So I stopped playing Pathfinder Society quite a while ago after quite a few revisions. But one stuck with me in particular; the fact that even a still, silent, material-less, focus-less spell is apparent because of some visible components. Even psychic spells. Whether or not that's reasonable, and to an extent I agree with it, is not the point.
This makes me unhappy for several reasons. One of which being how this is, to my knowledge, never once referenced in the actual rulebook. Second being that this is on purpose, as the book has been out for a long time and they just haven't addressed it.
To me, springing this out of a FAQ after already having bought the books, and then just telling me "Buy more books so you can actually hide spellcasting" is absurd and a complete betrayal of customer trust. It's why I won't buy a Pathfinder product again, along with the generally unacceptable number of books they put out without actually proofreading (Really? You forgot to put the wood kineticist's basic utility talent in the book? REALLY?)
But the final nail in the coffin was when I was looking through Paths Of Prestige after hearing the devs say that this was always part of the rules. See, there's this little class called Dawnflower Dissident, or Dissident of Dawn if you're on the D20pfsrd.
It gets an ability to hide spellcasting, and notes specifically that this ability automatically fails if "[The] spell has an observable effect that clearly emanates from the caster", as opposed to...Every other spell in the game. This looks like they actually don't know what their own rules are. Amazing.
Now it's an assumption, but it's almost as if they just decided to change the rules surreptitiously a little after releasing psychic spellcasters in the FAQ but not in the books so that people who showed up for PFS with psychic casters get told that "Actually, this power that you think you have doesn't work anymore because of the FAQ, you'll have to buy more books." or you can't play your character that the book promised you.
Sure, that might not be true. In fact, I think it probably was just a disconnect, a difference between the intent of rules between different authors. It's difficult to get everyone involved to understand the rules the same way. It's better to assume incompetence than malice when people wrong you, I think.
But that's that, isn't it? Whenever Paizo does something, I'm forced to question whether the retconning of rules, typos, lack of BASIC CLASS FEATURES, or things of that nature, was from incompetence or specifically to gauge out more money for future books. This is why I don't recommend Paizo products to anyone anymore. Because they either have no idea what they're doing and have created a mess and expect us to pay to fix what they promised us in the first place, or they are actively ruining their products as time goes on with the intent of getting us to pay more. Every time I have to sit down and debate that question, it's a revelation as to how poorly paizo products are managed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think in the case of the Dawnflower Dissident, "observable effect refers to the effect of the spell, i.e the blast of fire when you cast fireball; as opposed to a spell like charm person which only effect the mind of the target.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though I believe you certainly have a point I also think you're overreacting. And maybe you're being a bit too paranoid about it too.
Of course Paizo wants our money, just like any other business, but I'm very hesitant to believe they'd try to get our money through deliberate immoral acts such as you make it out to be. Its just not a very good businessmodel for a luxury product, you see. Big pharma and such get away with it, of sorts, because their products are essential to their customers. Paizo gets our money because they exploit (not in a bad way necessarily!) our hunger for more content, not revised content. Hell, it doesn't even have to be very good for most of us on these boards to buy it anyway, funds permitting!
It doesn't apply in PFS but for homegames you can always rely on rule 0. Change the rule if you don't like it, or scrap it alltogether. I'd urge you to do that instead of quitting alltogether.
Finally, and I hate to have to state this, but, I don't think you'll find much common ground here. Sure, everyone wants things to be done better, with more of an eye towards quality and detail, better content etc. but I don't think you'll convince anyone to stop buying books based on your argument. You're much more likely to sway minds and find sympathizers on more general boards (rpg.net, for instance) or through product reviews on, say, amazon. We're likely too invested in our love for the product, you see. Otherwise I wouldn't know why we're all here!
Though I believe you certainly have a point I also think you're overreacting. And maybe you're being a bit too paranoid about it too.
Of course Paizo wants our money, just like any other business, but I'm very hesitant to believe they'd try to get our money through deliberate immoral acts such as you make it out to be. Its just not a very good businessmodel for a luxury product, you see. Big pharma and such get away with it, of sorts, because their products are essential to their customers. Paizo gets our money because they exploit (not in a bad way necessarily!) our hunger for more content, not revised content.
Now to be fair, I did say that I don't actively believe they're doing this either. I do think they're incompetent rather than intentionally doing this. I just pointed out how much of a problem your company has if the question "Are they actively being evil or are they just too incompetent to release books correctly?" has to be asked as often as it does.
Hell, it doesn't even have to be very good for most of us on these boards to buy it anyway, funds permitting!
You said it
It doesn't apply in PFS but for homegames you can always rely on rule 0. Change the rule if you don't like it, or scrap it alltogether. I'd urge you to do that instead of quitting alltogether.
Just because you can rule 0 something doesn't mean it wasn't broken in the first place. Oberoni and such. Besides, this is still a large problem in PFS, which is a service I ostensibly paid for by getting the books and the character folios, and just as importantly invested a lot of time in personally running it.
Finally, and I hate to have to state this, but, I don't think you'll find much common ground here. Sure, everyone wants things to be done better, with more of an eye towards quality and detail, better content etc. but I don't think you'll convince anyone to stop buying books based on your argument. You're much more likely to sway minds and find sympathizers on more general boards (rpg.net, for instance) or through product reviews on, say, amazon. We're likely too invested in our love for the product, you see. Otherwise I wouldn't know why we're all here!
Again, you said it. There's something admirable about straight up admitting that people here are too sunk into fanboyism to be swayed.
Though convincing people not to buy Paizo products wasn't my only goal. I also wanted to voice my disdain in a place where the company members who run the whole thing were more likely to see it. On the very off chance that they would actually change their...behavior.
I think in the case of the Dawnflower Dissident, "observable effect refers to the effect of the spell, i.e the blast of fire when you cast fireball; as opposed to a spell like charm person which only effect the mind of the target.
Well, it also increases the difficulty if, quote, "Spell has a visible, audible, or otherwise observable effect."
I think both of those together VERY clearly state that all spells weren't supposed to have laser lightshows inherently, as the FAQ is desperately trying to convince us now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read the title and thought - huh? Someone making a homebrew magic system that makes color spray look tame?
You seem to mainly be angry about spells having a visible component and are pointing to recent notes in psychic magic, etc. I can certainly understand that, but that ship sailed 5 years ago in Ultimate Magic with the introduction of the Spellsong feat. My best guess is the new feats to conceal spellcasting are a response to the complaints that only bards have a surefire way to conceal their spells.
So while changing rules, whether intentionally or through clarification, can certainly get under your skin, the majority of Pathfinder's published life, this has been the way it is for concealed casting.
(note: I don't play PFS so I don't know if a recent change was added there)
I think its because spell like abilities make zero sense if something doesnt happen. Its very strange that you can spellcraft and aoo these mentally activated silent abilities lol
Been implicit in the rules ever since D+D 3.0 came out with silent and still and quicken metamagics with no text on any of those feats that specified they impacted on identifying spells. Nor is there any such text in the spellcraft skills.
So when the Paizo folks say it's always been in the rules, this is what they are pointing to.
You seem to mainly be angry about spells having a visible component
Whether or not that's reasonable, and to an extent I agree with it, is not the point.
I'm sorry?
I think its because spell like abilities make zero sense if something doesnt happen. Its very strange that you can spellcraft and aoo these mentally activated silent abilities lol
Similarly, it's very strange that you can use spellcraft or AoO on a spell that has absolutely no signs of having just been cast. Now let's think about this really, REALLY hard.
If you read these rules, would you think "Well, obviously spellcraft wouldn't work on something that has no tells, and it's arguable if AoO would still recognize it because the person would still have to concentrate to spend the standard action on the spell, or if it wouldn't recognize it due to the caster spending so many metamagic feats on it as to make the effect negligible"
Or would you think "Well, obviously all spells have glowy runes floating over the caster's head, which everyone knows is a universal sign of a free AoO, even though this is never once mentioned in the books"
Occam's Razor is desperately banging against the top of the toolbox here.
I would think all spells can be identified, because this is what the rules say. The rules for Spellcraft are quite clear on this - if you can see the spell being cast
If
Everything you just said solves nothing, because of the word if that you rightfully placed there. If you use several metamagic feats, to the point where as far as the rules say, literally nothing about you changes except for the expenditure of a standard action and, say, Memorize Page so that you remember what you just looked at, then it's a extremely big IF.
But no, by all means, everyone always has a laser lightshow going on around them whenever they do anything remotely magical or supernatural. Even though that's never once even HINTED at in the books.
This is my problem! These rules are a complete mess. It's like no one even tried when they were writing them. And in fact, I can state with utmost authority that they never tried, because it's still not in the books after they acknowledged this is a unclear problem, and some books still dispute the fact that they exist in the first place. And I PAID for it.
Though I believe you certainly have a point I also think you're overreacting. And maybe you're being a bit too paranoid about it too.
Of course Paizo wants our money, just like any other business, but I'm very hesitant to believe they'd try to get our money through deliberate immoral acts such as you make it out to be.
Whether it's immoral or not is up to you to decide, but they do things ike this pretty often.
Good example is the sudden and suspicious changing of the Scarred Witch Doctor before the Kineticist came out. An interesting change in that it made the archetype STRONGER...but it certainly made the Kineticist's claim to fame as the only Con based "caster" more unique.
^Add that in with the Dex-to-damage options being crushed right before the release of the Unchained Rogue.
I believe the FAQ in question agreed that it wasn't outright stated - but it also noted the rules work on the assumption that spells are identifiable.
It also works under the assumption that you can see and hear someone casting. Which you can't, by definition of silent and still spell. Did you not understand what I said the first time?
if. IF you see the spell cast.
Frankly, there is no reason to think otherwise.
That's not how Occam's razor works. You don't just assume random bullcrap about laser lightshows to justify the rulebook. The reason to think otherwise is because it's not stated. If the rulebook does not tell you that you have glowy magic auras everyone can see around you at all times, then there is definite reason to not assume that; the book should tell you if it expects you to know this.
Also, components are not the totality of what casting a spell entails. If you're casting a Silent, Stilled spell, you're still casting. It's the "being cast" part that's important, which basically means having line of sight to the caster. If a spell is being cast, then it's being cast whether it has components or not, since it is possible to cast without components. That's why they're irrelevant for knowing that someone is casting.
Do you also assume someone who's invisible but holding a holy symbol entitles the cleric to make a knowledge religion roll because it extends psychic disturbance through the leylines?
Do you also assume that a druid that's currently looking the other way is entitled to a knowledge nature roll to identify a tree twenty feet away from him because the tree whistles through the wind?
Why do you then assume that magic explodes in a lightshow so that people can identify invisible, mute, tasteless, scentless, untouchable supernatural occurrence that produces no effect other than the caster memorizing a page?
Please, answer that question if you can. Other than "the FAQ says" or "spellcraft doesn't say that it DOESN'T"
Half a post of condescension
Please read my posts before assuming what they're about.
Whether or not that's reasonable, and to an extent I agree with it, is not the point.
Sure, I'll answer it.
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...
Still Spell (Metamagic)
You can cast spells without moving.Benefit: A stilled spell can be cast with no somatic components. Spells without somatic components are not affected. A stilled spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
Silent Spell (Metamagic)
You can cast your spells without making any sound.Benefit: A silent spell can be cast with no verbal components. Spells without verbal components are not affected. A silent spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
Special: Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this feat.
There. Spellcraft says you can identify a spell if you can clearly see it being cast. Neither Silent Spell nor Still Spell say anything about stopping anyone with ranks in Spellcraft from identifying the spell. Question answered.
Now, my turn to ask you to answer a question.
What, in Still Spell, Silent Spell, Spellcraft, the Magic chapter, or the entire Core Rulebook says you can hide any of your spells from being identified?
Sure, I'll answer it.
There. Spellcraft says you can identify a spell if you can clearly see it being cast. Neither Silent Spell nor Still Spell say anything about stopping anyone with ranks in Spellcraft from identifying the spell. Question answered.
If you can clearly see it being cast.
If you can clearly see it being cast
To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any). Additionally, you must concentrate to cast
a spell.Silent Spell (Metamagic)
You can cast your spells without making any sound.Still Spell (Metamagic)
You can cast spells without moving.Eschew Materials
You can cast many spells without needing to utilize minor material components.(list of all spells without focus components)
Mm. Mm. Sorry, no can do. You can't "clearly see" jack diddly. Unless you're telling me that you can actually read minds by using spellcraft, in which case, no. You still aren't clearly seeing anything.
Now, my turn to ask you to answer a question.
What, in Still Spell, Silent Spell, Spellcraft, the Magic chapter, or the entire Core Rulebook says you can hide any of your spells from being identified?
but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast
The parts of Still and Silent spell you quoted aren't rules text.
The part after "Benefit:" is rules text. Which says absolutely nothing about making your spells completely invisible. Doesn't even mention the Spellcraft skill at all.
Perhaps it's the "must concentrate" to cast a spell part that makes them always-identifiable. Perhaps it is the magic mumbo-jumbo. Whatever it is, it exists.
And for you to definitively say that this "laser show effect" (or whatever magical shenanigans you want to say happens during casting) never existed is wrong.
I can tell that nothing is really going to change your mind, and while I do realize you said earlier you just wanted to get your thoughts out, this thread is past its usefulness.
You're upset about a decision for a question that wasn't decisively answered, and that evidently is enough to make you stop buying their products. That's completely fine, and is your decision to make.
But one FAQ clarifying a (very unclear) rules question shouldn't be enough to push you away from a company entirely.
Perhaps it is the magic mumbo-jumbo. Whatever it is, it exists.
Incredible! You trying your hardest, just ignored my arguments and said "Lol i dunno, it's mumbo jumbo that's not explained. But trust me, it's there!"
Congratulations! You have completed your task and you may leave now. After all, your posts are "past their usefulness" as you so put it.
You're upset about a decision for a question that wasn't decisively answered, and that evidently is enough to make you stop buying their products
Please read my posts before assuming my motivations.
Whether or not that's reasonable, and to an extent I agree with it, is not the point.
By the way, one last thing you got wrong
And for you to definitively say that this "laser show effect" (or whatever magical shenanigans you want to say happens during casting) never existed is wrong.
There's literally a prestige class that says this is wrong. Sorry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And for you, bigrig, to definitively say it DID exist is more wrong. It isn't mentioned or hinted at at all. Why would anyone assume it did?
That's all it really comes down to. Rulebooks said nothing about it, so it didn't exist. That's how a ruleset works.
What is WITH this site and so adamantly refusing to believe that rules changes are rules changes? It wasn't a rule before, and now it is. That's really all that needs to be said.
Ignoring your quips about me apparently not reading your posts....
You, notably, ignored the part where Still Spell and Silent Spell say nothing about hiding your spellcasting. As in, literally nothing. The benefits you gain are that you can cast them without somatic and verbal components, respectively. That's it. You can cast a Still spell in a grapple without needing to make a concentration check, or can cast a Silent spell in an area of Silence or when you're gagged. But that's all the feats do for you.
Edit: @Sundakan: I realize rules can change, and often do (see early entry SLA FAQ change). But the Spellcraft skill said that you can identify a spell as long as you could clearly see it being cast. Neither Still nor Silent Spell mention anything about hiding you casting a spell. So, following the rules there, you can still identify a Silent and Still spell. With only the penalties for distance and conditions.
As to the prestige class ability? I understand you're talking about Dawnflower Dissident, but could you explain how it says that the "laser show effect" never existed?
Because that's what you're saying it does.
You, notably, ignored the part where Still Spell and Silent Spell say nothing about hiding your spellcasting. As in, literally nothing. The benefits you gain are that you can cast them without somatic and verbal components, respectively. That's it. You can cast a Still spell in a grapple without needing to make a concentration check, or can cast a Silent spell in an area of Silence or when you're gagged. But that's all the feats do for you.
Sweet jumping junipers, Big Rig, how many times must I say it?
but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast
The still and silenced spells do not HAVE to say they hide it, because the spellcraft skill says you HAVE to see it, and while it's still and silenced you see nothing! Hell, rules as written, you should be immune to spellcraft from simply a still spell, since it says you have to SEE the spell being cast. Obviously that's silly, and I agree. But you're just grasping at so many straws that it's crazy and I just have to point that out. I gotta pull all the stops, man.
Ignoring your quips about me apparently not reading your posts....
Holy hell. You actually admit you're just ignoring me whenever you can't think of a comeback.
As to the prestige class ability? I understand you're talking about Dawnflower Dissident, but could you explain how it says that the "laser show effect" never existed?
Because that's what you're saying it does.
It specifically tells you that if a spell has a visible effect, it becomes more difficult to cast it secretively, and that if the visible effect manifests clearly from the caster, then you can not conceal it.
Or are you agreeing with me even more than I am by saying the Pathfinder Devs put a completely redundant skill in the prestige class that can not work because all spells have always had laser lightshows? Because I don't think they're that bad at their jobs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before I start I have to say that there seems to be something wrong with the Reply function. Because of that I've chosen to omit the parts you (Arcutiys) have quoted from me. I might also accidentally have skipped something. If so, please do call me on it and I'll rectify it asap.
Also, I've chosen to neglect reading most of the rest of the thread. Poor form, I know, but I just don't care to have as involved a discussion yet do feel that you deserve a reply. I also state this upfront simply just to inform you of the situation.
Now to be fair, I did say that I don't actively believe they're doing this either. I do think they're incompetent rather than intentionally doing this. I just pointed out how much of a problem your company has if the question "Are they actively being evil or are they just too incompetent to release books correctly?" has to be asked as often as it does.
True, you did say that. Perhaps I should've been more clear. I think you're overreacting and slightly too paranoid about this because I think most of us just don't ask that question to begin with, its 'just' you. We assume honest mistakes and leave it at that.
You said it
And don't I know it!
Just because you can rule 0 something doesn't mean it wasn't broken in the first place. Oberoni and such. Besides, this is still a large problem in PFS, which is a service I ostensibly paid for by getting the books and the character folios, and just as importantly invested a lot of time in personally running it.
This is a fair point and as such not something I'll debate you on. What I do want to say is that your investments do not have to be a complete waste if you so choose. You can still play and enjoy the game your way.
Complete aside, Oberoni? What's that?
Again, you said it. There's something admirable about straight up admitting that people here are too sunk into fanboyism to be swayed.
Though convincing people not to buy Paizo products wasn't my only goal. I also wanted to voice my disdain in a place where the company members who run the whole thing were more likely to see it. On the very off chance that they would actually change their...behavior.
Umm... Thank you?
Really, we're not blind or stupid. We get pissed off too over the mistakes that get made, hamfisted errata, odd designdecisions and so on. We're vocal about it, too. Insofar, we're the same. The difference seems to be we're willing to accept and forgive it and you don't. Thats fine, I even understand, I just feel you're decision to do so is based on relatively insignificant things and I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. True, all of those insignificant things have added up to form the conclusion that Paizo's doing a bad job. I just don't think they are. By and large they've created a great game I truly enjoy. I know you must've enjoyed it too at some point and I'd hate for you to throw it away.
As for your second point, I've failed to see that option! Sorry! I believe your complaints are valid and think you're doing the right thing by voicing them. For what its worth I'm truly sorry I'm undermining your efforts here as I would be very happy if things were to improve too. Maybe I'm not enough of a critical consumer and maybe Paizo just skates by because of that and others like me, and we collectively facilitate that behavior, but as long as the good outweighs the bad, I'm sorry, I'm really not going to change and don't think many others will either.
Good luck though! Besides really wanting to know what this Oberoni stuff is I'll stop posting in this thread, unless prompted to. I do want you to succeed and, well, so far I've been no help whatsoever. Besides, I think I've said all that I have to say on the subject anyway.
Before I start I have to say that there seems to be something wrong with the Reply function. Because of that I've chosen to omit the parts you (Arcutiys) have quoted from me. I might also accidentally have skipped something. If so, please do call me on it and I'll rectify it asap.
You've done fine, as far as I can tell
True, you did say that. Perhaps I should've been more clear. I think you're overreacting and slightly too paranoid about this because I think most of us just don't ask that question to begin with, its 'just' you. We assume honest mistakes and leave it at that.
Honestly, after all they've done, I think it's more than reasonable to ask the question even if the probable answer is 'no'. But I understand your point a bit better now
This is a fair point and as such not something I'll debate you on. What I do want to say is that your investments do not have to be a complete waste if you so choose. You can still play and enjoy the game your way.
Perhaps I should have been more clear as well. I'm not giving up pathfinder as a whole, it still has systems I like piecing together in a bit of a homebrew way. But I won't be buying more, and I feel like I've been cheated out of my characters one too many times in PFS. Now I can't play my way in PFS without constantly fearing that my characters will be retconned into nonexistance because of mistakes that THEY made publishing. Pathfinder as a whole is not a total waste, but all the time I placed in PFS seems to haunt me more and more as the seasons go on.
Complete aside, Oberoni? What's that?
Oberoni was a poster on a real old D&D forum. Maybe it's a carryover I still have and didn't realize isn't in swing anymore, but he had a good quote people used a lot about how rule 0 isn't an excuse for rules 1-through-infinity being broken in the first place. Was referred to as "The Oberoni Fallacy" for a while, but that might not have ever took place on Pathfinder boards
Really, we're not blind or stupid. We get pissed off too over the mistakes that get made, hamfisted errata, odd designdecisions and so on. We're vocal about it, too. Insofar, we're the same. The difference seems to be we're willing to accept and forgive it and you don't. Thats fine, I even understand, I just feel you're decision to do so is based on relatively insignificant things and I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. True, all of those insignificant things have added up to form the conclusion that Paizo's doing a bad job. I just don't think they are. By and large they've created a great game I truly enjoy. I know you must've enjoyed it too at some point and I'd hate for you to throw it away.
To me, it isn't relatively insignificant. I mean, adding an entire new component to spells without telling anybody, and then telling me that the only way to mask them is to buy a new book...that's just a complete betrayal. Sure, I agree that hiding spells should be more difficult for psychics than it is, but I don't think that action is permissible as a virtue. Taking people's money and then changing the rules and making them pay to get their old rules back is just something that on principle I can't support.
As for your second point, I've failed to see that option! Sorry! I believe your complaints are valid and think you're doing the right thing by voicing them. For what its worth I'm truly sorry I'm undermining your efforts here as I would be very happy if things were to improve too. Maybe I'm not enough of a critical consumer and maybe Paizo just skates by because of that and others like me, and we collectively facilitate that behavior, but as long as the good outweighs the bad, I'm sorry, I'm really not going to change and don't think many others will either.
You're not undermining my efforts at all, just disagreeing. You've been quite reasonable and cordial throughout the whole thing. I just have higher standards. Not to make you sound like you're not a capable consumer or anything, as you said, as long as the good outweighs the bad then I can't blame anyone for taking it. If you're having fun, then more power to you. The point of these games is to have fun after all, and you don't have to spend time arguing with me about it. I just wanted to voice my complaints.
It's just frustrating, and to me, really insulting to be told "Yes, we made a mistake, and yes, we're not handling it well. Buuuut...whatever man. Buy the new book. You'll have some fun with it, so everything's good." That kind of stuff compromises my principles and--
Oh s!*$.
I just realized I'm the paladin. Well...
very new statement
Seventh verse, same as the first
but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast
means my spell is completely unidentifiable and I don't provoke AoOs"
Please read my posts before assuming what they say.
Well, don't forget the fact that there's a mental type ping, or sensation when making a save, so magic always has some kind of "spidy sense" perhaps that's it, everyone can "feel" it, bu it takes training (ranks of spellcraft) to have any idea what these sensations really mean.
I read your posts and it doesn't really change the point at all. You made assumptions about how certain metamagic feats work and while it may make some sense, they're assumptions that are not supported by the rules and never have been supported by the rules. Hardly makes it a 'betrayal' for a developer to point out that that thing that isn't in the rulebook... isn't in the rulebook.
Eighth verse, same as the first
I didn't assume anything about the metamagic feats. Please. Read. My. Posts.
Clearly. See.
Also your timeline is a bit off. This post by Jason Bulmahn predates Paths of Prestige by two years and says more or less the same thing as the FAQ.
Oooo! A post on the internet! Wow! big stuff, I'm surprised! That's the real big guns here. A post made on the messageboards that was directly contradicted two years later in a actual rulebook.
Especially when it ADMITS that the rules are completely silent on this matter.
The only thing he says that supports your view of the rules is him saying "I support your view of the rules" and pointing out that none of the ACTUAL rules support it.
But no, those were the big guns you had there.
Well, don't forget the fact that there's a mental type ping, or sensation when making a save, so magic always has some kind of "spidy sense" perhaps that's it, everyone can "feel" it, bu it takes training (ranks of spellcraft) to have any idea what these sensations really mean.
It specifically says "Clearly see the spell as it is being cast", so there's no reason to think that. It'd be okay if the rules worked the way you envision them, but the point of my OP still stands.
hot misrepresentations
Right. You've refused to read my posts time and time again, so I'm done with you and going to bed. But for the record:
I'm not upset that stilled and silent spells are still identifiable. That's not why I made this thread.I never houseruled that they were unidentifiable
I'm being snarky because I'm tired of you misrepresenting me
I've already had a productive conversation on this before, which you would know if you actually read posts other than your own.
Edit: @Sundakan: I realize rules can change, and often do (see early entry SLA FAQ change). But the Spellcraft skill said that you can identify a spell as long as you could clearly see it being cast. Neither Still nor Silent Spell mention anything about hiding you casting a spell. So, following the rules there, you can still identify a Silent and Still spell. With only the penalties for distance and conditions.
Righto, but the whole Silent/Still thing really misses the point. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, so I'm not sure why Arcutiys brought it up to begin with.
Books are silent on the matter of universal spell displays, so they're not in the game (compare/contrast DSP's Psionics, which have them as an explicit part of the ruleset).
Now they are, though that raises even more questions...what does each individual spell look like? Since Silent/Still/Component-less spells can be identified, that means each specific spell has the same display no matter who casts them?
Really kills a few tropes if that's the case. Even the Int 7 Fighter, upon seeing Heroism cast several dozen times, is going to do a double take when the evil doppelganger says it's casting Heroism on him, but it looks like a sinister green energy this time.
