Spells Visual Components


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Time and time again, I get told I can't use magic out in the open because commoners are stupid and any finger-wiggling means I'm an evil demon. I'll try to use charm during a conversation and I'm told everyone will see the magical visuals. Even Detect Magic or a Paladin's Detect Evil means everyone knows I'm casting, even if I'm ducking behind corners due to the visual components that apparently everyone can see.

So... What are the visuals of a spell? Which spells have them? How noticeable or subtle are they? Especially on psychic spells.


By RAW there are none outside of what is written in each individual spell's description.

Many times in fantasy, magic has been fairly flashy. Have a look at this video from the ADnD-based game Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn (SPOILERS).

If your GM has decided that magic works that way, then certainly there are very clearly visible components of spells, and personally I use something similar to add flavour to my spell-casting characters.

I have an Asmodean cleric, where I described the bless spell as ghostly images of devils, made from reddish smoke, steadying the aim of the party's gunslinger, helping the party fighter add power to her swings and so on.

I also described Infernal healing as my character laying a hand on the wound, then raising it up, palm down seeming to pull phantom tentacles out of the wound that then squirmed around, knitting the wound back together, before vanishing from whence they came, closing the last opening of the wounds as they went.

However, back to the point: By RAW there is are visual component to spells outside of what the spell-description says. You speak in a strong voice if the spell requires verbal components. You move at least one hand, weaving precise sigils if the spell requires somatic components. And POOF - a spell has happened.

Hope it helps.

-Nearyn


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some spells tell you what the "special effects" are. A fireball is a bead of light that flies from your finger to your target, and then it's a big ball of flame. No question there.

Other spells don't mention visual effects at all. They might be invisible, they might not be, but the most common answer I have seen is that the visual effects are nothing MORE than what is written - if nothing is written, then there are NO visual effects. Charm Person, for example, does not have any visual special effects.

What everyone CAN see, all the time, is you wiggling your fingers and pointing and doing all that somatic stuff. They CAN see you dispensing spell components from your spell component pouch. And the CAN hear you speaking the verbal components. Even if you use Silent Spell and Still Spell, there are still indicators that you are casting and people CAN see and hear those indicators.

It's not that all casters are "evil demons". But in a world where someone can speak a few magic words and wiggle his fingers a bit and then buildings tumble to the ground, small armies are engulfed in flames, demons and other monsters leap out of magical portals to rip and tear and devour the innocent, etc., etc., etc., do you really think the safe, smart move is to just stand around and see what happens?

Imagine in THIS world (the real one) if you're standing in a McDonalds somewhere and a guy walks in wearing a ski mask and pointing an Uzi at people. He's yelling and screaming and threatening to shoot. What do you do? Stand there and see what happens? Run away? Shoot first if you can? Duck behind cover and shoot second if you aren't Han Solo? What do you do in that situation?

I think commoners in Pathfinder must make the same choices, only, in Golarion, they see a lot of gun-wielding psychos walking around everywhere, all the time because spell casters and other armed-and-dangerous people are carrying deadly weapons and deadly spells all over the place. People of Golarion see TONS of violence. Not every day, but certainly several times a year. They live with it. They deal with it. They are used to armed people around them.

But the instant one of them starts swinging those weapons or casting those spells, they don't just stand around and wait to see what happens - they react the best way that they can. For average commoners, it means running for their lives. But for more elite types, people with class levels and weapons and/or spells of their own, it often means attacking like YOU are the evil demon.

It's the only way they can survive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
Imagine in THIS world (the real one) if you're standing in a McDonalds somewhere and a guy walks in wearing a ski mask and pointing an Uzi at people. He's yelling and screaming and threatening to shoot. What do you do? Stand there and see what happens? Run away? Shoot first if you can? Duck behind cover and shoot second if you aren't Han Solo? What do you do in that situation?

The off-duty Paladin power attack Smites Evil with his +3 Holy Flaming Big Mac.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So this is where different rules subsystems meet in bizarre and interesting ways!

The first reply is correct, by RAW there are no specific visible effect for a spell unless it says so.

The addendum to that? By RAW you can always identify a spell with spellcraft, even if it's silent, still, and eschewed. There's not even a penalty (though it's been suggested -2 for every missing component).

Also, if you don't cast defensively anyone who threatens you gets an AoO. Same as before, even if it's silent, still, and eschewed. So anyone with Improved Unarmed Strike can always notice when someone casts a spell because they can see the opening for an AoO?

So how do these interact? Do all spells have some visible component you can't shut off? Do a mage's eyes glaze over in some specific manner when they cast a spell? How does someone know they can sucker-punch them?

Which of course brings us to the largest unanswered question, what's the DC to notice a spell being cast? Not to identify it, just to see that someone is casting a spell. Because it's not given anywhere, and it probably should be. As I said, spellcraft can identify spells with no components that don't provoke an AoO or have any effect on the world outside of the end result of the spell. So it has to be visible in some way, and presumably "casting some kind of magic" has a much lower DC than "identify the exact spell being cast".

Silver Crusade

What happens with psychic magic where the components are all thoughts. You could be holding things in both hands with heavy armor. How would the enemy know you were casting?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Take a look in any of the Paizo books at a spellcaster actively casting a spell, and you'll notice a rather impressive "light show" forming around them, often with imagery matching the spell they're casting. While it's not an actual rule, one accepted explanation is that this "light show" happens for all spells and spell-like abilities, so even if you are casting a still, silent, eschewed spell, it's still pretty darned obvious that you're using magic (hence the spell being no harder to identify through spellcraft).

Silver Crusade

Chemlak wrote:
Take a look in any of the Paizo books at a spellcaster actively casting a spell, and you'll notice a rather impressive "light show" forming around them, often with imagery matching the spell they're casting. While it's not an actual rule, one accepted explanation is that this "light show" happens for all spells and spell-like abilities, so even if you are casting a still, silent, eschewed spell, it's still pretty darned obvious that you're using magic (hence the spell being no harder to identify through spellcraft).

That's what most GMs tell me but that also means there are a lot of useless spells, made useless from that fact.


zanbato13 wrote:
What happens with psychic magic where the components are all thoughts. You could be holding things in both hands with heavy armor. How would the enemy know you were casting?

Good examples of what psychic magic looks like would be the Cover, pg 142, pg 173, and pg 186.


zanbato13 wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
Take a look in any of the Paizo books at a spellcaster actively casting a spell, and you'll notice a rather impressive "light show" forming around them, often with imagery matching the spell they're casting. While it's not an actual rule, one accepted explanation is that this "light show" happens for all spells and spell-like abilities, so even if you are casting a still, silent, eschewed spell, it's still pretty darned obvious that you're using magic (hence the spell being no harder to identify through spellcraft).
That's what most GMs tell me but that also means there are a lot of useless spells, made useless from that fact.

Like what?

With Charm Person, for example, it's assumed that if someone fails the Will Save they'll be willing to overlook a bit of spellcasting by a good friend like you.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Must have been prestidigitation or maybe Poly-purpose Panacea that my good friend just cast.

Use the search feature to find threads like This One about using Charm Person


1 person marked this as a favorite.
zanbato13 wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
Take a look in any of the Paizo books at a spellcaster actively casting a spell, and you'll notice a rather impressive "light show" forming around them, often with imagery matching the spell they're casting. While it's not an actual rule, one accepted explanation is that this "light show" happens for all spells and spell-like abilities, so even if you are casting a still, silent, eschewed spell, it's still pretty darned obvious that you're using magic (hence the spell being no harder to identify through spellcraft).
That's what most GMs tell me but that also means there are a lot of useless spells, made useless from that fact.

No, it only means you can't cast spells with subtlety. Which is fine, and intended (IMO).

The few spells that require subtlety, like Charm Person, have built in mechanism to make sure the target would overlook such magic use. What it does not do, however is make it so the guards friend standing next to him doesn't notice that his friend just had something cast upon him (even if he can't identify it).

I'm positive this is an intentional limitation on spell caster's ability to use magic that gets overlooked too frequently.


"Oh, that spell I just cast on you? Don't worry 'bout that, it was simply a cantrip to bolster your resistance to cold's and thirst. It could maybe even help you dodge an explosion if the need arises."


Matthew Downie wrote:
zanbato13 wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
Take a look in any of the Paizo books at a spellcaster actively casting a spell, and you'll notice a rather impressive "light show" forming around them, often with imagery matching the spell they're casting. While it's not an actual rule, one accepted explanation is that this "light show" happens for all spells and spell-like abilities, so even if you are casting a still, silent, eschewed spell, it's still pretty darned obvious that you're using magic (hence the spell being no harder to identify through spellcraft).
That's what most GMs tell me but that also means there are a lot of useless spells, made useless from that fact.

Like what?

With Charm Person, for example, it's assumed that if someone fails the Will Save they'll be willing to overlook a bit of spellcasting by a good friend like you.

You'll just say 'oh, don't worry, it was just spell x' and your 'good friend' will say 'oh, ok.'

Now if you FAIL to charm them ...

Sczarni

Per RAW, even Silent and Stilled spells can be identified with Spellcraft check which means that they have some visual effect. What kind of visual effect they have is up to GM to explain. Unfortunately, this means that you literally can't disguise spellcasting. It would be a good house rule that Silent & Stilled spells can't be detected. Perhaps you should speak with your GM about this.

Adam


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
With Charm Person, for example, it's assumed that if someone fails the Will Save they'll be willing to overlook a bit of spellcasting by a good friend like you.

Target: (Passes Spellcraft check) Did you just cast charm person on me?

You: Yes. Yes, I did.
Target: Well... you must have had a good reason.

Scarab Sages

As of now, the only way I know of to actually conceal the fact that you are casting a spell is the Warlock Vigilante's Concealed Casting talent from the Ultimate Intrigue playtest.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
As of now, the only way I know of to actually conceal the fact that you are casting a spell is the Warlock Vigilante's Concealed Casting talent from the Ultimate Intrigue playtest.

There's also the feat Spellsong from Ultimate Magic. But it's bard only (well, and any archetypes for spellcasting classes that can snag bardic performance).

Scarab Sages

Luthorne wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
As of now, the only way I know of to actually conceal the fact that you are casting a spell is the Warlock Vigilante's Concealed Casting talent from the Ultimate Intrigue playtest.
There's also the feat Spellsong from Ultimate Magic. But it's bard only (well, and any archetypes for spellcasting classes that can snag bardic performance).

It has to be a Bard spell per the feat description, so it doesn't help non-bards.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's a feature not a bug that it's very difficult to surreptitiously cast spells. Yes that means it's hard to [I]charm[I/] a noble in the middle of court.

As a house rule, I'd probably allow a caster to use Bluff to create a diversion, then cast while the target's attention was elsewhere. Of course, without Silent Spell, the caster would still have to speak clearly, which might defeat the point. But I'd allow Bluff to distract someone from whatever cues are left over from an otherwise componentless spell.


Disclaimer: This comment veers outside of strict RAW into my own interpretation.

This is how I see it - regardless of how the caster is bringing forth the spell, be it something with multiple components, or a Stilled and Silent spell, or a psychic spell, or even a spell-like ability, there is a short release of magical energy in the caster's space. It is against this energy that Spellcraft may be checked to determine what is being cast.

I go into this in more detail here.


That's really good, thanks.

Silver Crusade

Thanis Kartaleon wrote:

Disclaimer: This comment veers outside of strict RAW into my own interpretation.

This is how I see it - regardless of how the caster is bringing forth the spell, be it something with multiple components, or a Stilled and Silent spell, or a psychic spell, or even a spell-like ability, there is a short release of magical energy in the caster's space. It is against this energy that Spellcraft may be checked to determine what is being cast.

I go into this in more detail here.

I really like that but it doesn't say who can see the aura.

Btw, great picture!


If you're interested in concealing spellcastng, consider taking the Secret Signs feat. If you combine it with Eschew Materials, Silent Spell, and a decent bonus to Sleight of Hand, you can cast without people noticing.


zanbato13 wrote:
I really like that but it doesn't say who can see the aura.

It's a visible burst; anyone can see it. Refer to any Paizo published picture of someone casting a spell for what I mean.

Quote:
Btw, great picture!

Thanks! :D I thiiiink I was the first to use it.

Sovereign Court

I'd hoped Occult Adventures would clarify this a bit more, what with the whole "no talking, no gestures" thing, but it doesn't. And the art does have visible magic in it.


Somatic components, Verbal components, Material components... observing the use of any of these allows one to identify that a spell is being cast. Perhaps even WHICH spell if you roll high enough on spellcraft...

As for the effect the spell produces, it looks exactly as described in the books.

Charm Person, for example, does not produce a visible effect, while Fireball does.

In my games, I allow the players to add visuals as they see fit, for example, one players fireballs always detonated in miniature mushroom clouds, his burning hands spell was green and smelled of brimstone... and so on.

It can add a little flavor to the game, especially when you find another casters spellbook and realize that his magic missile looks like flying, glowing snakes, while yours looks like simple darts of force.


alexd1976 wrote:

Somatic components, Verbal components, Material components... observing the use of any of these allows one to identify that a spell is being cast. Perhaps even WHICH spell if you roll high enough on spellcraft...

As for the effect the spell produces, it looks exactly as described in the books.

Charm Person, for example, does not produce a visible effect, while Fireball does.

In my games, I allow the players to add visuals as they see fit, for example, one players fireballs always detonated in miniature mushroom clouds, his burning hands spell was green and smelled of brimstone... and so on.

It can add a little flavor to the game, especially when you find another casters spellbook and realize that his magic missile looks like flying, glowing snakes, while yours looks like simple darts of force.

No rules supports this. Rules actually oppose this, as components are not necessary to identify spells.


Milo v3 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Somatic components, Verbal components, Material components... observing the use of any of these allows one to identify that a spell is being cast. Perhaps even WHICH spell if you roll high enough on spellcraft...

As for the effect the spell produces, it looks exactly as described in the books.

Charm Person, for example, does not produce a visible effect, while Fireball does.

In my games, I allow the players to add visuals as they see fit, for example, one players fireballs always detonated in miniature mushroom clouds, his burning hands spell was green and smelled of brimstone... and so on.

It can add a little flavor to the game, especially when you find another casters spellbook and realize that his magic missile looks like flying, glowing snakes, while yours looks like simple darts of force.

No rules supports this. Rules actually oppose this, as components are not necessary to identify spells.

That would mean Charm Person DOES produce a visual effect... which seems odd to me.

In any case, I question how one would identify Charm Person if it was cast using Eschew Materials, Still Spell and Silent Spell...

From Spellcraft (skill)

"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."

It specifies you must be able to see the spell, it does NOT say that the spell can be seen.

Your interpretation relies on the assumption that spells are all visible, and that is how you can identify them.

The actual text does not appear to support this, as it does not say that all spells have a visual component, at least, not in the Spellcraft skill.

Sovereign Court

I've looked before, and AFAIK, there's no rule anywhere stating that spells are visible, beyond what flavor text spells themselves have. However, the Spellcraft rules, and rules for using Spellcraft to set up a counterspell, implicitly consider all spells visible, regardless of what components are involved. And most of Paizo's artwork over years of publishing supports this.


Ascalaphus wrote:
I've looked before, and AFAIK, there's no rule anywhere stating that spells are visible, beyond what flavor text spells themselves have. However, the Spellcraft rules, and rules for using Spellcraft to set up a counterspell, implicitly consider all spells visible, regardless of what components are involved. And most of Paizo's artwork over years of publishing supports this.

I'm curious where in the Spellcraft skill it says all spells are visible...

It does state that "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast", but I don't see "you ARE able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast".

"Must be" is a condition that you must meet. It is NOT saying that all spells have a visual component.

-A spell is being cast
-Are you able to see it? Yes
-Identify spell

or

-A spell is being cast
-Are you able to see it? (nope, it's charm person, stilled, silenced)
-Cannot identify spell during casting

What would the visual component of detect thoughts or invisibility look like? (if such a thing existed, as I pointed out above, Spellcraft does not say all spells have a visual component).


alexd1976 wrote:
What would the visual component of detect thoughts or invisibility look like?

I'd imagine a sky blue aura for some reason.

Quote:
(if such a thing existed, as I pointed out above, Spellcraft does not say all spells have a visual component).

Doesn't matter. Dev's have said they all have visual components, even SLA's have them.


Milo v3 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
What would the visual component of detect thoughts or invisibility look like?

I'd imagine a sky blue aura for some reason.

Quote:
(if such a thing existed, as I pointed out above, Spellcraft does not say all spells have a visual component).
Doesn't matter. Dev's have said they all have visual components.

No kidding. Is that published somewhere or is it just anecdotal?


Here.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

once again, this is why i enjoy sphere casting, where a magical tradition determines if your spells are noticeable or not.

beyond that, i'm pretty sure its left vague so that the GM can decide how obvious magic is.


Jason Bulmahn, Game Designer commented on your wall post::
"The rules are silent on this issue, meaning that it is really up to your GM. I would, personally, rule that each missing component adds +4 to the DC to identify the spell. There are, after all some tell tale markers, even if all of the components are removed. If they are all removed, I might rule it impossible to ID before the effect occurs, but it depends on the circumstances."

This is interesting. So +4 DC for a spell with two components, +8 with 1 component, and maybe impossible if no components.

He comments that there are tell tale markers, but does not say that the spell itself has a visual component, but it appears that spellcasting always does (hence provoking AoO even if stilled/silenced/eschewed).

Obviously, in the last line of the game designers text, he is talking about spells that are described as having a visual effect (fireball is the most obvious example), but he also acknowledges that there are situations where it may be impossible to identify a spell.

Good enough for me.

Sovereign Court

alexd1976 wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
I've looked before, and AFAIK, there's no rule anywhere stating that spells are visible, beyond what flavor text spells themselves have. However, the Spellcraft rules, and rules for using Spellcraft to set up a counterspell, implicitly consider all spells visible, regardless of what components are involved. And most of Paizo's artwork over years of publishing supports this.

I'm curious where in the Spellcraft skill it says all spells are visible...

It does state that "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast", but I don't see "you ARE able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast".

"Must be" is a condition that you must meet. It is NOT saying that all spells have a visual component.

-A spell is being cast
-Are you able to see it? Yes
-Identify spell

or

-A spell is being cast
-Are you able to see it? (nope, it's charm person, stilled, silenced)
-Cannot identify spell during casting

What would the visual component of detect thoughts or invisibility look like? (if such a thing existed, as I pointed out above, Spellcraft does not say all spells have a visual component).

It's not as clear as I'd like. Personally I'd prefer a clear rule about this so that then we can have feats and stuff to vary on it. I would like to make a character specializing in casting more subtly than other people.

On to why I think spellcasting is visible.

Spellcraft description wrote:
Action: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

Note that this talks about seeing the spell being cast, not the spellcaster casting a spell.

Counterspelling description in the magic chapter wrote:

Counterspells

It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing so, you are using the spell's energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.

How Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing to ready an action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. You may still move at your normal speed, since ready is a standard action.

If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell's level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent's spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can't do either of these things.

The counterspell paragraph doesn't say something like "if you think your opponent is casting a spell" or "if it looks like maybe he's casting a spell" - if he starts casting, you roll Spellcraft.

---

It's supremely irritating, but there are no rules describing what spells look like as they're being cast. It's implied in Spellcraft that the spell itself is visible, but the Secret Signs feat suggests the opposite, that only the components are visible.

I'm leaning towards the Spellcraft interpretation, that spells themselves are visible. Partly, because Paizo's produced so many illustrations of spellcasting with visible spells. Also, because I put more weight on the CRB than a setting book; the CRB is much closer to expressing the main design intent of the game.

But it's not clear proof, obviously.

An interesting side effect of glowing spells is that invisible spellcasters give away their position by casting.

Like I said before, I would like a clear rule about how obvious spells are, that way you have room for abilities that then make it more or less visible.


It says nothing of the sort in Spellcraft.

It says IF you can see the spell, not THAT you can see the spell.

Nowhere in Spellcraft does it talk about spell visuals.

HOWEVER

SpellCASTING is identifiable. So the spell itself doesn't necessarily have a glowing energy aura or something (unless described, like fireball/glitterdust etc).

Look at my earlier post from Jason Bulmahn, I'm inclined to take what one of the designers says pretty seriously.

Sovereign Court

The "but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast" implies that it is possible to see spells, as they are being cast. It doesn't say "you must see someone casting a spell", it talks about the spell itself as something visible.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
The "but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast" implies that it is possible to see spells, as they are being cast. It doesn't say "you must see someone casting a spell", it talks about the spell itself as something visible.

actually it says that they can be not that they must. I still hold the rules are written to allow GMs to set the desired spell noticability.


Ascalaphus wrote:
The "but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast" implies that it is possible to see spells, as they are being cast. It doesn't say "you must see someone casting a spell", it talks about the spell itself as something visible.

I couldn't agree with you more. You must be able to see the spell in order to identify it (or witness the caster in the act of casting it, if visual cues exist such as somatic/verbal/material).

If you cannot see the spell, you cannot identify it.

It does NOT say that all spells are visible. Again, take a look at my earlier post with a quote from one of the actual designers of the game.

It seems that you are supposed to be able to identify a spell as it is being cast if either of TWO situations happen:

1-you witness the casting of the spell (VSM components, each one missing has a +4 DC to identify, if all three are missing, you MIGHT not be able to identify spell)

2-IF spell has visual component, you can identify spell from that.

Spellcraft does NOT state that all spells have visual components, it merely allows you to identify spells IF they do, or if you see the caster cast it.


Essentially, there might be corner cases where a caster just disappears (Silenced/Stilled spell, was it teleport? Was it Dimension Door? Maybe Invisibility?).

It would, from the sounds of it, be pretty rare. If someone fires a Magic Missile at you, there is a visual effect (bolts of force). So whether you see the caster or not, you can roll to identify the spell.

Likewise, if a caster is casting Invisibility normally, you are able to see the process of the spell being cast, and can attempt to identify it because of that.


alexd1976 wrote:

It says nothing of the sort in Spellcraft.

It says IF you can see the spell, not THAT you can see the spell.

Nowhere in Spellcraft does it talk about spell visuals.

HOWEVER

SpellCASTING is identifiable. So the spell itself doesn't necessarily have a glowing energy aura or something (unless described, like fireball/glitterdust etc).

Look at my earlier post from Jason Bulmahn, I'm inclined to take what one of the designers says pretty seriously.

Such designer comments can be useful, but we have been told repeatedly that they are personal opinions rather than official statements. That post is so old that it might predate those conventions, though. Since the thread already had a bunch of FAQ requests already, I went ahead and clicked it myself. With the advent of psychic magic this is a question that is going to come up a lot more frequently.


The reason I'm so vocal about this is because I am a proponent of people being able to cast Charm Person or Detect Evil without letting their targets know.

It's a little thing, but it's important to me.


Gisher wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

It says nothing of the sort in Spellcraft.

It says IF you can see the spell, not THAT you can see the spell.

Nowhere in Spellcraft does it talk about spell visuals.

HOWEVER

SpellCASTING is identifiable. So the spell itself doesn't necessarily have a glowing energy aura or something (unless described, like fireball/glitterdust etc).

Look at my earlier post from Jason Bulmahn, I'm inclined to take what one of the designers says pretty seriously.

Such designer comments can be useful, but we have been told repeatedly that they are personal opinions rather than official statements. That post is so old that it might predate those conventions, though.

If you want to ignore both the existing text in the books as well as an explanation from a designer, I can do nothing more to show you the way.

May your journey bring you somewhere nice, with cheap beer and good food.


alexd1976 wrote:
Gisher wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

It says nothing of the sort in Spellcraft.

It says IF you can see the spell, not THAT you can see the spell.

Nowhere in Spellcraft does it talk about spell visuals.

HOWEVER

SpellCASTING is identifiable. So the spell itself doesn't necessarily have a glowing energy aura or something (unless described, like fireball/glitterdust etc).

Look at my earlier post from Jason Bulmahn, I'm inclined to take what one of the designers says pretty seriously.

Such designer comments can be useful, but we have been told repeatedly that they are personal opinions rather than official statements. That post is so old that it might predate those conventions, though.

If you want to ignore both the existing text in the books as well as an explanation from a designer, I can do nothing more to show you the way.

May your journey bring you somewhere nice, with cheap beer and good food.

You misunderstand me. I'm not disagreeing with your position. I'm merely suggesting that a more official ruling would be useful. But thank you for your wishes of nice locales, cheap beer, and good food. :)

Dark Archive

alexd1976 wrote:

The reason I'm so vocal about this is because I am a proponent of people being able to cast Charm Person or Detect Evil without letting their targets know.

It's a little thing, but it's important to me.

The biggest thing about all this is that even silent and stilled, or even psychically cast, people know you are casting a spell, per RAW. Because there is nothing in either of those that says you no longer provoke - people can tell you are distracted/vulnerable/casting and will smack you in the face for it. This lends to the idea that yes, EVERY spell has some sort of tell that you can spellcraft/counterspell/AOO on.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

people aren't exactly aware they obtain an AoO, players are, in that they only ever get one a round usually and have to make a choice to use it now or hold for later, but the characters themselves simply take advantage of the opponents guard dropping, they don't need to know why their guard dropped only that they can effectively hurt them more during this turn now.

this has to do with the whole abstraction of HP thing, so best not to get into it.


Keith Apperson wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

The reason I'm so vocal about this is because I am a proponent of people being able to cast Charm Person or Detect Evil without letting their targets know.

It's a little thing, but it's important to me.

The biggest thing about all this is that even silent and stilled, or even psychically cast, people know you are casting a spell, per RAW. Because there is nothing in either of those that says you no longer provoke - people can tell you are distracted/vulnerable/casting and will smack you in the face for it. This lends to the idea that yes, EVERY spell has some sort of tell that you can spellcraft/counterspell/AOO on.

Ah, see you are blurring the lines here.

I'm saying that the spell itself doesn't necessarily have a physical, visual manifestation.

Seeing a spell being cast is one thing, seeing the actual spell is another thing altogether.

I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't say anywhere that all spells have a recognizable visual component.

Also, NOT every spell has 'some sort of tell' that allows you roll Spellcraft on. I don't wanna repeat myself from earlier, so just look at my earlier posts. It's all there, including quotes from one of the people who MADE the game.


alexd1976 wrote:
Keith Apperson wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

The reason I'm so vocal about this is because I am a proponent of people being able to cast Charm Person or Detect Evil without letting their targets know.

It's a little thing, but it's important to me.

The biggest thing about all this is that even silent and stilled, or even psychically cast, people know you are casting a spell, per RAW. Because there is nothing in either of those that says you no longer provoke - people can tell you are distracted/vulnerable/casting and will smack you in the face for it. This lends to the idea that yes, EVERY spell has some sort of tell that you can spellcraft/counterspell/AOO on.

Ah, see you are blurring the lines here.

I'm saying that the spell itself doesn't necessarily have a physical, visual manifestation.

Seeing a spell being cast is one thing, seeing the actual spell is another thing altogether.

I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't say anywhere that all spells have a recognizable visual component.

Also, NOT every spell has 'some sort of tell' that allows you roll Spellcraft on. I don't wanna repeat myself from earlier, so just look at my earlier posts. It's all there, including quotes from one of the people who MADE the game.

Jason explicitly states that by RAW you get the spellcraft check regardless of components, and the spellcraft check takes penalties as per a perception check - since the only way most characters would be able to perceive the spell is by vision or hearing, it has to either be audible or visible (or both).

Unless you have another explanation for how all characters are entitled to a spellcraft check to determine exactly what spell is being cast regardless of components and that involves perception penalties?

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Spells Visual Components All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.