So for clarity, do Bloodline Abilities/Spell Focus/etc apply to casting SLAs as well?That's how we've been building our stat blocks.
Great, confirming what I thought, there had been a few bits and pieces of Paizo Wisdom floating around with turns of phrase that some were interpreting otherwise, but... IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW. So on the whole (and in spite of some incidental turns of phrase still in the FAQ), SLAs pretty much ARE spells for all intensive purposes (with rules exceptions given), which is entirely separate from having a spell list/spell slots (which while not explicit in the RAW, is the actually relevant requirement for things like spell trigger/completion items).
I am a bit confused about the Caster Level thing though, given your comment on Balor item crafting, their SLAs can clearly meet spell pre-reqs, but I don't see why they would meet the independent CL requirement. Giving a CL 'in general' seems a bit broad from having a specific SLA, especially if you use it for things not even using that specific SLA spell, but I could see a FAQ/errata stating that CL requirements of item crafting may be met by the CL of the specific spell(s) (including SLAs) required to craft that item. If true, that is even more broadly useful for characters who have CL boosts to specific spells or schools of spells. (Extrapolating the CL of an SLA to fulfill general CL requirements independent of using that spell would be doubly weird since the SLA CL would be boosted by effects specifically boosting that school/spell)
It's more of a corner case, but would Magus Spell Combat (if it allows casting other class' slots to begin with) allow casting SLAs as part of Spell Combat? (assuming the spell is also on the Magus list)No, because he actually has to be casting one of his magus spells from his magus spell list ("... [he] can also cast any spell from the magus spell list ..."), not a spell-like ability that happens to have the same name as a spell from the magus spell list.
Cool, I also thought the intent was to require actual magus spell slot usage, but the RAW just specifies being on the spell list (not which class' slot is used), and so some people were thinking the Druid/Magus combo worked like that (the SLA question was just an extension of that).
Cool, I also thought it required actual magus spell slot usage, but the RAW just specifies being on the spell list (not which class' slot is used), and so some people were thinking the Druid/Magus combo worked like that (the SLA question was just an extension of that).
In some cases the rules are lenient about multiclassing stuff (for example, there's nothing in the mnemonic enhancer spell that says the additional spell levels you're preparing have to be wizard spells, so a cleric/wizard could use it to prepare some additional cures), but in the case of the magus, it's specifically referring to the magus spell list, so... *shrug*
Wonderful. I've been saying the wrong thing for a while now, thanks to the various posts I linked to, but it's so much cleaner and less work explaining that it just works like a spell, so I'm happy about that.
And now an alchemist can take craft wondrous item / craft construct / etc if they have a (Sp)...yay! Kind of a backwards way to do it until that discovery / archetype gets printed, but still good news.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does this mean that a Rogue with Minor Magic does qualify for Arcane Strike then?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
ZanThrax, yes (we almost included that as an example in the FAQ answer).
So SLAs have arcane / divine splits too?
Yeah, that is actually a good boost for Rogues and the Minor Magic Trick line...
So SLAs have arcane / divine splits too?
There's plenty of SLAs where it isn't clear (spell shared on arcane and divine lists), but Minor Magic is explicitly specifying wizard/sorc list, so it makes sense to qualify as arcane... You are choosing from the wiz/sorc list, which seems even MORE explicitly 'arcane' than being given an SLA of X spell which is only on arcane lists.
I'm not sure what Paizo's take will be on other SLAs only specifying a spell (on both types' lists). EDIT: Or as Are writes below, if the SLA is not based on a normal spell at all, how is it classed as arcane/divine? Some sort of rule deriving arcane/divine typing from class gained, or creature type gained could probably be a good general rule (allowing exceptions, e.g. divine rogue archetype/trick could work differently than rogues in general). Would the general rule only cover cases when a spell is on both types of lists, or would it 'over-ride' than a spell is normally only arcane/divine?
That actually is related to my question/critique of the rule on deriving level/DC for SLAs not based on a normal spell (the FAQ says base it on spells you can cast at the time it's gained, which doesn't cover non-casters, treats 1/2,3/4,full casters gaining the same SLA at the same level differently, and doesn't cover non spell SLAs gained thru non-class means, e.g. feats). If a spell-based SLA is on multiple lists, what is the rule for choosing which one, for arcane/divine type, and spell level purposes?
They wouldnt have a split they are like a third Tier all by themselves
Sean is explicitly confirming that Minor Magic enables Arcane Strike, which requires "Ability to cast arcane spells." So the SLA in that case must certainly count as arcane. I probably would have leaned towards 'neither arcane or divine' (going by 'conservative RAW+FAQ reading') except for Sean's comment affirming that case.
This is a nice ruling. Minor Magic just became a much more useful choice.
Not to mention lots of SLAs aren't based on spells at all :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And now an alchemist can take craft wondrous item / craft construct / etc if they have a (Sp)...yay! Kind of a backwards way to do it until that discovery / archetype gets printed, but still good news.
That was my first thought, making an alchemist from a class with a racial SLA
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general, SLAs use the sor/wiz spell level for DCs if the spell is on multiple spell lists, so you should assume that an SLA is arcane unless the source of the ability suggests otherwise (such as a spell that's only on the cleric list, or an SLA from a cleric domain, or uses Wisdom to determine DCs instead of Charisma).
Alignment subtype Outsiders (or Tieflings/Aasimar?) would be more divine SLAs when on both list types?
(+over-riding normally arcane exclusive spells)?
All the Domain/Mystery spells could also be considered as potential Divine spells.
EDIT: Some Bestiary monsters have been associated with the yet-to-be-fully developed Psychic Magic, so their SLAs should plausibly be considered "psychic" and neither arcane nor divine.
Too busy using arcane pool to use swifts, and too busy getting Dervish Dance to get Arcane Strike :)
Alignment subtype Outsiders (or Tieflings/Aasimar?) would be more divine SLAs when on both list types?
I dunno. I don't see a demon's powers as being particularly divine. An angel's, maybe.
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow
Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?
Yes.
For example, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat.
I did not think that would be the answer, but I am glad that it is. Now my houserule is official. :)
Could I suggest a Magus arcana to allow you to use a spell-like ability with Spell Combat? >.<
|
Alignment subtype Outsiders (or Tieflings/Aasimar?) would be more divine SLAs when on both list types?I dunno. I don't see a demon's powers as being particularly divine. An angel's, maybe.
"Queens, kings, heroes, tyrants - the line is quite strong. There's even a -ahem- divine connection"
"What!?" His majesty spun. "My family is descended from the gods?""Not... per se." Ezren grimaced, continuing cautiously. "Do you know of any members of your family born with horns?"
Ult. Campaign. Illustrative text of 1. Character Background :-))
Perhaps I missed it, but I've been wondering about an additional facet for quite awhile:
Can you use a readied action to "identify a spell as it is being cast" as per the typical Spellcraft rules with a SLA? Generally speaking, SLA states "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell", but specifically excludes counter-spelling in Ultimate Magic (apparently, I just trust that whoever told me this was correct). However, identification isn't counter-spelling.
Simple example, can you identify a Paladin using Detect Evil with a readied action?
You can identify it with Spellcraft. You don't need a readied action to do so (identifying spells doesn't require an action at all).
Edit: Hmm. I might be wrong on the ability to identify SLAs, since "but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast" is part of the rules for identifying a spell. Since SLAs have no somatic or verbal components, it would be difficult to see it being cast.
Item Creation Feats: Does having a caster level from a spell-like ability meet the caster level prerequisite for selecting an item creation feat?
Yes.
And this also enables crafting magic items who don't even involve the specific spell/SLA but require a certain CL for their effect, e.g. normal vanilla magic weapons/armor?
If you're qualifying for the Crafting Feats themselves, I don't see why not...
Since SLAs have no somatic or verbal components, it would be difficult to see it being cast.
It's already been discussed at length and have had developers weigh in, but essentially it boils down to: Components don't matter for this. You can counter-spell an Eschewed, Silent, Stilled Fireball.
James Jacobs suggested a penalty to the Spellcraft check, but it is not RAW and merely a suggestion.
Counterspelling doesn't specify being able to see the spell; identifying does (you can always use dispel magic to counterspell without having a clue what the spell actually is). I agree that it should be perfectly possible; that line is the only reason I was a little hesitant on whether or not I was right :)
|
You can't use Spellcraft to work out what SLA effect will appear in the near future.
Casting spells requires doing stuff, including (but not limited to) V, S and M components. Even without those specific components the caster is doing....something! We don't know what (we don't know the specific magic words or gestures represented by V and S either), but we know they must be doing something (undefined) that is observable by the very fact that you can observe it, work out what spell the must be casting and possibly do something about it.
Such is not true with SLAs. The only thing required to use an SLA (not 'cast'! Use) is a moment of thought. There is nothing to see unless the SLA itself has visible effects, at which point it's too late to stop.
Despite many similarities between spells and SLAs, there remain many differences. To work them out for yourself, if the question revolves around the mechanics of prepared spells/spell slots/spell lists/etc. then these things are not shared by SLAs. So, no metamagic feats (which rely on the ability to prepare or use a higher level spell slot); there are feats in the Bestiary that will do this for SLAs. No 'spellcasting' as a means to bring the spell into play, so the counterspelling mechanic does not apply, nor can Spellcraft be used to identify an SLA as it is cast because there is no 'casting' AND there is nothing to observe.
You can't use Spellcraft to work out what SLA effect will appear in the near future.
Casting spells requires doing stuff, including (but not limited to) V, S and M components. Even without those specific components the caster is doing....something! We don't know what (we don't know the specific magic words or gestures represented by V and S either), but we know they must be doing something (undefined) that is observable by the very fact that you can observe it, work out what spell the must be casting and possibly do something about it.
Such is not true with SLAs. The only thing required to use an SLA (not 'cast'! Use) is a moment of thought. There is nothing to see unless the SLA itself has visible effects, at which point it's too late to stop.
Despite many similarities between spells and SLAs, there remain many differences. To work them out for yourself, if the question revolves around the mechanics of prepared spells/spell slots/spell lists/etc. then these things are not shared by SLAs. So, no metamagic feats (which rely on the ability to prepare or use a higher level spell slot); there are feats in the Bestiary that will do this for SLAs. No 'spellcasting' as a means to bring the spell into play, so the counterspelling mechanic does not apply, nor can Spellcraft be used to identify an SLA as it is cast because there is no 'casting' AND there is nothing to observe.
I agree with this from a logical point of view, but a silent stilled spell also has the same issues, and the devs said there is no rule stopping them from being spellcrafted. Now in 3.5(yeah that other game) they were ruled to be effectively mental activities just like SLA's, but the rules don't say it in PF*. I have try to avoid house rules, but somethings just have to make sense to me and spellcrafting SLA's or a spell with no components does not.
I think I will go back to them not being able to be spellcrafted for my next game.
*Actually in 3.5 it was not said either, but it was listed in the official 3.5 FAQ.
Note: I am not arguing that SLA's can't be spellcrafted in Pathfinder. I am just saying I don't like it.
edit:With Eschew Materials you don't even need the material compontent to be present until it gets to a certain value.
I see GrenMeera already said what I just said.
"Cast"/"casting time" along with specifying lack of components (to spell casting) is in fact used for describing SLAs, in their core definition. The latest FAQ/SKR posts in fact explicitly recognize that SLAs qualify for "casting spells". The 'activate as mental action' is basically equivalent to Pinned banning everything except escaping and mental/verbal actions (or intending to, even if the only thing the RAW actually bans is moving and somatic/material spells), activating an SLA as mental action is no different to a Still/Silent/Eschewed spell in that case.
Honestly, I'm not certain how to square up the latest FAQs and posts from SKR with the RAW for SLAs and counterspelling.
I just don't see why counterspelling (even SLA vs. SLA) is banned,
basically that is THE only difference of SLAs vs. (Still/Silent/Eschewed) Spells. Why?
Spellcraft/Identifying the spell as it's being cast is one thing, it makes sense for SLAs equally to Still/Silent/Eschewed spells to not be Identified as they are cast, but otherwise the action/concentration is equivalent (SLAs casting time is as per spell), so that they are doing 'something' spell-like is observable and either a good guess or Dispel Magic should be able to counter the spell (/SLA)... /shrug
And this also enables crafting magic items who don't even involve the specific spell/SLA but require a certain CL for their effect, e.g. normal vanilla magic weapons/armor?Item Creation Feats: Does having a caster level from a spell-like ability meet the caster level prerequisite for selecting an item creation feat?
Yes.
Correct.
In fact, until I found the "can use SLA" rule at the start of the Magic Items chapter, we almost ruled that an SLA creature could select the feat, but could only craft things that didn't have spell requirements, as all of the backmatter about item creation just talks about "have the spell prepared (or known, if a bard or sorcerer)," which would still allow for +1 weapons and such.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't see why counterspelling (even SLA vs. SLA) is banned,
basically that is THE only difference of SLAs vs. (Still/Silent/Eschewed) Spells. Why?
A wizard did it. I mean, 3.5 did it. Backwards compatibility, not having time to review every aspect of the game before publication.
"Cast"/"casting time" along with specifying lack of components (to spell casting) is in fact used for describing SLAs, in their core definition. The latest FAQ/SKR posts in fact explicitly recognize that SLAs qualify for "casting spells".
Honestly, I'm not certain how to square up the latest FAQs and posts from SKR with the RAW for SLAs and counterspelling.
I just don't see why counterspelling (even SLA vs. SLA) is banned,
basically that is THE only difference of SLAs vs. (Still/Silent/Eschewed) Spells. Why?Spellcraft/Identifying the spell as it's being cast is one thing, it makes sense for SLAs equally to Still/Silent/Eschewed spells to not be Identified as they are cast, but otherwise the action/concentration is equivalent (SLAs casting time is as per spell), so that they are doing 'something' spell-like is observable and either a good guess or Dispel Magic should be able to counter the spell (/SLA)... /shrug
I don't get it either which is why I am changing it back to the way I used to do it after my current campaign ends.
|
|
I just don't see why counterspelling (even SLA vs. SLA) is banned,
basically that is THE only difference of SLAs vs. (Still/Silent/Eschewed) Spells. Why?
The things that are required to cast a spell can be interfered with by casting the same spell, not as normal, but as a cut-down version specifically to interfere with the casting process, and those things are not limited to the traditional spell components and these things can be observed, as made clear in the FAQ which says you can observe the spellcasting process well enough to identify the spell about to come into being even if it has no components.
There is no casting process with an SLA. I think for a moment (which doesn't look any different from me thinking about anything) and then my force of will and innate magic bring the SLA's effect into being.
SLAs refer you to the spell description, not because using an SLA is literally casting a spell, but simply to avoid having to reprint the same words over and over and over and over in the Bestiary with just the word 'cast' changed for the word 'use'.
Hopefully the 'list of differences between spells and SLAs' FAQ request will get a little traction now, because it's clear that there are a lot of questions.
Cool, thanks for clearing up all these loose-end or wierd implication sort of questions, Sean...
It's probably pointless to say that it wouldn't really break Pathfinder's definition of 'backwards compatable' to Errata 'no SLA counterspells' out of the rules completely (making room for unicorns and rainbows!), but at least I don't have to wonder about the real flavor justifications for that and can just blame it on that crazy wizard :-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't see why counterspelling (even SLA vs. SLA) is banned,basically that is THE only difference of SLAs vs. (Still/Silent/Eschewed) Spells. Why?A wizard did it. I mean, 3.5 did it. Backwards compatibility, not having time to review every aspect of the game before publication.
If I were to change the situation, I wouldn't make SLAs counterspellable, I would make spells without components non-counterspellable.
If there's nothing to observe then there is no way for Spellcraft to identify the spell before it is cast. All that the FAQ in question did is invent, but not describe, sometimg that a caster does to cast a spell which is not defined by it's components!
For me, if someone has used their feat choices to get Eschewed, Silenced and Still spells and cast them at +2 spell level, I'm happy for them to cast it with nothing more than an act of will which cannot be observed or therefore counterspelled.
(Hey! I've invented a new word! I wonder how many points I'd get for a triple word score?)
wraithstrike/Quandry:
Both of you are having a similar problem with the interpretation which is why I think it's all about implementation.
I often view magic itself as an energy field and spells being a pattern. When the energy is aligned to this pattern, a specific event occurs (the spell description, usually dictated by the current God of magic in any given realm).
Not being able to counter a SLA then makes sense because part of the pattern is predetermined in the make-up (genetics or blood) of the creature. You simply can't diffuse the entire pattern.
However, being able to identify a spell that is Stilled, Silent, and Eschewed still makes sense because the release of energy has other tangible elements that are not part of the spell description. A simple flash of light will do (usually I describe spells to be colored according to School, and Rise of the Runelords helped make me feel concrete about that).
This is all just GM flavor, but when the rules tell you something that you don't quite understand, you flavor it until it works for you.
stuff
Crap, I was hoping that I could get Sean to acknowledge my question. It's been on the forum multiple times, but I saw Paizo staff active and figured I'd go for it.
Sean >> Could you please offer some insider insight on SLA identification? If not, I understand, but could you please offer your reasons, such as: "You feel uncomfortable taking a stance without discussing it among the team" or any other response?
wraithstrike/Quandry:
Both of you are having a similar problem with the interpretation which is why I think it's all about implementation.
I often view magic itself as an energy field and spells being a pattern. When the energy is aligned to this pattern, a specific event occurs (the spell description, usually dictated by the current God of magic in any given realm).
Not being able to counter a SLA then makes sense because part of the pattern is predetermined in the make-up (genetics or blood) of the creature. You simply can't diffuse the entire pattern.
However, being able to identify a spell that is Stilled, Silent, and Eschewed still makes sense because the release of energy has other tangible elements that are not part of the spell description. A simple flash of light will do (usually I describe spells to be colored according to School, and Rise of the Runelords helped make me feel concrete about that).
This is all just GM flavor, but when the rules tell you something that you don't quite understand, you flavor it until it works for you.
stuffCrap, I was hoping that I could get Sean to acknowledge my question. It's been on the forum multiple times, but I saw Paizo staff active and figured I'd go for it.
Sean >> Could you please offer some insider insight on SLA identification? If not, I understand, but could you please offer your reasons, such as: "You feel uncomfortable taking a stance without discussing it among the team" or any other response?
If an SLA works just like a spell that SLA should release that same light, and by the rules there is no other way to identify the spell. Flavor should not make rules. The rules should however make sense when possible.
You're conflating the issues of identifying (spellcraft) and counterspelling, Malachi.
(You also invented a new usage of the term 'caster level', for which I assume you meant 'spell level' ;-) )
Overall, there are now precious few differences between spells and SLAs, and they're explicitly defined, counterspelling being the main one... Sean has also said that metamagic rods shouldn't apply to SLAs, although I'm not really sure of his reasoning:
Whether an SLA has a normal spell equivalent doesn't really matter, all SLAs should have a spell level equivalent to determine concentration DCs, vulnerability to effects like Globe of Invulnerability, or indeed, recharging Staves, etc. Not every single non-standard SLA published HAS a listed spell level, but there is a general rule for that (even if it isn't the best of rules - besides what I wrote about spell levels there is also spell SCHOOLS to worry about). Of course, 'normal' Metamagic usage is precluded by SLAs since you don't have a choice of spellslots to use (which IMHO still applies even if you can reduce spelllevel modification to zero, you should still need the OPTION to use different spellslots), but Rods and 'spontaneous'/free Metamagic seem like they shouldn't have any problems being compatable with SLAs.
@GreenMeera: SKR answered my post on the subject basically saying the SLA/counterspell thing is purely up to arbitrary 3.5 cruft.
As for identification, which is distinct from counterspelling, there is no FAQ on the subject AFAIK,
but some people seem to be referencing some messageboard post from Mr. Bulmahn (?) saying that even Still/Silent/Eschewed spells can be ID'd while casting (spellcraft).
I'm not really sure the basis for that, spellcraft ID'ing requires that "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast", but I'll assume that's the official ruling.
So apparently there is some noticeable sign of casting a spell, apart from V/S/M components (although per RAW, you still need to see, which Darkness/Cover may block... ironically even when you can HEAR non-somatic VERBAL spells like Power Word Kill).
Whether or not there is visually noticeable signs of casting apart from V/S/M, I don't see anything distinguishing SLAs from Silent/Still/Eschew spells there,
the rules are defining SLAs as spells with certain exceptions (like counterspelling), specifically removing V/S/M, so they should still be ID'able even if you can't counterspell them. I would certainly be in favor of a rule applying a penalty to Spellcraft ID'ing for every normal component that is not present at time of casting.
Back to the Caster Level/Crafting thing: I'm not sure how Sean got to that point, I do know that places in the crafting rules like weapons/armor requires having prepared (or knowing, if spontaneous) the spell, which SLA does not satisfy. Disregarding that, just because an SLA is somewhere acknowledged as valid to use to craft the item doesn't mean that the Caster Level of the SLA becomes valid for general purposes (outside the effect of the SLA), you can use an SLA (or scroll, or somebody else helping you) to provide the spell needed to make an item, but you still need to meet any Caster Level requirement, and I don't see how using the SLA as part of the process enables you to use it's Caster Level in general...?
Anyhow, interesting development, I have noticed that a bunch of messageboard posts here (and previous ones reference here, e.g. JB's post about identification) really should be in the real FAQ and not just left for those "in the know" (who read the specific thread as opposed to everybody looking at the FAQ for guidance).
|
|
You're conflating the issues of identifying (spellcraft) and counterspelling, Malachi.
(You also invented a new usage of the term 'caster level', for which I assume you meant 'spell level' ;-) )
AAARRGHH!! Brain leak! Thanks, and now fixed. : )
Conterspelling and identifying are not conflated in my mind even if my clumsy post didn't make that clear.
There are (at least) two reasons why SLAs are not counterspellable. One is independent of identification: SLAs are not spells!
The other is that, although they are discrete things, you must successfully identify a spell with Spellcraft in order to counterspell it. And you can only identify a spell if you can see the spellcasting process, and only if there is something to see!
Coming through a 3.5 background (along the way), hearing about a FAQ that said in Pathfinder you can use Spellcraft to identify a spell that lacks components to observe came as a complete surprise to me. The only way it could possibly make sense is if there is something to observe in the act of spelcastimg (before the spell itself appears) which is unrelated to the components and that is unique to each spell. It annoys me that no clue was given about what this could possibly be, but logically it must be there.
Another problem that this FAQ introduced is that some people now imagine that the process of using SLAs are now observable!
With the greatest possible respect to whoever wrote the FAQ, I don't think it was thought through! I know that in my games I'll use the 3.5 version, simply because it makes sense.
Just like reach weapons. : )
If an SLA works just like a spell that SLA should release that same light, and by the rules there is no other way to identify the spell. Flavor should not make rules. The rules should however make sense when possible.
How do you mean by the rules there is no other way to identify the spell? You CAN identify a spell that is stilled, silent, and eschewed. Am I misinterpreting what you're saying?
I wasn't using flavor to make rules, I was using flavor to explain rules as they already work.
As for identification, which is distinct from counterspelling, there is no FAQ on the subject AFAIK
Exactly! This is precisely why I tried to chime in when I saw Sean responding. I was hoping to finally see some feedback on this one. I've been following the ideas behind this for quite awhile and would love to see it enter FAQ (or at least be acknowledged).
Everything else you mentioned were mostly already discussed in this lengthy thread about Paladin's Detect Evil.
Also, for ease here is Jason Buhlman's post.
I think you're misinterpreting what he's saying, he's just saying there is no difference there between spells/SLAs.
You can cast a Silent/Still/Eschew spells while Paralyzed when you can take only mental actions, and likewise for SLAs.
That there is some visual manifestation of the magic energy of spellcasting, independent of V/S/M components,
is the most reasonable explanation of this, even though it's not directly stated anywhere in the rules.
But that is never explicitly specified to only normal spellcasting, nor is it 'removed' by SLA rules, so it applies to both.
Now, requiring physical 'components' to ID a spellcasting (or even recognize that spellcasting is taking place) would make sense,
but the rules don't state that, they just require that you see the spellcasting, which exists whether or not you use V/S/M components,
so 'apparently' there is something to see regardless of those (prime FAQ material to point out that far-from-obvious conclusion though).
Funnily enough, it looks like Wayne Reynolds' floating mystic glyphs managed to find their way into the rules too! :-)