Spellcraft and identifying "manifestations"

[Nefreet]

Apparently I completely missed this thread last month (which is now locked), as well as the Spellcraft FAQ that resulted from that discussion. I just heard about it today, but I have a lot of questions I'm hoping to get answered (and maybe examples that could be added to the FAQ).

The FAQ has this line: "spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like", but I'm curious as to what "and the like" really covers.

Can you use Spellcraft to identify the manifestations of...

1) Spell trigger items, such as wands?
2) Spell completion items, such as scrolls?
3) Use activated items, such as potions?
4) Command word items, such as a Ring of Animal Friendship?

Furthermore, 5) can you use Spellcraft to identify (Su) manifestations when they're based off of a spell, such as a Wayang's Dissolution's Child ability, or a Witch's Healing Hex?

I feel that these are straightforward examples that could be added to the FAQ fairly easily. What are people's thoughts?

[wraithstrike]

The intent to me has always been to identify spells coming directly from a caster.
Of course Pazio could change that, but I don't think they ever really had items in mind.

[Dr Styx]

It would all depend on the after affects of the spell.

An instantaneous spell/effect would have to have a lingering Aura that a Detect Magic spell could see for Spellcraft check.

A longer lasting spell just gives more time for it to be studied.

[wraithstrike]

Dr Styx wrote:

It would all depend on the after affects of the spell.

An instantaneous spell/effect would have to have a lingering Aura that a Detect Magic spell could see for Spellcraft check.

A longer lasting spell just gives more time for it to be studied.

You don't need detect magic for spellcraft unless you are identifying magical items. I also think the question is asking can the spell be identified "at the moment of use/activation".

[GM Rednal]

1) Yes (it produces a spell)
2) Yes (it produces a spell)
3) Not directly, but if it activates an effect that can be observed (i.e. Potion of Mage Armor), you could identify that. Some others can be identified by logic and reason.
4) Yes (it produces a spell)
5) No (Supernatural abilities are neither spells nor spell-like)

...Is how I run things, anyway. XD

[N N 959]

GM Rednal wrote:

1) Yes (it produces a spell)

2) Yes (it produces a spell)
3) Not directly, but if it activates an effect that can be observed (i.e. Potion of Mage Armor), you could identify that. Some others can be identified by logic and reason.
4) Yes (it produces a spell)
5) No (Supernatural abilities are neither spells nor spell-like)

...Is how I run things, anyway. XD

Don't know if the devs will agree, but I like this logic. While I don't know if I ever commented in the the specific Spellcraft thread that triggered the FAQ, I've long maintained exactly what the FAQ states: the use of magic creates a manifestation that is visible to all, completely independent of the components or source of the magic. I think of it like in the Matrix when Neo prepares to fly. The movie shows a special effect like the warping of reality that all can see, except in this case it's the manipulation of the Weave that is visible to even the uninitiated.

As such, anything that uses a spell or casts a spell, should warp reality in this manner. I can agree that potions could be treated differently simply because the conceptual mechanics of potions are very different. I think of it as the potion already containing the spell and drinking it simply infuses the magic with the drinker and starts the ticker on spell duration. But I would not be upset if the devs felt the use/triggering of the potion upon drinking would also create the same visible manifestation.

[GM Rednal]

Yeah, potions are a bit odd. XD The majority of magic-in-a-can items either complete a spell or completely cast it all on their own, both of which I see as something that can trigger an identification check.

Potions are more... "produce its effect when imbibed", which I figure means it does act directly and is not cast, so there's no manifestations, only resulting effects that might be identifiable.

Also, as a GM, I kind of like the storytelling capacity of "your enemy downs a drink from a strange bottle", since it lets villain-types use magic and not have the effect be immediately obvious. XD

[Crimeo]

Although it's not clear, couldn't you just say that one of the "effects" of a spell IS its manifestations, so the potions produce those too?

I'm not suggesting that's airtight logic, but if you wanted as a GM to have it be that way, it is plausible enough.

[GM Rednal]

I actually wouldn't. I see the casting of the spell (when identifiable manifestations are observable) as fully separate from the effect of the spell (which happens only after the casting is complete). Although a GM could rule in a different way, of course, and say that any potion can be identified when used.

[wraithstrike]

I missed the SU question. They are not spells and don't follow the formula so spellcraft does not work.

As a houserule I would allow checks of some sort so something like a witch or vampire can't just spam SU's without anyone noticing.

[Quandary]

I hit FAQ. Also hoping to clarify whether the manifestations can be seen thru mundane darkness (i.e. if they glow or not), and if the caster being invisible conceals the manifestation or not. And confirming if the manifestation is in the same square(s) as the caster, and if you need to see the entire space of (multi-square) casters, or if seeing just one square of their space reveals enough of the manifestation to ID.

[wraithstrike]

The manifestations are flavor, and not hard coded so I dont see them having a specific mechanical affect such as overcoming darkness which would give a caster's location away.

Basically the idea is that if you can see the caster you can identify the spell.

However whether or not items give these manifestations is not spelled out.

[N N 959]

wraithstrike wrote:

As a houserule I would allow checks of some sort so something like a witch or vampire can't just spam SU's without anyone noticing.

I agree with that. I would let Perception checks spot the use of SU or perhaps Sense Motive?

[wraithstrike]

N N 959 wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

As a houserule I would allow checks of some sort so something like a witch or vampire can't just spam SU's without anyone noticing.

I agree with that. I would let Perception checks spot the use of SU or perhaps Sense Motive?

I dont know which one yet. I have thought about it for a while, but never codified it.

Most likely a sense motive to notice the person is trying to hide something, and who the target is.

Then from there other rolls depending on the situation.

[Nefreet]

Although I agree that normally Spellcraft could not identify (Su) abilities, if those abilities are clearly based off of spells (and labeled as such in their descriptions), then one would imagine that Paizo intends them to have the same manifestations.

A Witch casting Cure Light Wounds as a Hex shouldn't appear any different from a Cleric casting Cure Light Wounds as a spell (IMO).

[wraithstrike]

Nefreet wrote:

Although I agree that normally Spellcraft could not identify (Su) abilities, if those abilities are clearly based off of spells (and labeled as such in their descriptions), then one would imagine that Paizo intends them to have the same manifestations.

A Witch casting Cure Light Wounds as a Hex shouldn't appear any different from a Cleric casting Cure Light Wounds as a spell (IMO).

I don't think they have given any thought to it. There is not even a way to find the DC for identifying an SU.

It does need to be addressed though.

[Cayzle]

Note that Knowledge (Arcana) might cover some of this. With that skill, you can:

Identify auras while using detect magic
Identify a spell effect that is in place
Identify materials manufactured by magic
Identify a spell that just targeted you

So Spellcraft gives you an understanding of the spell while it is being cast. That suggests it would also be useful for Spell Completion items (scrolls) because that is basically the same as casting.

Knowledge Arcana lets you ID things after they are cast. Potions, wands, and activated items are "already cast" -- they just need to be released by the item.

If you can "see" the effects -- or the auras with Detect Magic -- created by these items, then you can use Knowledge (Arcana) to ID them, as "effect that is in place," I think? At least for non-instantaneous effects.

[Nefreet]

wraithstrike wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Although I agree that normally Spellcraft could not identify (Su) abilities, if those abilities are clearly based off of spells (and labeled as such in their descriptions), then one would imagine that Paizo intends them to have the same manifestations.

A Witch casting Cure Light Wounds as a Hex shouldn't appear any different from a Cleric casting Cure Light Wounds as a spell (IMO).

I don't think they have given any thought to it. There is not even a way to find the DC for identifying an SU.

Why wouldn't it be the same DC? So long as the (Su) makes reference to a spell (such as the two examples I gave), then you know the spell level that needs to be identified.

[N N 959]

Nefreet wrote:

Although I agree that normally Spellcraft could not identify (Su) abilities, if those abilities are clearly based off of spells (and labeled as such in their descriptions), then one would imagine that Paizo intends them to have the same manifestations.

A Witch casting Cure Light Wounds as a Hex shouldn't appear any different from a Cleric casting Cure Light Wounds as a spell (IMO).

Well, I would agree with this. If an SU essentially casts a spell with the same exact parameters, then I will parrot the devs own philosophy that if it walks like a duck, it's a duck. If the rules say this is not the case, then barring any justification as to why, I'll chalk it up to one of a hundred consistency gaps this game has.

[wraithstrike]

Nefreet wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Although I agree that normally Spellcraft could not identify (Su) abilities, if those abilities are clearly based off of spells (and labeled as such in their descriptions), then one would imagine that Paizo intends them to have the same manifestations.

A Witch casting Cure Light Wounds as a Hex shouldn't appear any different from a Cleric casting Cure Light Wounds as a spell (IMO).

I don't think they have given any thought to it. There is not even a way to find the DC for identifying an SU.

Why wouldn't it be the same DC? So long as the (Su) makes reference to a spell (such as the two examples I gave), then you know the spell level that needs to be identified.

Because it is not a spell, just because it has the same effects on the character.

edit: I misunderstood. I get what you are saying now. I was thinking of the how a vampire has the dominate special ability, but is not casting the spell.
If the SU allows you to cast the spell or an SLA then yeah spellcraft should work IMO.

[Chief Cook and Bottlewasher]

Detect magic can detect a 'lingering aura' after the magic source dissipates (from d6 rounds for faint (3rd level spell or lower) up to d6 days for overpowering (10+ or deity level)). As long as the spell is running, and a little after, there should definitely be an aura detectable with det magic, which can be identified with knowledge arcana. It shouldn't matter what the source is.

[FLite]

Nefreet wrote:

Although I agree that normally Spellcraft could not identify (Su) abilities, if those abilities are clearly based off of spells (and labeled as such in their descriptions), then one would imagine that Paizo intends them to have the same manifestations.

A Witch casting Cure Light Wounds as a Hex shouldn't appear any different from a Cleric casting Cure Light Wounds as a spell (IMO).

I disagree. If they were intended to work like spells, they would be SLA no SU.

In the case of SU, they may produce the same effect as a spell, but are not a spell.

Now, they are still magic, so if the maifestation is a side effect of magic is visible, then yes, they should have a manifestation, whether or not that manifestation is spellcraftable, is a seperate question. So I am FAQing this.

[Nefreet]

We were just commenting about this during a game, so I figured I'd bring it back to the top.

[CampinCarl9127]

Any meaningful comments that were said Nefreet? Just curious, you usually add some pretty good insight on these difficult topics.

[Nefreet]

Nothing meaningful, Lol.

I believe it went something like, "That FAQ is bπ11$417", followed by me saying I'd made this thread.

No, just the same questions I brought up in my initial post. Hence me checking in to see if anyone else had added anything.

[Quandary]

Hehehe.
Well seriously, if PDT doesn't pin this down, it seems like PFS will need to for their purposes.
Which seems a lost opportunity, because then PDT lacks a basis for auxiliary mechanics (on either caster or perceiver side)
modifying/interacting with details like Invisiblity-coverage or Darkness-concealability,
when if those factors ARE pinned down, that is a very solid rules niche to invent specialty options around...