats right sorry xD lol. Misremembered the name :p


I should pick up that book just for Dirty Fighting. Prevents a brawler dip for my magus, maybe.

Grand Lodge

It's from Heroes of the Streets.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
It's from Heroes of the Streets.

I hadn't noticed that product before. It has an Eldritch Archer Magus archetype. I am very happy.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Neat necro.

Well, there is now this:
** spoiler omitted **

Given how easy it is to pump the bluff skill up into the stratosphere, I'm not comfortable with allowing spellcasters to simply bluff their way out of this restriction. There shouldn't be any way to fool people into not noticing that you've just cast, for example, lightning bolt.

That said, I find the idea that spells should be always detectable because reasons to be a perfect example of dim-witted arbitrariness in the name of balance, and I hate that kind of crap. I've always ruled that a spell is concealed if:

1) It produces no obvious physical effects.

and

2) Its components are not perceived by observers, and no one is actively looking at the caster or target with detect magic at the moment of casting.

------------------------------------

I don't know why Paizo always insists on fixing problems in the game by introducing new feats/mechanics/etc. which only contribute to game bloat.


Matrix Dragon wrote:

I'm not too into the swirling runes explanation since it is never mentioned in the books (as much as I love the flavor).

In fact, there is a section in the rules that specifically talks about what targets of a spell with no visible presence feel when they make their saving throws. If casting a spell sent runes flying around everywhere then this would almost never happen.

Then again, maybe I'm biased because I have a character who has been making liberal use of Silent+Stilled Charm Person ;)

I'm particularly glad charm person doesn't have being undetectable as an option anymore. Especially for people using the 'create slave' interpretation of charm person.


I'm glad this is a necro, I thought for a second there was a new over reaching errata I had to read...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ErichAD wrote:
I'm glad this is a necro, I thought for a second there was a new over reaching errata I had to read...

There was, but it was a stealth errata to the Unwritten Rules Document.

It says "Creatures and characters nearby are automatically made aware of your spellcasting even when there are no observable stimuli present."

*rolls eyes*


That was added to the Unwritten Rules years ago. (I always run by strict RAU myself.)


I uh.... wait what? Could you provide a psychic wave form describing if and when I should apply that to supernatural abilities such as super natural flight, use activated magic items and spell completion items? I'd like to be generally aware of something that feels like the authors intent here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ErichAD wrote:
I uh.... wait what? Could you provide a psychic wave form describing if and when I should apply that to supernatural abilities such as super natural flight, use activated magic items and spell completion items? I'd like to be generally aware of something that feels like the authors intent here.

In short, game developers have stated (unofficially) several times on the forums that a character can use Spellcraft to identify an enemy spellcaster's spell even if said caster made use of the Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials feats. They further elaborate that even without ranks in the Spellcraft skill, it's generally pretty obvious when someone is casting a spell, and it still provokes an attack of opportunity even in the above scenario. The continue to say this, even though the Spellcraft skill specifically states you take Perception penalties on the check, implying you have to be able to see it to identify it...

I agree with the attack of opportunity, since spells take your concentration away from your defense, but I adamantly disagree that you can spot, much less identify, a spell that is being cast with no components whatsoever.

EXAMPLE
GM: The bartender is staring at you intently.
PC: He's casting a spell! Kill him!

Ridiculous...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:


I agree with the attack of opportunity, since spells take your concentration away from your defense, but I adamantly disagree that you can spot, much less identify, a spell that is being cast with no components whatsoever.

You've always been the stickler for RAW. And raw simply has no stated penalties to spellcraft from the metamagic feats. You've always argued from literal readings of rules text, and that is where it puts you at... no modifications to spellcraft checks from either Still, Silent, or the combination thereof.


I suppose if you cast an illusionary wall in front of you. You could cast spells without any one knowing about it.

Sovereign Court

"Now useless".... like it was ever useful. ..

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:
In short, game developers have stated (unofficially) several times on the forums that a character can use Spellcraft to identify an enemy spellcaster's spell even if said caster made use of the Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials feats. They further elaborate that even without ranks in the Spellcraft skill, it's generally pretty obvious when someone is casting a spell, and it still provokes an attack of opportunity even in the above scenario. The continue to say this, even though the Spellcraft skill specifically states you take Perception penalties on the check, implying you have to be able to see it to identify it...

Source(s) ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
In short, game developers have stated (unofficially) several times on the forums that a character can use Spellcraft to identify an enemy spellcaster's spell even if said caster made use of the Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials feats. They further elaborate that even without ranks in the Spellcraft skill, it's generally pretty obvious when someone is casting a spell, and it still provokes an attack of opportunity even in the above scenario. The continue to say this, even though the Spellcraft skill specifically states you take Perception penalties on the check, implying you have to be able to see it to identify it...
Source(s) ?

This one from Ravingdork's thread Jason: Is concealed spellcasting possible with metamagic? is commonly referenced.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

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 Publishing

Edit: 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.

Notice that the thread is from 2010. This issue has been around for a while.


Ravingdork wrote:
In short, game developers have stated (unofficially) several times on the forums that a character can use Spellcraft to identify an enemy spellcaster's spell even if said caster made use of the Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials feats. They further elaborate that even without ranks in the Spellcraft skill, it's generally pretty obvious when someone is casting a spell, and it still provokes an attack of opportunity even in the above scenario.

And none of that changed RAW functionality, it was 100% consistent with it.

Quote:
The continue to say this, even though the Spellcraft skill specifically states you take Perception penalties on the check, implying you have to be able to see it to identify it...

Which doesn't conflict with anything else they've said, and if you are having problems visualizing things, the "swirling mystic runes" is most compatable with 'visually notieable UNIQUE signature' to casting spells independent of components. They don't spell out visualizations/in-world narratives for PLENTY of mechanics, not sure why this one is a problem, or one would persist in insisting on one's own visualizations taking precedence when they CONFLICT with RAW.

Liberty's Edge

That is what I thought (and dimly remembered). The main dev has clearly stated that he thought there should be a penalty to identify "hidden" spells. Which is definitely not the same stance as "anyone can see when a "hidden" spell is being cast" ;-)


Matrix Dragon wrote:

I'm not too into the swirling runes explanation since it is never mentioned in the books (as much as I love the flavor).

In fact, there is a section in the rules that specifically talks about what targets of a spell with no visible presence feel when they make their saving throws.
If casting a spell sent runes flying around everywhere then this would almost never happen.

You're not only ignoring spells where caster in not within line of sight of targets,

you're ignoring that "swirling mystic runes" (or whatever visual evidence of casting you prefer) is not a visual evidence of THE SPELL, it evidence of THE CASTING.
The book doesn't mention MANY things that would provide coherent narrative for the mechanical effects.
e.g. It doesn't state exactly what (different kinds of) provoking AoOs look like.
If you want a cohesive narrative world, it is your responsibility to create one which matches the outcome of the rules.
If you prefer to throw out a totally viable and plausible narrative reason, and instead have ZERO narrative reason, go ahead, but I'd prefer not to play that game.
I assume you are also blacking out with marker pen every cover and piece of art from Paizo including these runes, since they don't exist in your games?


One more thing I thought of... Somatic Components depend on the Caster,
Casters of extremely different forms will use motions suited to their forms.
Yet you can still Spellcraft ID these spells, even if you can't even pass a Knowledge check for their creature type.
So perhaps it is not so much that the Somatic components are the primary ID factor,
after all they could very well be extremely subtle and not easy to ID by observer.
External visual manifestation of the spellcasting process, i.e. swirling runes, is the best explanation I have.
But I guess technically it doesn't matter, because we have the rules needed to interface with the game at large.
If you want to throw away a perfectly good explanation that is CONSISTENLY upheld by Paizo's own products, OK.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That sort of makes public use of enchantment spells even more awful doesn't it? It's no longer a matter of hiding what you did from other spell casters, but hoping everyone is too blind to see the swirling lights.

Is the starting mod for noticing a spell being cast "0" as per perception's "Notice a visible creature"?

Does the manifestation make sound, smell, temperature change or some other manifestation, or is it arbitrarily visual?

Does invisibility make your spell manifestation invisible, or do the magic lights appear in the caster's square?


It's something visually noticeable, but no reason to think it's glowing.
So (mundane) Darkness or smoke etc. would block line of sight to it.
RAW is not clear if it is on your person (covered by Invis), or swirling around you etc. (I go for latter)
Rules says you must see the spell as it is being cast, not that you must see spellcaster (person).
Since it does seem to be accepted by Paizo they probably could confirm a few more aspects of it.

Grand Lodge

Two guys see a Wizard casting a spell.

Guy 1: "Is that guy having a stroke, or crapping his pants?"

Guy 2: "HOLY CRAP! HE'S CASTING A SPELL!".


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Two guys see a Wizard casting a spell.

Guy 1: "Is that guy having a stroke, or crapping his pants?"

Guy 2: "HOLY CRAP! HE'S CASTING A SPELL!".

That made me think of this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is where it would be nice for magic to include the Display mechanics of Psionics, which tell you exactly what perceptible effects the power has. Personally, I'd like to see a "subtle" descriptor for certain spells, which would denote when the components could be disguised as something mundane (such as charm person). Presently, the rules just don't handle it too well. It should be very difficult to determine who in a crowd of people cast summon monster as a spell-like ability, but probably not who cast scorching ray.


One thing that really annoys me on the boards is that people complain about wizards being too powerful but then turn around and actively ignore all the rules restricting them.

Spells with clear restrictions like Charm Person and Dominate Person get ignored. Hand-wave away costly spell components. Allow parties to have 15 minute adventuring days with absolutely no consequence. Now, just ignore the rules which state that you can tell when people cast spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think most people were using the rules that modified the spell craft DC with perception mods in order to notice that a spell was being cast, obeyed the rule that someone couldn't recognize a spell without having ranks in spell craft, and didn't create rules regarding perceivable manifestations from whole cloth.

There simply wasn't a rule to ignore, if the rule exists it is poorly defined, has some conflicting rules regarding it, and should be addressed in a larger clarification.


Quandary wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
In short, game developers have stated (unofficially) several times on the forums that a character can use Spellcraft to identify an enemy spellcaster's spell even if said caster made use of the Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials feats. They further elaborate that even without ranks in the Spellcraft skill, it's generally pretty obvious when someone is casting a spell, and it still provokes an attack of opportunity even in the above scenario.
And none of that changed RAW functionality, it was 100% consistent with it.

The rules are silent on the issue of how observation of spellcasting interacts with Still and Silent spell, probably because the original 3rd Ed. developers thought it was so bloody obvious that there was no need to get into minutiae. How you can interpret an utter lack of commentary as RAW is beyond me...though apparently it has something to do with fantasy art involving swirling runes, or somesuch.


MeanMutton wrote:

One thing that really annoys me on the boards is that people complain about wizards being too powerful but then turn around and actively ignore all the rules restricting them.

Spells with clear restrictions like Charm Person and Dominate Person get ignored. Hand-wave away costly spell components. Allow parties to have 15 minute adventuring days with absolutely no consequence. Now, just ignore the rules which state that you can tell when people cast spells.

What rule?

There is actually a complete lackage of rules regarding this particulair case that DOES NOT INVOLVE HAVING TO MAKE S$*+ UP. The whole "swirling runes" thing? That is not always the case. For instance, some of the art inside the Advanced Race Guide, you see the sorceress and the oracle casting spells and you see no "glowing runes". You just see lightning and stuff (i.e. the spell effect).

They just made a blanket rule and didnt even bother to think of the situation of a spell not having any components at all.

As for your other points:

Charm Person does not have restrictions. It has limits per say, but no "you cannot do this."

Dominate Person also has very few limits...

Spell Components are a thing. I keep them.

The 15 minute work day though is really hard to stop at a point... Oh and before you pull the whole "Well interrupt their rest!" remember, martials also start takin penalties when they dont rest... oh and lets also not forget that most people are not sleeping in armor.. unless you handwave that away for them? So they are chargin into battle naked...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RAW was always pretty ambiguous.
"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"
Can you clearly see a spell being cast if it's happening right in front of you but is Still and Silent and the caster has Eschew Materials? If you fail your spellcraft check, are you able to tell that a spell is being cast at all?

The RAI seems to be that magic is fairly easy to spot, based on the 'wiggle of a finger' commentary above and the Cunning Caster feat. But this isn't clear from looking at the Core rulebook.


Matthew Downie wrote:

RAW was always pretty ambiguous.

"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"
Can you clearly see a spell being cast if it's happening right in front of you but is Still and Silent and the caster has Eschew Materials? If you fail your spellcraft check, are you able to tell that a spell is being cast at all?

The RAI seems to be that magic is fairly easy to spot, based on the 'wiggle of a finger' commentary above and the Cunning Caster feat. But this isn't clear from looking at the Core rulebook.

If you go by Jason's comments, the difference between waving your hands around while shouting and tossing bung in the air VS standing there and using NO components should be a whopping -4. RAW there is no difference as it's just as easy to tell what the guy not doing anything is casting...

Something just doesn't sound right there...


Anybody saying "This is useful for when you are paralyzed, pinned, tied up, etc."

Keep in mind that's ONLY for non-material component spells, or if you've also taken "eschew materials" because if you're paralyzed or totally tied up, you usually can't prepare material components either in these same sorts of situations.

Making it a lot less useful. Either a 2 feat commitment for a very niche ability, or only allowing you to use niche spells in niche situations.

Quote:
Spellcraft skill specifically states you take Perception penalties on the check, implying you have to be able to see it to identify it...

And yes, I would say this clause in Spellcraft trumps any unofficial nonsense claimed by Paizo folks on the boards. Because this is direct contradiction with "can identify spells even if still/silent/eschewed" and RAW should I think unambiguously always win a direct contradiction with unofficial commentary. If they want it to work the other way, step up and errata it.

But still spell is still pretty useless in conjunction with prepping of components still being visible, regardless. If it were changed to say "It removes somatic components AND removes the observable action of prepping ingredients (but still uses them up, they just vanish from a pouch, etc. without movement)" then it would make more sense.


It probably is niche, but I have found being a shadow with silent metamagic feat via 1 level of deaf cursed oracle, and still metamagic, and eschew materials, and a silence spell, makes being the only one able to cast spells makes up entirely for the +1 spell level the combination requires. Plus I get to go up to the casters and strength damage them down to death is nice as well..


Brain in a Jar wrote:
ryric wrote:

Was Still Spell ever about making magic subtle? I always though it was for avoiding ASF, casting while tied up, and that sort of thing.

I am sad that Pathfinder has no mechanic for disguising spellcasting, but that's another topic.

There is this ** spoiler omitted **

There might be others i just did a quick check.

There is also the Hidden Priest archetype for the cleric that's all about disguising spell casting for clerics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Uh, personally? I would rule it as people seeing the spell happen, and allowed a check to recognize/dispel/whatever it, but if it was a Silent/Still/Material-free casting, they might not know who was doing the casting in the first place. In short, you can't disguise the spell, but you can disguise the caster.

(Note: Obviously, then, what spell is being cast matters. If it's a self-only buff, then basically anyone in my games is smart enough to deduce that the caster was almost certainly the person receiving the buff. If it was an effect that only takes effect remotely, like lightning coming down from the sky, THAT is a bit harder to pinpoint.)

This may well be a house rule, but it's one I feel comfortable supporting, if only because I want to occasionally use it on players. XD


Quote:
If it's a self-only buff, then basically anyone in my games is smart enough to deduce that the caster was almost certainly the person receiving the buff.

How do you know ANYBODY was buffed, if it was a silent, still, material-free spell?

If the buff is "grow twice as large" then sure, the effect of that spell is of course by its nature visible, but if the buff is "get +4 INT" then you should have no indication at all, because intelligence isn't by its nature outwardly visible.

I'm not aware of anywhere in the books it says that magic inherently has any sort of visible effect where it takes place, other than the written effect of the spell. (I realize you said it may be a house rule, and thus probably don't have any passage in mind, but maybe somebody does)


To use Spellcraft for identifying stuff while it's being cast, you must - and I quote exactly - "be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast". Under a strict reading of the rules, I think you could reasonably say that spells being cast are able to be seen by default.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Rednal wrote:
To use Spellcraft for identifying stuff while it's being cast, you must - and I quote exactly - "be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast". Under a strict reading of the rules, I think you could reasonably say that spells being cast are able to be seen by default.

This way of looking at it only logically requires that some spells have inherent visual effects, not all spells, for the spellcraft rules not to be redundant. And clearly, some do, such as burning hands -- there's a big honking cone of fire that you can see, for example. This is listed in its description.

The ones that don't list a visible effect in their description should then not be visible by spellcraft if you are going by your ultra strict reading. Perhaps, in fact, even if they aren't silenced, stilled, OR eschewed. This would be the most strict ruling, as it allows all rules text to have a purpose, but involves no invention of any game mechanics that aren't listed (like visible effects for spells that mention none).

Actually, I kind of like that interpretation... it makes sense, if you think of each caster's babblings and hand gestures as being unique to that caster, totally incomprehensivle to others, and the component pouch being too small and hidden and fiddling around inside of it to make anything out. You would only be able to actually identify a spell by the SPELL: it's actual effects on the world. The babblings and gestures would clue you in that a spell is being cast and who the caster is, but not the identity of it two totally separate things?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you're witnessing the manifested effects of a spell, it is too late to use Spellcraft. Spellcraft can only be used as the spell is cast, presumably by witnessing the components being used. Identifying the spell effects themselves, is the domain of Knowledge (arcana).


Didn't the Paizo people state somewhere that the reason you got those checks, even against a Silent and Stilled spell, was because of the big glowing runes floating in the air or something? It's in their art too.

Cast obscuring mist first, and now no one gets Spellcraft checks.


Azten wrote:

Didn't the Paizo people state somewhere that the reason you got those checks, even against a Silent and Stilled spell, was because of the big glowing runes floating in the air or something? It's in their art too.

Cast obscuring mist first, and now no one gets Spellcraft checks.

Except the artwork is not even consistent. You dont always see glowing runes or anythinf... some art only shows the spell effect...

And why are qw looking at ARTWORK for RAW?


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Azten wrote:

Didn't the Paizo people state somewhere that the reason you got those checks, even against a Silent and Stilled spell, was because of the big glowing runes floating in the air or something? It's in their art too.

Cast obscuring mist first, and now no one gets Spellcraft checks.

Except the artwork is not even consistent. You dont always see glowing runes or anythinf... some art only shows the spell effect...

And why are qw looking at ARTWORK for RAW?

Anyone who thinks there are actually "rules as written" governing these questions either hasn't read the rules or doesn't understand the meaning of the word "written".

RAI is another matter, but even there, I can't for the life of me understand why magic users should be able to summon demon lords, stop time, create demiplanes, etc....but, shucks, they just can't stop those dang purple cartoon runes from swirling around while they're doing it.

I don't know what the RAI here is, and frankly I don't care; the swirling runes are corny. Insofar as people want to use the swirling runes convention as a balancing mechanism to restrict the power of casters, I would submit that this is an incredibly lazy and contrived way to go about it.


Don't forget that it's also a balancing mechanic for monsterss.

Otherwise, you end up with the stupid scenario where a social monster like a succubus can waltz through a room charming, suggesting and dominating everyone using it's DClolno SLAs with no possibility of anyone even realizing it unless they roll a 20 and figure out what is going on before the Succubus hits them again with it's at will enchantments. That's a big part of why I am incredibly leary about making spells with no components unidentifiable. It makes a lot of SLAs ridiculous.


Snowblind wrote:

Don't forget that it's also a balancing mechanic for monsterss.

Otherwise, you end up with the stupid scenario where a social monster like a succubus can waltz through a room charming, suggesting and dominating everyone using it's DClolno SLAs with no possibility of anyone even realizing it unless they roll a 20 and figure out what is going on before the Succubus hits them again with it's at will enchantments. That's a big part of why I am incredibly leary about making spells with no components unidentifiable. It makes a lot of SLAs ridiculous.

Anyone who succeeds on their Will save will be alerted to the fact that something is going on, and the ball rolls downhill from there. I don't see the problem with a succubus or some such dominating a bunch of low-level NPCs with ease.


Quote:
If you're witnessing the manifested effects of a spell, it is too late to use Spellcraft. Spellcraft can only be used as the spell is cast

Is this even clear? Is there anything in RAW unambiguously detailing that the manifestations of the spell do not occur at all during the standard action of casting at some point?

If anything, this would make much more sense if they started manifesting partway through, because otherwise, it would be implied that all manifestations happen INSTANTLY at the end in zero time. Which would be fairly ridiculous, since all of the flavorful descriptions of things like "your fireball's glowing bead gets gradually larger blah blah" would be meaningless: you can't see any such thing if it happens instantaneously in the nanosecond after your standard casting action is over. How does anybody even KNOW what any of this looks like?

Yes, you can ready an action and interrupt during a standard casting action and prevent the manifestations from happening, but nowhere is it specified the exact timeline of this. It could simply be something like "First 1.5 seconds of casting, it can be interrupted, and this is the time during which all readied interrupts occur. Then the last 1.5 seconds, things begin and proceed manifesting, but you have to keep chanting to follow through and such." Or maybe you're just exhausted for a moment. Or whatever.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is actually pretty simple:

1. Every spell can potentially be counterspelled. *

2. If you want to counterspell (which is a rule, even though we all hate it and never use it, but let's pretend the rule exists so that somebody somewhere might use it), you need to use Spellcraft to identify the spell being cast.

3. Spellcraft (to identify a spell as it is being cast) states that you must see the spell to identify it. It even says normal perception penalties can apply.

4. In order for points 1, 2, & 3 to be consistent, there must be something that CAN BE SEEN. This must be true for every spell. **

5. Therefore, every spell is visible as it is being cast. There is no other sensible reading of the rules.

6. Eschew Materials, Silent Spell, and Still Spell do not say anything about preventing counterspells or about preventing using Spellcraft to identify spells. These feats don't even apply penalties to this process.

7. Therefore, those three feats have absolutely no impact on the ability to see a spell as it is being cast.

By RAW, there is no other interpretation, no matter much any of us might want it to be otherwise.

* I suppose if there are exceptions, they explicitly say so in the spell description. If you dispute this point, see the "Final Thought" below (and I further challenge you to cite a RAW source to support your dusputation that isn't a special case of a spell or ability making a specific exception to the general rule).

** Arguably, spells like Fox's Cunning could be invisible to the observer. After all, there is no visible effect. But that is not what people look for to counterspell (if they wait to see the visible effect AFTER the spell is cast, it's too late for a counterspell). Counterspelling, and using Spellcraft to identify a spell as it is being cast must see visible "stuff" during the casting, not after. This applies to every spell, even those with invisible effects.

It's really that simple.

Although, I guess that really isn't simple because it requires parsing several rules, collating them, and balancing in our minds how they all work together. A bad way to write a rulebook, but that's what we have.

*************************************************************************** *******************************************************************

A final thought. We might, as a GM, be inclined to say that certain spells like Fox's Cunning or Charm Person operate under different rules. They're invisible, so there is nothing to see. We could make that house rule, and it makes a little sense. But if we do, we're automatically making those spells impossible to counterspell - ever. That's a very dangerous proposition; I would advise GMs to be very careful taking the most powerful and most game-breaking classes and then adding house rules to make them even more powerful, but of course, each GM needs to decide for him or her self.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
1. Every spell can potentially be counterspelled

All that RAW actually says on this is "It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell."

This is not the same thing as your premise 1. There are a few reasons I think, but it is sufficient to list just one (not the most intuitive one, but a pretty tight one): the existence of the feat "Improved counterspell" which was published in the core rulebook right from the start.

This feat makes it so that logically, it is only required for ONE spell in each entire school to have visible manifestations during casting in order to satisfy the claim that "it is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell." And without bothering to check, I'm sure there is at least one such spell that explicitly lists visible manifestations in its text per school. While still allowing "fox's cunning" to be completely undetectable with the appropriate metamagics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suppose for the sake of the entire illusion school, identifying an illusion spell by it's undescribed manifestation wouldn't constitute "proof that an illusion isn't real".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

This is actually pretty simple:

1. Every spell can potentially be counterspelled. *

2. If you want to counterspell (which is a rule, even though we all hate it and never use it, but let's pretend the rule exists so that somebody somewhere might use it), you need to use Spellcraft to identify the spell being cast.

3. Spellcraft (to identify a spell as it is being cast) states that you must see the spell to identify it. It even says normal perception penalties can apply.

4. In order for points 1, 2, & 3 to be consistent, there must be something that CAN BE SEEN. This must be true for every spell. **

Yeah...the components.

Again, people trying to parse what is a clear oversight on the part of the developers as RAW. If there are no rules written to address a given issue, then there are no "rules-as-written" to which we might appeal. If your ruling requires a bloody seven point "interpretation" (your words), there clearly there is no rule-as-written, as much as you'd like to impose your interpretation on the rest of us as being somehow definitive.

I'll go right on not neutering the entire illusion and enchantment schools, k thanks bye.

51 to 100 of 361 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Still spell is now utterly useless? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.