|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, my GM recently rolled spellcraft checks for people to identify my paladin's detect evil spell-like ability as he was using it silently in a social setting. Is this possible? The spell has no noticeable effect whatsoever - it's got no components and produces no visual effect. Unless they had detect magic, I can't see how anyone could know I was even using a spell-like ability.
Second, does a component-free spell provoke attacks of opportunity? If I cast a spell that nobody around me knows I'm casting, do they get the free attack? Do I need to concentrate to cast it defensively, if they won't even notice it's being used?
Casting Spell-Like Abilities provokes Attacks of Opportunity, so that seems like solid evidence that they are noticeable.
|
|
I have no source of this but I believe one of the Devs said there is more to a spell than host components, that there is a glow of magic, in your case maybe the eyes light up.
That's definitely wrong, there's many spells which don't produce an obvious visual effect.
Looking for actual sources here.
Casting Spell-Like Abilities provokes Attacks of Opportunity, so that seems like solid evidence that they are noticeable.
Not necessarily. Using them causes you to drop your guard in combat, as you focus on the magical ability - it does not imply that they know you're casting a spell or using a spell-like ability. All the other person knows is you're vulnerable for a moment.
I'll agree that this is pretty solid evidence that spells provoke AoOs regardless of components, but what about spellcraft? If I used detect magic in combat, you'd get a free hit but is there any way you'd be able to use Spellcraft to know what I was using, or whether I was even casting a spell?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. See this thread.
Yes. There is no exception mentioned for eschew materials, or for silent spell and still spell.
Yes. Unless they were somehow totally unaware of your presence with silence/invisibility/blindness/deafness/hide from undead or somehow else.
Yes. If you cast defensively because you fear there MIGHT be an invisible opponent adjacent to you, you still need to make the roll, even if there is no such opponent.
EDIT: People asked for links.
Not necessarily. Using them causes you to drop your guard in combat, as you focus on the magical ability - it does not imply that they know you're casting a spell or using a spell-like ability. All the other person knows is you're vulnerable for a moment.
If a combatant can notice your focus drifting enough to take a free swing, then surely someone in a social context can notice the same thing. And in a world like Golarion, if you see someone's eyes glaze over as they concentrate on something else, it's a short jump to assume they're using some kind of magic.
By RAW, you can identify a stilled, silent spell as it is being cast. Many GMs rule that logically, this cannot be done, because there is nothing to observe.
Some GMs (myself included) include the "glowing magical runes" featured in Pathfinder cover art as the reason. There's nothing in the rules that says magic glows, but that's one way to interpret the otherwise nonsensical rules-as-written.
This is something your GM needs to decide. It is very important to the selection of feats, and so should be considered carefully. Magic is very powerful already, being able to do it discreetly makes it even more so.
|
|
Not necessarily. Using them causes you to drop your guard in combat, as you focus on the magical ability - it does not imply that they know you're casting a spell or using a spell-like ability. All the other person knows is you're vulnerable for a moment.If a combatant can notice your focus drifting enough to take a free swing, then surely someone in a social context can notice the same thing. And in a world like Golarion, if you see someone's eyes glaze over as they concentrate on something else, it's a short jump to assume they're using some kind of magic.
Educated guess? Absolutely. Spellcraft check? Not necessarily.
Here's an actual source on the issue I just found:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l3vu?Jason-Is-concealed-spellcasting-possible- with#20
It doesn't address spells with no visual effect, however, just spells without components.
Identify Spell Being Cast
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.
Looks like if there's nothing to see, no rolls can be made. And adding "glowing runes" is a house rule, since the spell describes nothing of the sort. No visible effect + no visible component = no spellcraft. Cool, I think that answers my question.
To Summarize:
If you cast a silent still fireball, someone can roll Spellcraft to figure out why there's a fireball (and probably, who it came from).
If a Paladin uses his detect evil spell-like ability, nobody without magical senses can tell what he's doing, but a perceptive person might be able to guess (but it would be a guess).
Both would provoke attacks of opportunity.
I'd say that's a very fair interpretation.
However, the only correct interpretation is your GM's to make.
|
|
I really, really find it incredibly silly to keep having, over and over, someone remind us that GMs exist in every discussion on the Rules Questions forum. Yes, we know, GMs make rulings. In absence of a specific GM though, we all try to figure out an understanding of the rules. We all assume this will be run through our various GMs.
I promise, nobody has forgotten we play a game with GMs in it. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really, really find it incredibly silly to keep having, over and over, someone remind us that GMs exist in every discussion on the Rules Questions forum. Yes, we know, GMs make rulings. In absence of a specific GM though, we all try to figure out an understanding of the rules. We all assume this will be run through our various GMs.
I promise, nobody has forgotten we play a game with GMs in it. :)
It's very important in this case, since it has a pronounced effect on the game.
And I've been on this forum for some time. Many people come here looking for ammunition to "prove" their GM wrong.
I was agreeing with your ruling, but it would be a mistake for a player to leave here thinking their GM was now definitively the loser of an argument.
Also Keep in mind that in the link you chose to quote even Jason admits that he agrees with James and by the rules there is nothing preventing a penalty free check to notice you going around casting component less spells.
|
|
It's very important in this case, since it has a pronounced effect on the game.
And I've been on this forum for some time. Many people come here looking for ammunition to "prove" their GM wrong.
I was agreeing with your ruling, but it would be a mistake for a player to leave here thinking their GM was now definitively the loser of an argument.
You're totally right, it just gets said in every single thread and it's something every reasonable poster already knows.
Also Keep in mind that in the link you chose to quote even Jason admits that he agrees with James and by the rules there is nothing preventing a penalty free check to notice you going around casting component less spells.
You notice that I agreed with this in my post, yes? No mention of a penalty to the spellcraft check you get for the silent still fireball in my post (since that's a house rule).
It's still explicitly clear that a spell you can't see (interestingly it says nothing of hearing...) can't be spellcrafted, as described in the spellcraft skill itself.
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.
Relevant rules text quoted again for reference.
There was a whole thread on this I won't rehash all of it but the main arguements were
Your side seeing a spell= seeing its components no components means nothing to see.
My side seeing a spell is seeing a spell with or with out components.
]You're totally right, it just gets said in every single thread and it's something every reasonable poster already knows.
We have those?
]You're totally right, it just gets said in every single thread and it's something every reasonable poster already knows.We have those?
Sure umm think we keep em next to the kender.
Morphling's interpretation is a good one though... can you see a still, silent, eschewed detect thoughts?
Not all spells describe a visible phenomenon in their rules text.
|
|
]You're totally right, it just gets said in every single thread and it's something every reasonable poster already knows.We have those?
Allegedly.
Notice it says you must see the spell being cast, not that you must see the components of the spell being cast.
Bro, do you even read? I've made like, eight posts about the difference between observable spell effects and unobservable spell effects.
Also remember that meta magic can't make a spell harder to counter. Making it impossible to identify means its impossible to counter.
Slimgauge has provided quotes that show that the designers of the game disagree with TheMorphling's interpretation.
I'll go ahead and paste it here; the links are in his post up-thread:
Hey there Everybody,
The rules here are certainly not clear, because they generally assume that the act of casting a spell has some noticeable element. Notice I did not say component, because I think the rules are silent on parts of spellcasting that are codified components versus those that occur without any sort of codification, such as the wiggle of a finger, change in breathing and other flavor bits that happen when a spellcaster makes the magic happen, as it were.
Back to the topic at hand, since the rules are silent here, I think it is well within the GMs purview to impose a penalty to the Spellcraft check to identify a spell without components (V, S, M). Since there is no real increase for spells with just one, I would guess that this penalty is not very large, perhaps only as much as -4.
This is, of course, up to your GM to adjudicate.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingEdit: I should also note that I also agree with James, that a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.
In other words, by RAW the lead designer of the game indicates that if a spell is being cast and you can see the caster, you get a chance to identify it - doesn't matter if it has no components and has been affected by Silent and Still, if they already know that you're there then they get the chance to roll spellcraft.
He goes on to state that you might put a penalty on the roll, but nowhere does he imply that you can deny an observer the chance to roll entirely.
Silent and Still, in other words, are only useful* if you are currently unobserved; otherwise, you would call attention to yourself.
*Obviously they have other uses beyond this, like being able to cast while under Silence or while tied up - but those aren't relevant to the topic at hand)
Reading the rules literally is silly. The rules say you must be able to see a spell being cast to identify it. How does that apply if you can hear the spell but ot see it? Is it not reasonable to view that "see" is being used to convey "observe"? In a similar light the rules say you need to see the spell, not the caster of the spell. Somatic components are not the spell; they are actions required to construct the spell. Still, is it not reasonable to view that "the spell" is being used to convey "observable signs of the spell being cast"?
To me that means components, results, or OTHER. As in, any somatic components, any flashes of light, or say... a guy moving his head in an arc while he scans for evil and yet he's clearly distracted.
If someone has invested in a skill that lets them do something unskilled people can't, they should generally be allowed to use that skill.
When interpreting rules, do so in the manner that makes for the best game. IMHO negating an investment in Spellcraft so a paladin can slyly and stealthily scope out a room is not the best game.
Yes. See this thread.
My inquisitor keeps getting caught trying to Discern Lies so I came here looking for the same answer. Not sure I agree that Jason's comments about 'spells without components' applies to an ability that lets me look at people and know if they are telling the truth or not....but I know thats a huge debate that probably doesn't need to be restarted here.
First post of the thread linked above says it was addressed in an FAQ but Im not finding it when I search there......other than that component statement, does the FAQ have anything definitive on this topic?
|
I simply assume that all magic has a Visible Spooky Effect.
Paladin casting Detect Evil? Her eyes shine with the light of her deity.
Sorcerer casting stilled silent Detect Thoughts? A vague blue nimbus appears around his head.
Seems to flow well with every single illustration of a spellcaster doing his mojo published in the books.
Reading the rules literally is silly. The rules say you must be able to see a spell being cast to identify it. How does that apply if you can hear the spell but ot see it? Is it not reasonable to view that "see" is being used to convey "observe"?
I totally agree with this.
Further, I contend that you do not need to see/observe tangible spell effects (such as fireball). You really don't need to observe the "spell" as it is being cast, what you need to observe is the "spellcasting" as it is being cast.
No, that's not exactly RAW. I'm assuming that's RAI.
But, if not, if all you need is to see the "spell", there are hundreds of spells that have no visible effects (OK, I didn't count them, don't hold me to that estimate). If someone bothers to use Still/Silent Spell and casts any of those hundreds of spells, following the letter of the raw there is no way for anyone to ever counterspell any of those hundreds of spells.
Suddenly, by this literal reading of the RAW, hundreds of spells become unstoppable, or more accurately, uncounterable.
I don't believe that is the intent of the rules, and I have James Jacobs and Jason Bulmahn's aforementioned quotes to support that.
|
The rules here are certainly not clear...
In 3rd ed you could use Spellcraft to identify a spell as it is being cast, and that entry on the accompanying table stated that you had to see/hear the verbal/somatic component(s) in order to do so.
Therefore, if the spell was Still and Silent there were no somatic/verbal components and so you couldn't use Spellcraft to identify that spell as it was being cast (so counterspelling it would not be possible).
You could still use Spellcraft to identify the spell after it was cast if there were any magical effects to observe, but by then it would be too late to counterspell.
Since spell-like abilities have no components to observe, 'casting' an SLA cannot be observed.
The AoO provoked is from letting your guard down, not from people knowing why you let your guard down.
Without Combat Reflexes, AoOs cannot be taken when you're flat-footed. You also need to threaten a target in order to take the AoO to which you are entitled.
Although you aren't flat-footed outside combat, if the swords are swinging then the DM should be rolling for surprise/initiative, and if the cause of the fight were the use of an SLA then that, by definition, is the first thing that happens, and therefore happens before the attackers first turn and he is therefore flat-footed.
In the cut & paste from 3.5 to PF, some words were cut for space or other reasons. The line in Spellcraft requiring components to be seen/heard got cut. Was this omission deliberate or accidental?
If it was accidental, then simply put that line back in.
If it was deliberate, it was either believed that this requirement was so obvious that they could afford to save space by not cutting/pasting that line (in which case, put that line back in), or the rule was deliberately changed because Jason decided that the very act of spellcasting had an observable effect independent of the effects of the spell, and this is what was being observed in order to use Spellcraft in this way.
However, if Jason had deliberately changed spellcasting to include this theoretical observable effect, how come he doesn't know anything about it? It is not credible that he deliberately changed the nature of spellcasting, then forgot all about it when he had to answer this question.
Put the missing 'must be able to see/hear verbal/somatic components' line back in, and everything else will make sense again.
|
|
Again, we pretty much have an answer here.
If you like, you may houserule all spells to give a brand-new glowing eyes-and-hands effect, and allow spellcraft checks regardless of whether there's components. This is a fine houserule if you choose to do so, just make sure your players know it is now utterly impossible to ever conceal the presence of magic from anyone, ever.
Regardless, any spell with observable effects(cone of cold freezing people with ice, fireball burning things, etc.) will always be spellcraftable, even with no components.
A spell which cannot be seen, by RAW, cannot be spellcrafted. This is explicitly stated in the Spellcraft skill. In the absence of a houserule to the contrary, spells which produce no visual effect (i.e. the spells whose descriptions describe no visual effect and produce no noticeable effect to others, like detect evil, which simply indicates that the caster becomes aware of information, not that it broadcasts this information to anyone else) cannot be seen. Adding visual effects to these spells is up to the GM, but remember that this varies based on GM opinion, and thus is a houserule.
And finally, all spells and spell-like abilities provoke AoOs, regardless of components, effect, or circumstance.
Even if you're paralyzed. Because you let your guard down. :P
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.
Morphling - I just want to point out that by your interpretation, it's impossible to spellcraft any spell with no visible effects. I can see someone waving their hands around, but I can't see the detect thoughts itself, so I can't see it. Nothing in there says you need to be able to see the caster as the spell is being cast, only the spell.
Conversely, the spell has no visible effects until after it's cast, because there is no spell effect until the casting is successful. (Unless you add some flavor-based effects in, anyway.) Thus it's impossible to see any spell as it is being cast. And since you can't see it, you can't identify it at all.
----------
Alternatively, "as it is being cast" could refer to seeing the caster, not the spell. In which case, there's no difference between spells with visible effects and those with no visible effects - you can still see the caster just fine.
Not impossible, Morphling... there's the Spellsong feat.
A spell which cannot be seen, by RAW, cannot be spellcrafted. This is explicitly stated in the Spellcraft skill. In the absence of a houserule to the contrary, spells which produce no visual effect (i.e. the spells whose descriptions describe no visual effect and produce no noticeable effect to others, like detect evil, which simply indicates that the caster becomes aware of information, not that it broadcasts this information to anyone else) cannot be seen. Adding visual effects to these spells is up to the GM, but remember that this varies based on GM opinion, and thus is a houserule.
Absolutely incorrect.
The head designer of the game states that the RAW does not say this, nor imply this. The quote was provided up-thread, as was a link to his quote. If you choose to ignore the quote, that's fine - but you are labeling your own house-rule interpretation of the RAW as RWA itself, and that's not fine.
And cover or concealment
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Guys, Morphling is correct. The rules say you must be able to see the spell being cast. It's in a direct rule quote from one of his posts.
Of course that's not the intention. You should be able to ID a spell from its verbal components. But a literal reading DOES say "see".
Of course, this is only a part of Morphling's larger (correct) argument that literal readings are silly.
I feel totally exonerated for emphasizing the GM's call earlier in the thread, Morph. As you can see.
EDIT: I have FAQ'd this post, because I would really like a new printing to say "observe" or "see or hear".
I should also note that ... a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.A spell which cannot be seen, by RAW, cannot be spellcrafted.
Also important to note is that said same lead designer never indicated that he agreed with removing the ability to make the check under any circumstances. He implied that certain circumstances might impose a penalty on the check, but nowhere did he state that it was ever valid by RAW to deny the check completely as long as you could clearly see the caster.
Guys, Morphling is correct. The rules say you must be able to see the spell being cast. It's in a direct rule quote from one of his posts.
Of course that's not the intention. You should be able to ID a spell from its verbal components. But a literal reading DOES say "see".
Then I'd suggest that Morphling take that up with the lead designer. If it comes down to it, I will take the lead designer's statement of what the explicit RAW says every time. And Jason Buhlman states that the RAW explicitly allows for that check regardless of components or lack thereof - meaning even a silenced stilled spell can be identified if you can see the caster.
Then I'd suggest that Morphling take that up with the lead designer. If it comes down to it, I will take the lead designer's statement of what the explicit RAW says every time. And Jason Buhlman states that the RAW explicitly allows for that check regardless of components or lack thereof - meaning even a silenced stilled spell can be identified if you can see the caster.
Or... it could be a relevant part of this conversation. I think it is.
Deep breath everybody: there's a contradiction in the rules. We can discuss it civilly or we can mince words and dogpile on Morphling. I happen to think he's making reasonable points.
Then I'd suggest that Morphling take that up with the lead designer. If it comes down to it, I will take the lead designer's statement of what the explicit RAW says every time. And Jason Buhlman states that the RAW explicitly allows for that check regardless of components or lack thereof - meaning even a silenced stilled spell can be identified if you can see the caster.Or... it could be a relevant part of this conversation. I think it is.
Deep breath everybody: there's a contradiction in the rules. We can discuss it civilly or we can mince words and dogpile on Morphling. I happen to think he's making reasonable points.
By those points, a silenced, stilled spell without physical components, or a spell that does not include V, S, and M components, cannot be identified, and thus cannot be counterspelled - which goes against the intent of counterspelling.
By those points, a silenced, stilled spell without physical components, or a spell that does not include V, S, and M components, cannot be identified, and thus cannot be counterspelled - which goes against the intent of counterspelling.Then I'd suggest that Morphling take that up with the lead designer. If it comes down to it, I will take the lead designer's statement of what the explicit RAW says every time. And Jason Buhlman states that the RAW explicitly allows for that check regardless of components or lack thereof - meaning even a silenced stilled spell can be identified if you can see the caster.Or... it could be a relevant part of this conversation. I think it is.
Deep breath everybody: there's a contradiction in the rules. We can discuss it civilly or we can mince words and dogpile on Morphling. I happen to think he's making reasonable points.
What's worse, since Morphling is correct about the rules text, you actually don't need silent spell to thwart spell ID, as long as you're obscured visually. You evidently can't ID a spell from verbal components alone. :( That's not the intent, I'm sure, but it's the RAW.
Look at the art for spellcasters, such as from Wayne Reynolds.
There's often a 'floating circle of glyphs' around spellcasters.
That isn't corresponding to any 'component' of any sort.
Such 'floating mystical glyphs' are exactly what Spellcraft can be identifying, independent of components.
That is also why Spellcraft requires SEEING, because the glyphs must be visually perceived.
the rules say you need to SEE the spell being cast to ID it, regardless of whether there are any components, the caster is invisible, etc.
you can visualize it as glyphs or you can visualize it as summoned dancing frogs, but the rules indicate you need to see something.
that non-component based identification of spells seems to be spellcraft's function in terms of ID'ing spells.
as far as components, that is a separate skill check using knowledge:arcana to identify spells based on their material components.