Spellcraft giving a +4 bonus to will saves?


Rules Questions

51 to 66 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Dr Grecko wrote:


Next time, try a less hostile tone.

The effort and the contortions that people are going through to try and rationalize why a Spellcraft check isn't "proof" is asinine. It comes across as a hostile attitude about something that is common sense straight forward.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

N N 959 wrote:
The rules state if you have proof, the illusion fails. Your house rules means the players never have proof and would make the RAW meaningless. Perhaps you might rethink your approach?

Er, the idea that absolutely nothing constitutes proof is strawman of my argument, TYVM. I'm saying that a simple statement doesn't constitute proof, you need an actual demonstration. Anybody can state anything, it doesn't make it true.

As near as I can tell, your position is "Spellcraft not only lets you identify illusion spells, but it tells exactly what effect they are going to create out of their imagination to such precision that no amount of trickery or obfuscation can fool them. They can also perfectly communicate this to all their allies and it is so believable that the allies automatically see through all the illusions as well, but not so believable that they could accidentally mistake a real thing for an illusion."

Why even bother with the +4? If you identify an illusion on your own, just tell the party you cast it and they apprentaly bypass the Will save entirely.

By the way, as far as I'm concerned, neither of us is using "house rules." We're having a disagreement about how to interpret the existing rules, not changing them. Saying that anyone who disagrees with you is house ruling is a bit deceptive.


N N 959 wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:


Next time, try a less hostile tone.
The effort and the contortions that people are going through to try and rationalize why a Spellcraft check isn't "proof" is asinine. It comes across as a hostile attitude about something that is common sense straight forward.

"Common Sense, is not all that common"

Simply you declaring it such, does not make it common sense. Now I'll gladly debate the merits of my example explaining that in some instances that simply identifying a spell being cast as an illusion does not necessarily mean that the effect being produced in front of your eyes is in fact an illusion.

You have a reasonable suspicion, but that is indeed NOT proof.


N N 959 wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:


Next time, try a less hostile tone.
The effort and the contortions that people are going through to try and rationalize why a Spellcraft check isn't "proof" is asinine. It comes across as a hostile attitude about something that is common sense straight forward.

There is more than enough room for rational people to disagree here. Simply disagreeing with you is not being hostile. We're all just trying to have fun here, same as you.


ryric wrote:


By the way, as far as I'm concerned, neither of us is using "house rules." We're having a disagreement about how to interpret the existing rules, not changing them. Saying that anyone who disagrees with you is house ruling is a bit deceptive.

There's no disagreement on how to interpret the rules. Instead, you've resorted to arguing semantics about what is "proof." You and others have used the term "absolute" proof and then concocted rationalizations on why knowing someone just cast an illusion spell isn't "absolute" proof that what just appeared as part of the creature's turn isn't an illusion.

Other posters have already said what I'm saying. I'm just repeating it. If a spellcraft check didn't constitute sufficient proof, then there is no way to obtain that in a game of magic.

The PRD has a specific header in the section of the Illusion school ,

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief) wrote:
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.

Do you know what "faced" means? It means presented with. It doesn't mean "absolute". When I have a video tape of you driving my car, I'm faced with proof that you drove my car. It may have been an alien from outer space who looks like you, but the video tape offers proof that it was you. Is it absolute? No. There is no such thing as absolute proof, there are just diminishing probabilities of explanations to the contrary.


N N 959 wrote:
Do you know what "faced" means? It means presented with. It doesn't mean "absolute". When I have a video tape of you driving my car, I'm faced with proof that you drove my car. It may have been an alien from outer space who looks like you, but the video tape offers proof that it was you. Is it absolute? No. There is no such thing as absolute proof, there are just diminishing probabilities of explanations to the contrary.

I don't think anyone here is arguing the definition of the word "faced"

What people are arguing, is that "proof" is required. We are arguing that simply identifying that someone cast an illusion spell, is not necessarily "proof" that what they are seeing is indeed an effect generated by an illusion.

One does not always lead to another, as shown in my previous example.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

N N 959 wrote:

Do you know what "faced" means? It means presented with. It doesn't mean "absolute". When I have a video tape of you driving my car, I'm faced with proof that you drove my car. It may have been an alien from outer space who looks like you, but the video tape offers proof that it was you. Is it absolute? No. There is no such thing as absolute proof, there are just diminishing probabilities of explanations to the contrary.

But that's just it. You don't have a videotape of me driving your car - you have your friend's word that I did so, and you're calling that "proof." Your friend may be honest, and you may have good reason to suspect it to be true, but your friend's word isn't proof.

Or you know I had your car keys, and your odometer has advanced, and my whereabouts are unaccounted for. That's enough for some very strong suspicion, but it's still not proof I drove your car.

Your vidoetape is equivalent to sticking your arm through the illusion or some other physical demonstration of its unreality. No one in this thread has argued against that allowing an auto-disbelieve.

Btw, I have never used "absolute" proof as a requirement, or even implied it in my arguments. I've said form the beginning that there are many levels of proof, and I need something stricter than just "my friend's word" or "I ID'ed the spell as illusion" to constitute proof. Many reasonable - not farfetched, but perfectly possible - examples of how the next effect after an illusion's casting might not be the effect of that illsuion have been given. These examples are not bizarre corner cases - they are easy for an illusionist to set up and execute.


ryric wrote:
But that's just it. You don't have a videotape of me driving your car - you have your friend's word that I did so, and you're calling that "proof."

No. A successful Spellcraft isn't "my friend's word". Using these types of arguments undermines your credibility and makes it clear you just want to argue semantics. Knock yourself out.

Liberty's Edge

Personally, I'm curious. To those who are saying IDing the spell isn't proof that the results of that spell are not an illusion, are you playing an illusionist by any chance (or any character who relies significantly on illusions)?


ShadowcatX wrote:
Personally, I'm curious. To those who are saying IDing the spell isn't proof that the results of that spell are not an illusion, are you playing an illusionist by any chance (or any character who relies significantly on illusions)?

No, i play a diviner in one campaign with only having used illusions once or twice. I play a reach fighter in another, and I GM with no illusionists in a third.

I'm assuming you are looking for area's of bias?

And, even if I had, this debate is about what constitutes proof. I've clearly demonstrated that simply identifying a spell does not equal proof. At best you have some evidence that it probably is an illusion, and I would probably house-rule some circumstance bonus for that, but you do not have proof.


16 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
Personally, I'm curious. To those who are saying IDing the spell isn't proof that the results of that spell are not an illusion, are you playing an illusionist by any chance (or any character who relies significantly on illusions)?

With respect, that really isn't relevant; it only serves to encourage ad hominem.

Perhaps a simple FAQ will suffice:

What is considered "proof that an illusion isn't real"? Does a successful Spellcraft check to identify the spell being cast constitute proof?

Relevant rules:

Magic, Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief) wrote:

PRD

Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I suggest clicking the FAQ button on blahpers' post, above.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

ShadowcatX wrote:
Personally, I'm curious. To those who are saying IDing the spell isn't proof that the results of that spell are not an illusion, are you playing an illusionist by any chance (or any character who relies significantly on illusions)?

I'm not playing an illusionist, and I don't think I have since about 1985. Actually though, your phrasing helped crystallize the point I'm trying to make about this whole thing. I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think.

If you ID the spell successfully, you do know the results of the spell are an illusion.

However, and this is my main point, you don't necessarily know what the results of the spell even are. If the spell doesn't have instantly identifiable results, how are you able to tell they are an illusion? And if the results are mixed up in a shell game of other effects, I don't think knowing what spell is cast instantly gives you the ability to see right through it.

When a person casts an illusion, the next thing that happens is probably the effect of the illusion, but not certainly that effect. It automatically connecting the results of the spell to the spell that I take issue with.

Edit: FAQ clicked.


I think an answer to this question can be found if you look at the spell Phantasmal Killer.

Phantasmal Killer wrote:

Phantasmal Killer

School illusion (phantasm) [emotion, fear, mind-affecting]; Level magus 4, sorcerer/wizard 4, witch 4; Domain madness 6, nightmare 4
CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
EFFECT

Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target one living creature
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will disbelief, then Fortitude partial; see text; Spell Resistance yes

DESCRIPTION

You create a phantasmal image of the most fearsome creature imaginable to the subject simply by forming the fears of the subject's subconscious mind into something that its conscious mind can visualize: this most horrible beast. Only the spell's subject can see the phantasmal killer. You see only a vague shape. The target first gets a Will save to recognize the image as unreal. If that save fails, the phantasm touches the subject, and the subject must succeed on a Fortitude save or die from fear. Even if the Fortitude save is successful, the subject takes 3d6 points of damage.

If the subject of a phantasmal killer attack succeeds in disbelieving and possesses telepathy or is wearing a helm of telepathy, the beast can be turned upon you. You must then disbelieve it or become subject to its deadly fear attack.

This seems to support the notion that knowing the spell being cast does not allow you to disbelieve without a save. If you have to save against a spell that you yourself cast, then you should have to save against a spell cast by someone else. I know it's just one spell but the text from enlarge person has been used to support that you can't stack multiple size increasing effects.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

One spell having special rules for disbelief does not mean everything in the school works the same way.

Enlarge person makes a generalized statement about size effects. Phantasmal killer references only itself; it doesn't say anything like "you must save to disbelieve as normal" or any other generalization, so there's no reason to think it's talking about anything but itself.

Dark Archive

Personally I can see both sides of this, I think it sadly is something that depends on the situation.

I mean if a wizard is hiding in a silent image barrel and fails a stealth check when guards are near (aka dust got kicked up and he sneezed) is that proof the image is fake since is didn't sound like it was in a barrel? What about when they go to open the barrel thinking it is a barrel and cant seem to grab it? What if just the wizard pops out and casts a spell at them? or casts a spell through the barrel? What situation does get proof is still under table variation currently.

I do think spellcraft proves it in some cases you need to see the effect being made by the caster, and be able to identify it, as in able to hear or see it. (Note spellcraft does have the same distance penalties as Perception as well as other condition penalties).

I clicked the FAQ haha

51 to 66 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Spellcraft giving a +4 bonus to will saves? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.