Do Spells Have A Visual Component Aside From Somatics?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

45 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread is to put to bed the idea that Still Spell + Silent Spell = Stealth Spell.

Here we debate, once and for all, the rules of this combo.

Me? By RAW you cannot do this. There is some visual component. Swirling energies, glowing runes, and such that appear in addition to the components of the spell.

Why do I say this? The rules on Spellcraft say that you have to see the casting, not that you have to see the use of S components, nor can you identify a spell by hearing. It has to be sight.

Thus I reference the FAQ and a comment on "can you see yourself while invisible."

-----

Invisibility: Can you see yourself when you're invisible?

The spell doesn't say one way or the other.

Because being invisible doesn't give you penalties on actions that require you to be able to see exactly what you're doing (such as picking a lock), you can assume that you can at least see yourself well enough to perform such actions without penalty. Whether this means you can see yourself as if you were not invisible, can see yourself as a ghostly image, or some other description is up to the GM, so long as the description doesn't hinder your own actions.

-----

To postulate:

Because silent spell/still spell doesn't give opponents penalties on spellcrafting checks to determine the spell cast then we can assume the spell itself can be seen.


The problem is from two competing issues.
A) Silent Spell and Still Spell are at least in part intended for stealth.
B) A spell with no detectable components can still be determined by a use of spellcraft.

A and B don't make much sense when taken together.


Swirling colors or glowing runes would give away the position of an invisible caster, or make casting from stealth impossible. Since neither is true by the rules, spells can't have visual components (unless the spell itself says differently).

There is nothing in the rules that definitively indicate either way. There is support for both visual and non-visual casting. Until Paizo rules otherwise, it is up to the individual GM.


Also, what happens when you cast spells invisible? You obviously dont break invisibility when you cast non hostile spells... but if spells glow when you cast them, being invisible is pointless since it gives away your position. Also, what about lighting? Does that mean you are visible to humans in a dark room when casting?


Damn ninjad


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The way to put this to bed is to get it FAQ'd. It has been debated to death already. The horse has been beaten, shot, incinerated, reincarnated as a kitten, swung into several interior partitions, wished back into a horse, strangled, beaten, reanimated and beaten back to death again for good measure. There isn't going to be a resolution without a Dev coming in and saying "It works like *this*, and an FAQ/Errata is forthcoming". Debate is just going to turn into 300 posts rehashing the same old crap, so it isn't worth bothering about until the FAQ system gets fixed or the Devs decide to start going without it.


Being invisible doesn't stop you from being able to spellcraft the spell to know what it is. It just changes the DC as per perception checks. So if you can spellcraft someone doing silent and still then a silent, stilled, invisible spell can still be spellcrafted if the spellcraft is super high.


This is why I liked 3.5 metamagic Invisible Spell (+0). It made the spell effects invisible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
The way to put this to bed is to get it FAQ'd. It has been debated to death already. The horse has been beaten, shot, incinerated, reincarnated as a kitten, swung into several interior partitions, wished back into a horse, strangled, beaten, reanimated and beaten back to death again for good measure.

Finally someone who gets it


I will admit that some spells will have visual effects no matter what. Most people will notice someone dropping 1d3 dire tigers into an encounter, or the dwarf who's now standing 8 1/2 feet tall with a Large greatsword. And there's no feat that would reasonably suppress the flash or sound of Fireball.

Other spells also have an 'effect' on the victims, especially when you make your Will saves. 'Hey, that wasn't good,' that sort of thing.

And of course you can always see illusions being cast. That's the point of casting an illusion, isn't it?


Qaianna wrote:

I will admit that some spells will have visual effects no matter what. Most people will notice someone dropping 1d3 dire tigers into an encounter, or the dwarf who's now standing 8 1/2 feet tall with a Large greatsword. And there's no feat that would reasonably suppress the flash or sound of Fireball.

Other spells also have an 'effect' on the victims, especially when you make your Will saves. 'Hey, that wasn't good,' that sort of thing.

And of course you can always see illusions being cast. That's the point of casting an illusion, isn't it?

Not necessarily... i mean, if your casting i.invisibility... being seen is exactly what you DONT want happen....

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:

This thread is to put to bed the idea that Still Spell + Silent Spell = Stealth Spell.

Here we debate, once and for all, the rules of this combo.

If you want to be honest this sentence should read.

"Here we debate, yet once again, and will no doubt debate in the future......"

The answer is... there is no rules answer to this question, and it's up to the individual GMs and players to work out for themselves.


Qaianna wrote:

I will admit that some spells will have visual effects no matter what. Most people will notice someone dropping 1d3 dire tigers into an encounter, or the dwarf who's now standing 8 1/2 feet tall with a Large greatsword. And there's no feat that would reasonably suppress the flash or sound of Fireball.

Other spells also have an 'effect' on the victims, especially when you make your Will saves. 'Hey, that wasn't good,' that sort of thing.

And of course you can always see illusions being cast. That's the point of casting an illusion, isn't it?

But it's not the effects of the spell that we're talking about. You can use spellcraft to identify the spell as it's being cast, not just after it goes off.

"What's he casting?"
<Boom>
"Fireball."
"Thanks. I figured that out."

Not so helpful.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Qaianna wrote:

I will admit that some spells will have visual effects no matter what. Most people will notice someone dropping 1d3 dire tigers into an encounter, or the dwarf who's now standing 8 1/2 feet tall with a Large greatsword. And there's no feat that would reasonably suppress the flash or sound of Fireball.

Other spells also have an 'effect' on the victims, especially when you make your Will saves. 'Hey, that wasn't good,' that sort of thing.

And of course you can always see illusions being cast. That's the point of casting an illusion, isn't it?

But it's not the effects of the spell that we're talking about. You can use spellcraft to identify the spell as it's being cast, not just after it goes off.

"What's he casting?"
<Boom>
"Fireball."
"Thanks. I figured that out."

Not so helpful.

But great comedy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Qaianna wrote:

I will admit that some spells will have visual effects no matter what. Most people will notice someone dropping 1d3 dire tigers into an encounter, or the dwarf who's now standing 8 1/2 feet tall with a Large greatsword. And there's no feat that would reasonably suppress the flash or sound of Fireball.

Other spells also have an 'effect' on the victims, especially when you make your Will saves. 'Hey, that wasn't good,' that sort of thing.

And of course you can always see illusions being cast. That's the point of casting an illusion, isn't it?

But it's not the effects of the spell that we're talking about. You can use spellcraft to identify the spell as it's being cast, not just after it goes off.

"What's he casting?"
<Boom>
"Fireball."
"Thanks. I figured that out."

Not so helpful.

But great comedy.

Especially when said after a lightning bolt was cast.


HWalsh wrote:

This thread is to put to bed the idea that Still Spell + Silent Spell = Stealth Spell.

Here we debate, once and for all, the rules of this combo.

Me? By RAW you cannot do this. There is some visual component. Swirling energies, glowing runes, and such that appear in addition to the components of the spell.

Why do I say this? The rules on Spellcraft say that you have to see the casting, not that you have to see the use of S components, nor can you identify a spell by hearing. It has to be sight.

Thus I reference the FAQ and a comment on "can you see yourself while invisible."

-----

Invisibility: Can you see yourself when you're invisible?

The spell doesn't say one way or the other.

Because being invisible doesn't give you penalties on actions that require you to be able to see exactly what you're doing (such as picking a lock), you can assume that you can at least see yourself well enough to perform such actions without penalty. Whether this means you can see yourself as if you were not invisible, can see yourself as a ghostly image, or some other description is up to the GM, so long as the description doesn't hinder your own actions.

-----

To postulate:

Because silent spell/still spell doesn't give opponents penalties on spellcrafting checks to determine the spell cast then we can assume the spell itself can be seen.

Spellcraft states that you are obligated to fulfill a requirement, it does not say that spells are all visible.

People keep trying to say that Spellcraft states that all spells are visible, it says nothing of the sort.


alexd1976 wrote:

Spellcraft states that you are obligated to fulfill a requirement, it does not say that spells are all visible.

People keep trying to say that Spellcraft states that all spells are visible, it says nothing of the sort.

I don't understand what you mean by "obligated to fulfill a requirement".

Spellcraft wrote:
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.

The only "requirement" is that you must be able to clearly see the spell and that seems to refer to normal Perception check stuff.


thejeff wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Spellcraft states that you are obligated to fulfill a requirement, it does not say that spells are all visible.

People keep trying to say that Spellcraft states that all spells are visible, it says nothing of the sort.

I don't understand what you mean by "obligated to fulfill a requirement".

Spellcraft wrote:
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.
The only "requirement" is that you must be able to clearly see the spell and that seems to refer to normal Perception check stuff.

You correctly identified what the requirement is.

IF you are able to see the spell, a roll is then allowed that may or may not allow you to identify what the spell is.

Nothing in the Spellcraft description states that ALL spells have these visible cues.

Therefor, if a spell does not have these visual cues, you may not identify it. Unless, like many others, you houserule so that someone casting Charm Person has a flashing neon sign over their head...


HWalsh wrote:
Me? By RAW you cannot do this. There is some visual component. Swirling energies, glowing runes, and such that appear in addition to the components of the spell.

Seems according to you the rule is written, I'm sure you can quote exactly the text that say that.


alexd1976 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Spellcraft states that you are obligated to fulfill a requirement, it does not say that spells are all visible.

People keep trying to say that Spellcraft states that all spells are visible, it says nothing of the sort.

I don't understand what you mean by "obligated to fulfill a requirement".

Spellcraft wrote:
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.
The only "requirement" is that you must be able to clearly see the spell and that seems to refer to normal Perception check stuff.

You correctly identified what the requirement is.

IF you are able to see the spell, a roll is then allowed that may or may not allow you to identify what the spell is.

Nothing in the Spellcraft description states that ALL spells have these visible cues.

Therefor, if a spell does not have these visual cues, you may not identify it. Unless, like many others, you houserule so that someone casting Charm Person has a flashing neon sign over their head...

So, is there any indication in the actual rules which spells have visual cues?

Or is the GM completely free to handwave spellcraft not being able to identify any given spell?


thejeff wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Spellcraft states that you are obligated to fulfill a requirement, it does not say that spells are all visible.

People keep trying to say that Spellcraft states that all spells are visible, it says nothing of the sort.

I don't understand what you mean by "obligated to fulfill a requirement".

Spellcraft wrote:
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.
The only "requirement" is that you must be able to clearly see the spell and that seems to refer to normal Perception check stuff.

You correctly identified what the requirement is.

IF you are able to see the spell, a roll is then allowed that may or may not allow you to identify what the spell is.

Nothing in the Spellcraft description states that ALL spells have these visible cues.

Therefor, if a spell does not have these visual cues, you may not identify it. Unless, like many others, you houserule so that someone casting Charm Person has a flashing neon sign over their head...

So, is there any indication in the actual rules which spells have visual cues?

Or is the GM completely free to handwave spellcraft not being able to identify any given spell?

There are many spells with visual cues, Magic Missile describes what it looks like, as does Fireball...

It's on a spell-by spell basis. It is there though.


alexd1976 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Spellcraft states that you are obligated to fulfill a requirement, it does not say that spells are all visible.

People keep trying to say that Spellcraft states that all spells are visible, it says nothing of the sort.

I don't understand what you mean by "obligated to fulfill a requirement".

Spellcraft wrote:
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.
The only "requirement" is that you must be able to clearly see the spell and that seems to refer to normal Perception check stuff.

You correctly identified what the requirement is.

IF you are able to see the spell, a roll is then allowed that may or may not allow you to identify what the spell is.

Nothing in the Spellcraft description states that ALL spells have these visible cues.

Therefor, if a spell does not have these visual cues, you may not identify it. Unless, like many others, you houserule so that someone casting Charm Person has a flashing neon sign over their head...

So, is there any indication in the actual rules which spells have visual cues?

Or is the GM completely free to handwave spellcraft not being able to identify any given spell?

There are many spells with visual cues, Magic Missile describes what it looks like, as does Fireball...

It's on a spell-by spell basis. It is there though.

In both of those cases, using the described visual cues ("A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit" and "A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip ") you could only identify the spell once it was complete and as it was taking effect. Bringing us back to the:

<spellcraft roll> "It's a <BOOM> fireball."

You're supposed to be able to use Spellcraft to counterspell, which doesn't really make sense if the missile is already on its way.

That tends to be the pattern for the spells with described visual cues. The visible thing is the effect, not a cue during the casting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thing is, it only says you need to see the spell being cast. Not that you need to see magical effects swirling around. So, if your looking at someone when they happen to cast a spell, you are seeing a spell being cast, because a person is casting a spell in your line of sight. There done.


Milo v3 wrote:
Thing is, it only says you need to see the spell being cast. Not that you need to see magical effects swirling around. So, if your looking at someone when they happen to cast a spell, you are seeing a spell being cast, because a person is casting a spell in your line of sight. There done.

Yeah, that's my understanding of the RAW approach.

The questions come in when you try to make that make sense. Especially in cases where there are no somatic or material components. (And apparently the Verbal ones don't matter because you have to actually see them, hearing isn't relevant.)

What are you actually looking at when using Spellcraft to identify a still spell?


thejeff wrote:

Yeah, that's my understanding of the RAW approach.

The questions come in when you try to make that make sense. Especially in cases where there are no somatic or material components. (And apparently the Verbal ones don't matter because you have to actually see them, hearing isn't relevant.)

What are you actually looking at when using Spellcraft to identify a still spell?

I rule that there are visual effects to casting. But RAW, there is no need for visual effects. You can identify the spell even if they are casting a spell with no components as long as you see the spell being cast.

Scarab Sages

I think of it as you look like you are concentrating really hard. A person without Spellcraft that looks at you just thinks you are constipated, but a person with Spellcraft says "aha! That person is casting a spell with only their mind!"

Silent spell would benefit anyone in stealth or invisible, since it would not give away their position. The person still has to perceive the spellcaster before rolling Spellcraft. I am not sure if spellcraft can be used if you can only hear though.

Though I do wish Silent and Still at least gave a penalty to identify the spell. But that is just not RAW.


The problem is that if the answer is "yes, Still+Silent=Stealth", that still can't be the case for every spell. Spells like Fireball or Scorching Ray, where the effect is specifically being launched from your position, will always give it away that you're the caster. In these cases, you've used the metamagic feats to remove the spell components, and are given no other benefit (unless of course, you're doing something super corner-casey, like using Project Image, which allows you to have spells you cast come from your illusion, and you're using crazy shenanigans and trying to fool everyone that your illusion (disguised as the Duke) cast that Lightening Bolt instead of you). Spells that require you to touch another creature like Bull's Strength could be disguised with a Bluff check while using Still+Silent to disguise the real intentions behind your shoulder pat. Spells like Daylight on the other hand could in theory be cast with Still+Silent with no way for others to know who cast it.

In short: there's really no way for Paizo to properly FAQ this without including a lengthy list of exceptions to this statement, or circumstantial amendments to that statement, with additional rules only applicable to the other statement. Therefore, If this FAQ were to be addressed, I'm confident it will say "this is up to the GM to determine".


But how does anyone know what your concentrating on is a spell and not calculating how much tax you owe? Also what does 'concentrating really hard' look like?

My position is that still + silent makes it impossible to determine or detect during during its casting thus rendering spellcraft checks (and countering)impossible. I think this is fair as the caster is having to use a +2 spell level slot.


Identifying stilled, silent spells via Spellcraft is legal by RAW but lacks any real justification aside from "as long as I can see the spell as it is being cast, I can try to identify it." In other words: just because. If you stop think HOW you're able to do so, it falls apart short of making stuff up about WHY you can do so.

This seems to me to be one of those very loose, poorly worded rules because there was a lot assumed behind it. "Well I can see someone speaking or moving their hands and gesturing in arcane ways, so I should be able to guess what spell they're casting. And if I can do that, then I obliviously need 'to be able to see the spell as it is being cast!'" They didn't take the time to clarify "except when there are no visual aspects to the spell-casting due to Stilled or Silent spells, etc."

My own feeling on it (since this isn't the Rules thread) is that Still/Silent spells cannot be identified via Spellcraft because there's nothing to see - until the spell is cast, at which point usually it is too late. This makes psychic spells really powerful, I know, because they do not have somatic or verbal components.


Otherwhere wrote:

Identifying stilled, silent spells via Spellcraft is legal by RAW but lacks any real justification aside from "as long as I can see the spell as it is being cast, I can try to identify it." In other words: just because. If you stop think HOW you're able to do so, it falls apart short of making stuff up about WHY you can do so.

This seems to me to be one of those very loose, poorly worded rules because there was a lot assumed behind it. "Well I can see someone speaking or moving their hands and gesturing in arcane ways, so I should be able to guess what spell they're casting. And if I can do that, then I obliviously need 'to be able to see the spell as it is being cast!'" They didn't take the time to clarify "except when there are no visual aspects to the spell-casting due to Stilled or Silent spells, etc."

My own feeling on it (since this isn't the Rules thread) is that Still/Silent spells cannot be identified via Spellcraft because there's nothing to see - until the spell is cast, at which point usually it is too late. This makes psychic spells really powerful, I know, because they do not have somatic or verbal components.

That doesn't follow the rules.

The rules say you must see the spell you are saying they need to see actions performed by the spell caster which are two completely different things.


This is such a tiresome issue. Why is it important enough to need it "put to bed"? It seems like a perfectly fine gray area to encourage GM ruling. I would absolutely allow someone to use Stealth while using Silent Spell and Still Spell—can anyone seriously try to tell me that's an overpowered combo?

Scarab Sages

Decimus Drake wrote:

But how does anyone know what your concentrating on is a spell and not calculating how much tax you owe? Also what does 'concentrating really hard' look like?

Either this

Thinking hard

or this

Thinking really hard


Otherwhere wrote:
Identifying stilled, silent spells via Spellcraft is legal by RAW but lacks any real justification aside from "as long as I can see the spell as it is being cast, I can try to identify it."

I still think RAW is ambiguous.

"as long as I can see the spell as it is being cast, I can try to identify it"
But can you see a spell being cast if it is still and silent (and has no material components)?

The rulebook does not say.

Yet for some reason lots of people are convinced their way is right. "There's no modifier given to Spellcraft DC so it must be fully visible no matter what!" "There's no modifier given to Spellcraft because it's 100% impossible to identify something you can't see!"

HWalsh wrote:
The rules say you must see the spell you are saying they need to see actions performed by the spell caster which are two completely different things.

Source? I see no reason why "seeing the spell being cast" shouldn't mean "seeing the spell caster performing the activities that cast the spell".


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
This is such a tiresome issue. Why is it important enough to need it "put to bed"? It seems like a perfectly fine gray area to encourage GM ruling. I would absolutely allow someone to use Stealth while using Silent Spell and Still Spell—can anyone seriously try to tell me that's an overpowered combo?

Yes. Yes it is.

Under the right situation if these two mmf would allow someone to walk into a room and slaughter everyone in it without anyone even having the chance to spot the culpret.


HWalsh wrote:
Under the right situation if these two mmf would allow someone to walk into a room and slaughter everyone in it without anyone even having the chance to spot the culpret.

(Casts invisibility on self, casts Silenced Confusion on the room, watches slaughter ensue.)


You mean kind of like how invisibility already works? To say nothing of Greater Invisibility, of course. Just move around and let your summoned monsters do the work.

Hell, a sniper rogue would theoretically be capable of the exact same thing. Or anyone with greater invisibility. And they wouldn't have to nerf their spells by two levels.

Ugh, Postmonster.

(Casts greater invisibility, casts silenced confusion, moves, remarks on how yet another Silent/Still debate has nothing to do with self)

And considering how powerful casters are already, if a simple stealth check is gamebreaking, I really don't think you need this "trick" to begin with. Especially considering how much casters benefit from "the right circumstances".


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

You mean kind of like how invisibility already works? To say nothing of Greater Invisibility, of course. Just move around and let your summoned monsters do the work.

Hell, a sniper rogue would theoretically be capable of the exact same thing. Or anyone with greater invisibility. And they wouldn't have to nerf their spells by two levels.

Ugh, Postmonster.

(Casts greater invisibility, casts silenced confusion, moves, remarks on how yet another Silent/Still debate has nothing to do with self)

And considering how powerful casters are already, if a simple stealth check is gamebreaking, I really don't think you need this "trick" to begin with. Especially considering how much casters benefit from "the right circumstances".

No Kobold, if Silent + Still = Spells that cannot be seen while cast then there is no stealth check. Spellcraft says if you cannot see it, you cannot do it.

Stealth checks hide the caster. Nothing, in the rules, hides the spell.

Did you know, by the rules, you can Spellcraft vs a spell cast by an invisible caster? You can. Because invisibility doesn't affect the spell, by the rules, in any way.

In fact, the only way I can think of to make a spell unseen is to cast it through some kind of visual obstruction. Maybe through darkness or at extreme ranges.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
This is such a tiresome issue. Why is it important enough to need it "put to bed"? It seems like a perfectly fine gray area to encourage GM ruling. I would absolutely allow someone to use Stealth while using Silent Spell and Still Spell—can anyone seriously try to tell me that's an overpowered combo?

I don't know about stealth, but is it completely impossible to use spellcraft to id spells that don't have somatic components? Either because they just don't or because you're using still spell?

Do verbal components matter, since Spellcraft only requires you to see them, hearing is irrelevant?

My personal take is that you could cast while using stealth. If it's a verbal spell, that's likely to break stealth. Or at least prompt perception checks at significant penalties, since they'll hear you and know someone is there. If you're hidden or invisible, no one can identify the spells, since they can't see you.
If you're trying to cast while standing in plain sight without any realizing you're casting, I'd say you're out of luck. If someone can see you, casting is obvious and can be identified. Aren't there abilities to hide/disguise it already?


HWalsh wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

You mean kind of like how invisibility already works? To say nothing of Greater Invisibility, of course. Just move around and let your summoned monsters do the work.

Hell, a sniper rogue would theoretically be capable of the exact same thing. Or anyone with greater invisibility. And they wouldn't have to nerf their spells by two levels.

Ugh, Postmonster.

(Casts greater invisibility, casts silenced confusion, moves, remarks on how yet another Silent/Still debate has nothing to do with self)

And considering how powerful casters are already, if a simple stealth check is gamebreaking, I really don't think you need this "trick" to begin with. Especially considering how much casters benefit from "the right circumstances".

No Kobold, if Silent + Still = Spells that cannot be seen while cast then there is no stealth check. Spellcraft says if you cannot see it, you cannot do it.

Stealth checks hide the caster. Nothing, in the rules, hides the spell.

You've switched gears on me. Nothing in that has anything to do with whether or not Still/Silenced is an overpowered combo by the "hides the spell" reading.

Quote:
Did you know, by the rules, you can Spellcraft vs a spell cast by an invisible caster? You can. Because invisibility doesn't affect the spell, by the rules, in any way.

Gosh, if only we had some sort of...master of games, you might say, who is free to adjudicate when he thinks a different ruling made sense. It's patently absurd that you're trying to take the "RAW is law" argument against me when my entire reason for posting here was to say "I don't think a concrete RAW consensus is that important on this one".

You really aren't talking to me. You're talking to a generic disagreeing poster, and since I'm the most recent poster who voiced any sort of disagreement, I get the short straw.


thejeff wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
This is such a tiresome issue. Why is it important enough to need it "put to bed"? It seems like a perfectly fine gray area to encourage GM ruling. I would absolutely allow someone to use Stealth while using Silent Spell and Still Spell—can anyone seriously try to tell me that's an overpowered combo?

I don't know about stealth, but is it completely impossible to use spellcraft to id spells that don't have somatic components? Either because they just don't or because you're using still spell?

Do verbal components matter, since Spellcraft only requires you to see them, hearing is irrelevant?

My personal take is that you could cast while using stealth. If it's a verbal spell, that's likely to break stealth. Or at least prompt perception checks at significant penalties, since they'll hear you and know someone is there. If you're hidden or invisible, no one can identify the spells, since they can't see you.
If you're trying to cast while standing in plain sight without any realizing you're casting, I'd say you're out of luck. If someone can see you, casting is obvious and can be identified. Aren't there abilities to hide/disguise it already?

I like that interpretation. And yes, there are abilities for that (though that brings to mind the "Dark Side of RAI" thread, since the existence of those feats and abilities acts to narrow down existing options).


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The Cunning Caster feat in Heroes of the Streets implies that it is very difficult to conceal the act of spellcasting. A person with that feat must make a successful opposed Bluff vs. Perception check to conceal the fact that he is casting a spell, and a -4 penalty is applied for each component of the spell as well as any visual effect that it might have (so, for example, a Fireball is harder to conceal than a Charm Person). By implication, without this feat you are easily observed casting a spell if you are visible when you cast it, regardless of how many components of the spell you are able to eliminate with metamagic feats or the like.


In fairness, that feat's made more to hide that you're doing it in plain sight. Like, finding ways to slip "I invoke you, spirits of flame, detonate my enemies and make their blood rain from the skies!" into casual conversation without people realizing you're not talking about last night's game anymore.

In other words, it's bluff-cast. There's still no feat to stealth-cast.


Milo v3 wrote:
Thing is, it only says you need to see the spell being cast. Not that you need to see magical effects swirling around. So, if your looking at someone when they happen to cast a spell, you are seeing a spell being cast, because a person is casting a spell in your line of sight. There done.

That is the commonly adopted house rule, yes.

The actual quote though:

"...you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast..."

As for the argument that spell effects show up only when the spell is finished being cast, and thus somehow you can't use spellcraft to identify them...

that is obviously wrong.

If spells started casting and finished casting with no chance of interruption (visible cues or otherwise) then counterspelling would never work, even if spells all had visual cues.

Initiative 10-I start casting.
Initiative 10-I finish casting.

Think about it.

If you want to declare that casting a spell as a standard action literally takes zero time, then counterspelling can't happen no matter what because you can't interrupt something that takes zero time to complete.

Whether or not a visual cue exists isn't even part of the equation at that point.

Counterspelling, as a readied action, interrupts the triggering action.

So, RAW, if a spell has a visual cue (such as fireball) it triggers the readied counterspell action, which can prevent the spell from being cast.

It all works, there is no need to introduce arbitrary rulings stating that all spells produce flashing neon signs over casters heads.


alexd1976 wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Thing is, it only says you need to see the spell being cast. Not that you need to see magical effects swirling around. So, if your looking at someone when they happen to cast a spell, you are seeing a spell being cast, because a person is casting a spell in your line of sight. There done.

That is the commonly adopted house rule, yes.

The actual quote though:

"...you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast..."

As for the argument that spell effects show up only when the spell is finished being cast, and thus somehow you can't use spellcraft to identify them...

that is obviously wrong.

If spells started casting and finished casting with no chance of interruption (visible cues or otherwise) then counterspelling would never work, even if spells all had visual cues.

Initiative 10-I start casting.
Initiative 10-I finish casting.

Think about it.

If you want to declare that casting a spell as a standard action literally takes zero time, then counterspelling can't happen no matter what because you can't interrupt something that takes zero time to complete.

Whether or not a visual cue exists isn't even part of the equation at that point.

Counterspelling, as a readied action, interrupts the triggering action.

So, RAW, if a spell has a visual cue (such as fireball) it triggers the readied counterspell action, which can prevent the spell from being cast.

It all works, there is no need to introduce arbitrary rulings stating that all spells produce flashing neon signs over casters heads.

The visual cue for fireball is "A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit". The text does not say "a glowing bead starts to form around the finger, giving you time to counterspell, before it streaks towards the target." Suggesting it does is just a much a house rule as anything.

Spells can be identified as they are being cast, as long as you can see them being cast. That's RAW. House ruling it to only apply to those relatively few spells that have specific visual cues in the text is fine, but a house rule. House ruling all spells to have flashy neon effects that can't be missed by any one nearby is also fine, but also a house rule. House ruling it so that spellcraft works just off the verbal/somatic/material components and thus can't be done if it lacks those is still fine, but still a house rule.

I don't understand the "zero time" argument. The spell takes time to cast (barring immediate action spells). As I understand it the spell takes effect when the casting is complete, but you can interrupt while it is being cast. I'd read the "glowing pea streaking away from the digit" to be the spell is complete and it's too late to be interrupted. Much like, by analogy, the arrow streaking away from a bow being too late to spoil the archer's aim by hitting him.

Both the "visual cues" examples you used I see as more visual effects. Magic Missile's effect is an arrow that shoots out and hits a target. That's like a Summon spell has a visual effect: A creature appears, but not a described visual cue.
Would you consider something like Darkness to have a visual cue?


thejeff, you are mistaken.

Nothing in the rules states that all spells have visual components.

It is a common belief, but not supported anywhere in the written text.

Again, the way readied actions work is by triggering after the trigger, but happens before the trigger.

For example, readying a trip on a moving opponent... they move, you trip them, they don't move.

So, really, readied actions are essentially time travel.

It's messed up, but nothing about my examples above violates the rules, nor does it even require interpretation.

That's just how it works.

Now, do I personally allow for identification of a spell if the CASTING of the spell is witnessed? Yes I do.

But that is a house rule.

Under no circumstances will I ever create or enforce a rule stating that spellcasting results in glowing neon signs pointing at the caster.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Decimus Drake wrote:

My position is that still + silent makes it impossible to determine or detect during during its casting thus rendering spellcraft checks (and countering)impossible. I think this is fair as the caster is having to use a +2 spell level slot.

And it's a position repeated on and on again in this never ending repitition of the same exact question. And we come to the same answer all the time.

Is it a valid position? Yes. Is it supported by rules text? No, unless you show text I haven't seen before.


LazarX wrote:
Decimus Drake wrote:

My position is that still + silent makes it impossible to determine or detect during during its casting thus rendering spellcraft checks (and countering)impossible. I think this is fair as the caster is having to use a +2 spell level slot.

And it's a position repeated on and on again in this never ending repitition of the same exact question. And we come to the same answer all the time.

Is it a valid position? Yes. Is it supported by rules text? No, unless you show text I haven't seen before.

Indeed...

Most of the existing uses of Spellcraft/counterspelling uses house rules.

I see Still and Silent as useful because we don't have spells themselves be visible (unless the spell says so)-so using these feats (in our group) CAN result in concealed casting.

House rule-a rama! :D But it works for us. Using a third level slot to cast Charm Person without anyone knowing is primarily a role-play thing...


alexd1976 wrote:

thejeff, you are mistaken.

Nothing in the rules states that all spells have visual components.

It is a common belief, but not supported anywhere in the written text.

Again, the way readied actions work is by triggering after the trigger, but happens before the trigger.

For example, readying a trip on a moving opponent... they move, you trip them, they don't move.

So, really, readied actions are essentially time travel.

It's messed up, but nothing about my examples above violates the rules, nor does it even require interpretation.

That's just how it works.

Now, do I personally allow for identification of a spell if the CASTING of the spell is witnessed? Yes I do.

But that is a house rule.

Under no circumstances will I ever create or enforce a rule stating that spellcasting results in glowing neon signs pointing at the caster.

Leaving aside readied actions and time travel, I do actually understand your argument, I just think it's wrong. Nor do I think that neon signs are required.

Can we clear up one thing that I'm not sure of? When you talk about visual cues or components are you talking about effects or about something being visible between the start of the casting and the actual effect. The two examples given blur the line since both describe a sort of intermediate effect.
Other examples: Darkness - obviously has a visible effect, but no other cues.
Summon Monster - Visual effect of a monster appearing out of nowhere, but no other cues described. Interestingly, the monster can appear anywhere in "close" range, so there's no overt tie to the caster.
Charm person - on the other hand, this has no visual effects or cues at all.

Under your interpretation of the rules, you obviously couldn't identify Charm, but what about the other two?

Are you saying you could identify them by their effects and then counterspell them before the effects actually happen?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Fact of the matter is ... rules text does not give ANY penalties for spellcraft use or even identifying that spellcasting is going on through the use of the Still and Silent Spell feats. NOT A SINGLE ONE. There are feats that specifically disguise casting and put in set penalties in one or more of the splat supplements.

So putting any penalty for, or eliminating the possibility of.. is by definition a house rule, save for the proviso indicated above.

Since I'm not a fan of making things any easier for casters, I don't put in penalties for one of those feats or an automatic fail for both. I do however allow players who inventively misdirect attention, a shot at doing so.


"...incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors."

I justify how I do it by referring to the bolded section.

:D

Again, I freely admit to using house rules, but I feel my approach is closest to the printed text... no weird flashing signs over a casters head...

1 to 50 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Do Spells Have A Visual Component Aside From Somatics? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.