invisibility psychic casting


Rules Questions

51 to 67 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Ravingdork wrote:
But if the designers thought ahead, not all spells would have a visible manifestation component.

Not necessarily. I don't see why some spells shouldn't have a visible manifestation component.

Just because you have a view doesn't mean the designers necessarily agree with it. They might make some spells have visible manifestations, or they might make all. But do not act as though "some" is the only option that would come from thinking ahead.


I believe the intent was for all spells to have identifiable manifestations. This is what allows for them to be identified in the first place, and is the cornerstone of the countering rules.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GM Rednal wrote:
I believe the intent was for all spells to have identifiable manifestations. This is what allows for them to be identified in the first place, and is the cornerstone of the countering rules.

Yes, but I don't believe that this was always the case. It's clear that (in regards to Pathfinder developers) this was the intent for some designers and for others it wasn't. (It wasn't the intent for anybody in previous editions of the game.) The former group eventually won out, so now it is the pseudo-unwritten law of the land.

Nevertheless, the new law has caused tons of problems, both in the game and in the wider community--the least of which is the invalidation of several monster abilities and published scenarios that no longer function as written.


the problem is with visible manifestations is it ruins a lot of spells that joe blow the bum npc aren't supposed to notice. like detect thoughts, charm person etc. so now anyone your casting charm person on gets the bonus for being in combat because they see you casting it and know your doing something. why bother even mentioning that in the description of charm person if its always going to happen? its stupid and that faq ruined out of combat spell casting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, it clarified the rules on abusive out-of-combat casting. If you cast a mind-affecting spell right in front of someone and they realize it - because there's nothing about them not knowing you cast it on them - then yes, they may react accordingly. So you have to find some way to distract them if you want to cast, like having one person talk to them while the caster hides behind a corner, does their spell, and kind of comes up from behind.

Besides, Charm Person is a 1st-level spell. It shouldn't be especially powerful. XD


I don't think you have a very good grasp on casting rules or line of sight in pathfinder if you think that's how it works. there is no directional facing in pathfinder and if you can see them they can see you.
perception dc's
Notice a visible creature 0
Hear the details of a conversation 0
Distance to the source, object, or creature +1/10 feet

lets assume your invisible and casting a silent spell. dc to notice a visible creature is 0. spell casting making visible manifestations I'd say that's the same thing as noticing a visible creature as you can't hide it so even invisible the dc would be 0+distance to notice an invisible spell being cast.

this rule needs to be updated to include invisible casters and how spells work for them.


...There's a reason I mentioned hiding behind a corner - as in, breaking their line of sight - before casting.


you can't being casting if you can't target them. duh? are you seriously a gm?


That only applies to spells that actually need a target. Options like Detect Thoughts are emanations that you can cast, concentrate on, and walk to where you want to use 'em.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
vhok wrote:
the problem is with visible manifestations is it ruins a lot of spells

That wouldn't be a problem with my theoretical revised system. Spells where it wouldn't make sense to have visible manifestations wouldn't have them.

But the system as it is now? Yeah, totally borked.


OK, I'm understanding a lot more about the C/M D wars now. Any perceived attacks on favored tricks and slicks are a declaration of renewed hostilities, aren't they? OK, I admit I have been around long enough to watch the game evolve (and occasionally devolve) from OD&D (3 tan booklets). Originally, lack of Verbal and Somatic components meant that you had a chance to get those spells up while bound and gagged, very useful. No one really thought that meant you could cast them in plain sight with no one the wiser. That is kind of broken, this interpretation of Still+Silent spells is also kind of broken. The base state of a spell with verbal and/or somatic components is you have ..no.. chance of discretely casting them. Still/Silent give you a reasonably good chance of this. All you need is a little distraction, say, from your allies, to make this a very good chance. Is this the problem? Does the Caster requiring a little help from their allies to be fully affective ruin the game? This is a horrible assumption on my part, but I am beginning to think it might be more correct than I want it to be. I suppose if it is true then there will never be an accord on this. So I guess GM it the way you want, but you need to accept the other GMs right to play it different.


Milo v3 wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:
It feels to me like Paizo added a bunch of rules to support intrigue instead of using the emergent properties of existing rules, I think that is sort of lazy.

Except that many people have been saying the rule worked in the manner of the FAQ since the Core Rule Book because of how they altered Spellcraft in the conversion between 3.5e and PF, which removes the reference to components.

The rules were supposed to be backwards compatible, and lots of things were cut for space. It's not even clear that the spellcraft rules were intended to change with the move to 3.P.

Milo v3 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
If Pathfinder ever gets redesigned, this is a new component they need to add to the spell blocks if you ask me.
That would just make it so every spell is "Manifestation: Yes (Visual)" though, so it'd just be a waste of space.

I'd argue the opposite, if you are going to add "Manifestation: no" to spells that are supposed to be subtle, you might as well just set it to "no" for all of them, because the manifestations are there to ostensibly balance subtle spells.


they didn't add the manifestation rules in because of still and silent spell. those have been around since the CRB. they added this rule in when the psychic caster book came out and people started asking why/how people can even tell they are casting a spell.


vhok wrote:
they didn't add the manifestation rules in because of still and silent spell. those have been around since the CRB. they added this rule in when the psychic caster book came out and people started asking why/how people can even tell they are casting a spell.

Actually this predates Pathfinder itself. When the Still and Silent spell metamagics came out way back in D+D 3.0, they were never a factor in spell identification.


actually faq's are timestamped "posted Oct 16, 2015" :)


The FAQ is recent. The issue of identifying spells is not.


Knight Magenta wrote:
The rules were supposed to be backwards compatible, and lots of things were cut for space. It's not even clear that the spellcraft rules were intended to change with the move to 3.P.

That is why many people have been saying that the rule worked in the manner of the FAQ since the Core Rule Book, not all or most. Because of the people not knowing whether or not the new interpretation was intention or just for saving space was why there were so many discussions, you just couldn't tell what the RAI was (though RAW was in-favour of the FAQ).

Quote:
I'd argue the opposite, if you are going to add "Manifestation: no" to spells that are supposed to be subtle, you might as well just set it to "no" for all of them, because the manifestations are there to ostensibly balance subtle spells.

I was saying that wouldn't add "Manifestation: no" to spells that are supposed to be subtle.

51 to 67 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / invisibility psychic casting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.