Does anyone here actually believe that any argument will be accepted that will remove one of the core God-Wizard trumps? This is one of the sleazes that god-wizard builds are built around. We all know that a wizards power comes from the myriad rules lawyers unflagging and heroic devotion to maintaining this superiority.
This is important to them, we really should leave it alone.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Daw wrote: Does anyone here actually believe that any argument will be accepted that will remove one of the core God-Wizard trumps? Yes.
wraithstrike wrote: Chess Pwn wrote: I have a question kinda related.
Can you spellcraft something you can't perception?
Like if I have a +40 spellcraft to identify spells being cast, and I have a perception of 0, can I spellcraft a spell from the invisible person that I cannot perceive?
No. The spellcraft skill says that you have to be able to see the spell as it is being cast. So if the caster is invisible you can't see the spell as it is being cast. There's no rule that supports this. In fact, the rules, taken in context refute this. I'm going to lay out what others have repeatedly posted.
1. The Spellcraft does not mention the caster.
PRD 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. This is unequivocal. The authors understand the difference between seeing the spell and seeing the caster and the rules unambiguously identify the need to see the spell.
2. The FAQ affirms that the inability to observe spell components is irrelevant to the Spellcraft. Which further supports the notion that the inability to see the caster has no effect on Spellcraft.
3. Spellcraft does not work on the visual aspects of the results of the spell, just the manifestations.
FAQ in part wrote: ... all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect... So the act of casting a spell creates manifestations which have nothing to do with being able to see the caster or the results of the spell itself. There is no other place for these manifestations to occur other than in the square of the caster. Logic and the rules demand that this must be true because how else can we apply Perception modifiers to a Spellcraft check if we can't have any certainty about where the manifestations occur. There is no other logical or supportable argument that the manifestations anywhere but the square in which the caster casts the spell.
4. Ergo, casting a spell will immediately give away the square of the spell caster by virtue of the manifestations having to originate in the square where the magic was invoked.
vhok wrote: I was going to cast and the DM said it would immediately give away my position citing this faq. after reading it I had to agree by RAW casting a spell while invis lets everyone with eyes to know exactly where you are, its BS and I hate it. You may hate it, but there is no reason why casters should have a better benefit from invisibility than anyone else. If I use a melee attack or shoot an arrow with greater invisibility, my square is immediately given away.
Why should casters have it any different? Answer: they shouldn't. Anyone who casts a spell using greater invisibility should be just as locatable as if they has fired a crossbow or attacked using a sword.
You reached your point 4 by a circular argument.
N N 959 wrote:
So the act of casting a spell creates manifestations which have nothing to do with being able to see the caster or the results of the spell itself.
I was with you until this point.
Quote: There is no other place for these manifestations to occur other than in the square of the caster. This, however, is patent nonsense. The surface area of the Earth is approximately 5,490,000,000,000,000 square feet; only twenty-five square feet of those are the square in which the caster stands. There are lots of other spots where the manifestations can occur, including "nowhere in particular." The spell is cast, the booming James Earl Jones voice of The Narrator announces the spell that was just cast in Biblical Sanskrit (and in surround sound), and everyone in the general area suddenly feels their teeth hurt like they chewed on a piece of aluminium foil. (Obviously, someone with ranks in spellcraft speaks Sanskrit, hence identifies the spell.)
Nicos wrote: You reached your point 4 by a circular argument. No, it's not. It's a restatement of the previous arguments. Manifestations have to occur at the point of the casting. Ergo, the caster must be in that square.
N N 959 wrote:
No, it's not. It's a restatement of the previous arguments. Manifestations have to occur at the point of the casting.
No, they simply have to occur.
N N 959 wrote: Nicos wrote: You reached your point 4 by a circular argument. No, it's not. It's a restatement of the previous arguments. Manifestations have to occur at the point of the casting. Ergo, the caster must be in that square. Except the part where the first assertion is not proved.
Orfamay Quest wrote: This, however, is patent nonsense. The surface area of the Earth is approximately 5,490,000,000,000,000 square feet; only twenty-five square feet of those are the square in which the caster stands. There are lots of other spots where the manifestations can occur, including "nowhere in particular." The spell is cast, the booming James Earl Jones voice of The Narrator announces the spell that was just cast in Biblical Sanskrit (and in surround sound), and everyone in the general area suddenly feels their teeth hurt like they chewed on a piece of aluminium foil. (Obviously, someone with ranks in spellcraft speaks Sanskrit, hence identifies the spell.) No, it's not patent nonsense. Trying to pretend that the very thing that allows someone to identify a spell being cast has nothing to do with the location of the caster is patent nonsense.
The rules are created so that the spell can be identified. It's pretty much lunacy to argue that this occurs in some random location. How can I say this? By a thought experiment:
Squeeze two allies in a 5x5 box that they can't see out of. A is is a caster, B is using Spellcraft with a +50 modifier. The rules say that if the caster cast, the other guy can use Spellcraft to identify the spell 100% of the time. If both people are in a 5x5 box that they can't see out of, then the only way B can use Spellcraft 100% of the time is if B can see the manifestations. Which means that per RAW, all the manifestations must occur in that 5x5 box. This is irrefutable per the given rules.
Nicos wrote: N N 959 wrote: Nicos wrote: You reached your point 4 by a circular argument. No, it's not. It's a restatement of the previous arguments. Manifestations have to occur at the point of the casting. Ergo, the caster must be in that square. Except the part where the first assertion is not proved. Even if that were true, it does not make 4 circular.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
N N 959 wrote: Anyone who casts a spell using greater invisibility should be just as locatable as if they has fired a crossbow or attacked using a sword. So, only if they made an attack from 5ft away?
Glossary wrote: If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location.
TriOmegaZero wrote: N N 959 wrote: Anyone who casts a spell using greater invisibility should be just as locatable as if they has fired a crossbow or attacked using a sword. So, only if they made an attack from 5ft away?
Glossary wrote: If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location. I'd rule that you know exactly where the manifestations occur, because they are visible and you are essentially affected by Perception modifiers to identify it. The GM can't apply a -4 modifier because the caster is 20 feet away and then try and claim you don't know where the manifestation is. So an attacker can always target the square of the manifestation. As others have pointed out, it pays to cast and then move.
As far as pinpointing the caster, I'd most likely use the "In combat" modifier of -20 in most cases.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
So casters should be MORE locatable than someone firing a crossbow or attacking with a sword.
N N 959 wrote: Nicos wrote: You reached your point 4 by a circular argument. No, it's not. It's a restatement of the previous arguments. Manifestations have to occur at the point of the casting. Ergo, the caster must be in that square. He has to be in that square. The manifestations don't have to be of a kind that can't be hidden by invisibility, however.
N N 959 wrote:
I'd rule that you know exactly where the manifestations occur, because they are visible and you are essentially affected by Perception modifiers to identify it. The GM can't apply a -4 modifier because the caster is 20 feet away and then try and claim you don't know where the manifestation is. So an attacker can always target the square of the manifestation. As others have pointed out, it pays to cast and then move.
As far as pinpointing the caster, I'd most likely use the "In combat" modifier of -20 in most cases.
Again, where do you get the idea that the manifestation must be a visible effect, much less occupy and/or be restricted to the same square as the caster?
TriOmegaZero wrote: So casters should be MORE locatable than someone firing a crossbow or attacking with a sword. Someone firing a bow or swinging a sword is "In combat" = -20
But by all means, keep trying to trap me in some ancillary point.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
N N 959 wrote: But by all means, keep trying to trap me in some ancillary point. So you DON'T mean that spellcasters should be pinpointed by the manifestations while a crossbow wielding martial only gives a general location?
_Ozy_ wrote: N N 959 wrote:
I'd rule that you know exactly where the manifestations occur, because they are visible and you are essentially affected by Perception modifiers to identify it. The GM can't apply a -4 modifier because the caster is 20 feet away and then try and claim you don't know where the manifestation is. So an attacker can always target the square of the manifestation. As others have pointed out, it pays to cast and then move.
As far as pinpointing the caster, I'd most likely use the "In combat" modifier of -20 in most cases.
Again, where do you get the idea that the manifestation must be a visible effect, much less occupy and/or be restricted to the same square as the caster? Because RAW unequivocally states you have to "see" the spell as it being cast and the Spellcraft check is affected by Perception modifiers "see" + Perception = visible.
Let's keep going. The FAQ unequivocally uses the term "all" spells have manifestations.
Finally, see my thought experiment. I can always use Spellcraft on a caster casting spells if we are both in a 5x5 box that neither of us can see out of. What does that mandate must be true about the location of the manifestations?
Again. There is no rule for this, only a FAQ can solve it (beyond the "you are the DM, make a ruling", obviously).
N N 959 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: N N 959 wrote:
I'd rule that you know exactly where the manifestations occur, because they are visible and you are essentially affected by Perception modifiers to identify it. The GM can't apply a -4 modifier because the caster is 20 feet away and then try and claim you don't know where the manifestation is. So an attacker can always target the square of the manifestation. As others have pointed out, it pays to cast and then move.
As far as pinpointing the caster, I'd most likely use the "In combat" modifier of -20 in most cases.
Again, where do you get the idea that the manifestation must be a visible effect, much less occupy and/or be restricted to the same square as the caster? Because RAW unequivocally states you have to "see" the spell as it being cast and the Spellcraft check is affected by Perception modifiers "see" + Perception = visible.
Let's keep going. The FAQ unequivocally uses the term "all" spells have manifestations.
Finally, see my thought experiment. I can always use Spellcraft on a caster casting spells if we are both in a 5x5 box that neither of us can see out of. What does that mandate must be true about the location of the manifestations?
You are using a circular argument. If you can't see the caster casting the spell, and you can't see the manifestation of the spell, then you can't actually make a spellcraft check for an invisible caster with non-visible manifestations.
That doesn't make you right, it just means you're assuming your answer.
TriOmegaZero wrote: N N 959 wrote: But by all means, keep trying to trap me in some ancillary point. So you DON'T mean that spellcasters should be pinpointed by the manifestations while a crossbow wielding martial only gives a general location? I mean pinpoint in the sense you know exact what square the manifestation occurs and you know that at the time of the casting, that's where the caster is. So you can target the square if you have the Ready Action and barring something extraordinary, the caster will be there.
After reviewing the invisibility rules, it's clear that if you're not hit, there's nothing to identify the location of a melee attacker as the weapon is not visible. I am not seeing robust rules for ranged attacks. I believe any projectile would become visible after its fired/thrown and I suppose it's possible someone could Ready an action to attack the square from the point of origin. I don't know, I'd have to look at it more closely.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
So you are retracting your statement that they should be equally easy to locate, since you feel the manifestations identify the position exactly, and weapons do not?
_Ozy_ wrote:
You are using a circular argument.
No, I'm not.
Quote: If you can't see the caster casting the spell, and you can't see the manifestation of the spell That's 100% false. RAW says I need to see the "spell", not the caster. While I might agree that since the Spellcraft skill talks about the "technical art of spell casting" one might expect there is some need to see the caster, the actionable text is unambiguous. It's the "spell" not the caster that must be seen.
You and others are inventing a requirement that does not exist simply to avoid the unavoidable consequences of being able to see the manifestation. Claiming my failure to satisfy your invented requirement thus makes my argument circular, is not a compelling argument.
TriOmegaZero wrote: So you are retracting your statement that they should be equally easy to locate, since you feel the manifestations identify the position exactly, and weapons do not? At the time of the casting, you know with 100% certainty where the caster is (barring some weird rules interaction). That's what I meant. So no, I'm not retracting that. Whether you can continue to pinpoint them is probably best handled by the rules for being "In Combat"
Thereis more than one example of Adventure Path encounters written in ways that either specifically state or at the very least strongly imply that an invisible caster's location isn't immediately known.
The first one that came to mind is from Rise of The Runelords.
Yes, APs are not "RULES" but I don't see how it wouldn't at the very least inform your perception of the rules that are written.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
N N 959 wrote: At the time of the casting, you know with 100% certainty where the caster is (barring some weird rules interaction). That's what I meant. I don't agree. The caster is invisible, and the manifestations are undefined. The GM has to decide if the manifestations are covered by the invisibility (In my case, the answer is yes) and if they are a source of light (in my case, no) and determine if the casting of the spell gives away the position of the caster. Thus, I am perfectly in the rules to say that an invisible caster still requires a Perception check to locate, as with all invisible creatures.
N N 959 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote:
You are using a circular argument.
No, I'm not.Quote: If you can't see the caster casting the spell, and you can't see the manifestation of the spell That's 100% false. RAW says I need to see the "spell", not the caster. While I might agree that since the Spellcraft skill talks about the "technical art of spell casting" one might expect there is some need to see the caster, the actionable text is unambiguous. It's the "spell" not the caster that must be seen.
You and others are inventing a requirement that does not exist simply to avoid the unavoidable consequences of being able to see the manifestation. Claiming my failure to satisfy your invented requirement thus makes my argument circular, is not a compelling argument But then you're somehow inventing a requirement that you can always seen the spell. Which isn't anywhere made explicit.
And isn't always true either. Is a non-invisible, but mundanely hidden caster always revealed by casting?
Fried Goblin Surprise wrote: There are more than one example of Adventure Path encounters written in ways that either specifically state or at the very least strongly imply that an invisible caster's location isn't immediately known.
.
Somebody pointed out how the "spell manifestation unwritten-rules" invalidates an encounter with a doppelgänger, so (if true) published adventures doesn't really helps.
EDIT: Actually, the post I was making reference is not in this thread
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tvwn&page=5?FAQs-and-Errata-killing-the-fu n#218
TriOmegaZero wrote: The GM has to decide if the manifestations are covered by the invisibility (In my case, the answer is yes) and if they are a source of light (in my case, no) and determine if the casting of the spell gives away the position of the caster. Thus, I am perfectly in the rules to say that an invisible caster still requires a Perception check to locate, as with all invisible creatures. Let's look at the rules for the invisibility spell.
PRD Invisibility wrote: Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible. Based on the fact that anything not directly carried becomes visible, I see no basis for claiming that the manifestations are covered by invisibility. The manifestations occur separately from the caster. While I agree that they do not create light, the are not in the possession of the caster and are not covered by the invisibility spell.
Consider, if I am smoking a pipe, does the smoke from my pipe remain invisible? No.
With regards to dust of disappearance, the object or people have to be dusted. As the manifestations are not dusted, nor can be dusted, I'd rule that they are not invisible.
N N 959 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote:
You are using a circular argument.
No, I'm not. Yes, you are.
Quote: Quote: If you can't see the caster casting the spell, and you can't see the manifestation of the spell That's 100% false. RAW says I need to see the "spell", not the caster. While I might agree that since the Spellcraft skill talks about the "technical art of spell casting" one might expect there is some need to see the caster, the actionable text is unambiguous. It's the "spell" not the caster that must be seen.
Exactly. Except nowhere in the spellcraft rules does it say that you CAN see every spell as it is cast, only that you must see it to be able to use spellcraft to identify it. That's where your question begging is coming into play.
Quote: You and others are inventing a requirement that does not exist simply to avoid the unavoidable consequences of being able to see the manifestation. Claiming my failure to satisfy your invented requirement thus makes my argument circular, is not a compelling argument.
? Huh? What are you talking about? The one inventing the requirement is you. The FAQ says spell manifestations must be observable. It does not mandate visible. That's your invention.
N N 959 wrote: Based on the fact that anything not directly carried becomes visible, I see no basis for claiming that the manifestations are covered by invisibility
"manifestations" are not items, and the word "carried" doesn't apply to them. You are re not arguing RAW.
N N 959 wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: The GM has to decide if the manifestations are covered by the invisibility (In my case, the answer is yes) and if they are a source of light (in my case, no) and determine if the casting of the spell gives away the position of the caster. Thus, I am perfectly in the rules to say that an invisible caster still requires a Perception check to locate, as with all invisible creatures. Let's look at the rules for the invisibility spell.
PRD Invisibility wrote: Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible. Based on the fact that anything not directly carried becomes visible, I see no basis for claiming that the manifestations are covered by invisibility. The manifestations occur separately from the caster. While I agree that they do not create light, the are not in the possession of the caster and are not covered by the invisibility spell.
Consider, if I am smoking a pipe, does the smoke from my pipe remain invisible? No.
With regards to dust of disappearance, the object or people have to be dusted. As the manifestations are not dusted, nor can be dusted, I'd rule that they are not invisible.
How much do manifestations weigh? What are they made of? What kind of 'objects' are they?
thejeff wrote: But then you're somehow inventing a requirement that you can always seen the spell. Which isn't anywhere made explicit.
And isn't always true either. Is a non-invisible, but mundanely hidden caster always revealed by casting?
You're grasping at straws. I made no such requirement and have actually stated the opposite. Manifestations are subject to Perception modifiers. I've stated that repeatedly. If you're blind, you can't use Spellcraft. If the the spell is being cast in a fog / obscuring mist you can't use Spellcraft. Anything that impairs your ability to view the square of the casting, impairs your Spellcraft. If the caster is behind a wall, you don't see the manifestations and you can't use Spellcraft. That's all pretty unambiguous from the Spellcraft text and the FAQ.
Claiming that I need to see the caster specifically is a house rule. I need to see the spell as it's being cast and I've shown, irrefutably, that the manifestations must occur in the square that the spell caster is casting.
Nicos wrote: N N 959 wrote: Based on the fact that anything not directly carried becomes visible, I see no basis for claiming that the manifestations are covered by invisibility
"manifestations" are not items, and the word "carried" doesn't apply to them. You are re not arguing RAW. Irrelevant. They are not possessed by the caster at the time the invisibility is applied, then they are not invisible upon their creation.
N N 959 wrote:
Claiming that I need to see the caster specifically is a house rule. I need to see the spell as it's being cast and I've shown, irrefutably, that the manifestations must occur in the square that the spell caster is casting.
You should take a classs in logic.
N N 959 wrote: Nicos wrote: N N 959 wrote: Based on the fact that anything not directly carried becomes visible, I see no basis for claiming that the manifestations are covered by invisibility
"manifestations" are not items, and the word "carried" doesn't apply to them. You are re not arguing RAW. Irrelevant. They are not possessed by the caster at the time the invisibility is applied, then they are not invisible upon their creation. Supported by the rules where again? The part that used the word 'ITEM' or 'OBJECT'?
thejeff wrote: Is a non-invisible, but mundanely hidden caster always revealed by casting? Casting the spell does nothing to the caster (ignoring the impact of verbal components). Casting a spell creates manifestations that occur in the same square as the caster.
N N 959 wrote: thejeff wrote: Is a non-invisible, but mundanely hidden caster always revealed by casting? Casting the spell does nothing to the caster (ignoring the impact of verbal components). Casting a spell creates manifestations that occur in the same square as the caster. Now you're just blatantly making up rules.
Stop it.
_Ozy_ wrote: N N 959 wrote: Nicos wrote: N N 959 wrote: Based on the fact that anything not directly carried becomes visible, I see no basis for claiming that the manifestations are covered by invisibility
"manifestations" are not items, and the word "carried" doesn't apply to them. You are re not arguing RAW. Irrelevant. They are not possessed by the caster at the time the invisibility is applied, then they are not invisible upon their creation. Supported by the rules where again? The part that used the word 'ITEM' or 'OBJECT'? The invisibility rules tell us what is invisible. Manifestations are not mentioned. They are not invisible. The invisibility covers possessions. Manifestations are not possession, they are not invisible.
House rule it any way you want.
_Ozy_ wrote: N N 959 wrote: thejeff wrote: Is a non-invisible, but mundanely hidden caster always revealed by casting? Casting the spell does nothing to the caster (ignoring the impact of verbal components). Casting a spell creates manifestations that occur in the same square as the caster. Now you're just blatantly making up rules.
Stop it. I've proven this is irrefutably true per RAW. You've offered nothing to refute it except petulance.
N N 959 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: N N 959 wrote: Nicos wrote: N N 959 wrote: Based on the fact that anything not directly carried becomes visible, I see no basis for claiming that the manifestations are covered by invisibility
"manifestations" are not items, and the word "carried" doesn't apply to them. You are re not arguing RAW. Irrelevant. They are not possessed by the caster at the time the invisibility is applied, then they are not invisible upon their creation. Supported by the rules where again? The part that used the word 'ITEM' or 'OBJECT'? The invisibility rules tell us what is invisible. Manifestations are not mentioned. They are not invisible. The invisibility covers possessions. Manifestations are not possession, they are not invisible.
House rule it any way you want. Yeah I forget to read that in the chapter about where manifestation are defined, oh wait...
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
N N 959 wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: So casters should be MORE locatable than someone firing a crossbow or attacking with a sword. Someone firing a bow or swinging a sword is "In combat" = -20
But by all means, keep trying to trap me in some ancillary point. so, the rules for perception state
Quote: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you. where does succeeding the check say you can know their square?
As far as I can tell the only information you are given is that a spell is being cast.
N N 959 wrote: thejeff wrote: Is a non-invisible, but mundanely hidden caster always revealed by casting? Casting the spell does nothing to the caster (ignoring the impact of verbal components). Casting a spell creates manifestations that occur in the same square as the caster. I'm not even sure what you mean there.
If I'm using stealth (successfully - they haven't beaten my perception check) in partial cover or concealment - maybe in dim light or behind a pile of crates - and I cast a self-buff (no attack, no obviously revealing effect of the spell) that automatically makes it clear to everyone where I am - what square at least.
That's how you'd rule, right?
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
N N 959 wrote: Based on the fact that anything not directly carried becomes visible, I see no basis for claiming that the manifestations are covered by invisibility. Nor are they dropped or put down, so since the caster is 'wielding' them I feel perfectly comfortable saying that the spell covers them.
bbangerter wrote:
You made the claim "The manifestation shares the same space as the caster...". I challenged you to support that idea from the rules. The manifestation may, or may not, share the same space as the caster - again left open to GM fiat to rule how they like.
The FAQ says look at the artwork
In the artwork the glowy things are right on the caster
So the glowy things are in their space.
N N 959 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: N N 959 wrote: thejeff wrote: Is a non-invisible, but mundanely hidden caster always revealed by casting? Casting the spell does nothing to the caster (ignoring the impact of verbal components). Casting a spell creates manifestations that occur in the same square as the caster. Now you're just blatantly making up rules.
Stop it. I've proven this is irrefutably true per RAW. You've offered nothing to refute it except petulance. You have done absolutely no such thing. You presented a circular argument, filled with nothing but question begging and refused to understand your lack of logic.
That's not proof, it's nonsense.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: N N 959 wrote: Nicos wrote: N N 959 wrote: Based on the fact that anything not directly carried becomes visible, I see no basis for claiming that the manifestations are covered by invisibility
"manifestations" are not items, and the word "carried" doesn't apply to them. You are re not arguing RAW. Irrelevant. They are not possessed by the caster at the time the invisibility is applied, then they are not invisible upon their creation. Supported by the rules where again? The part that used the word 'ITEM' or 'OBJECT'? The invisibility rules tell us what is invisible. Manifestations are not mentioned. They are not invisible. The invisibility covers possessions. Manifestations are not possession, they are not invisible.
House rule it any way you want. So if a manifestation of a particular spell is that the casters hair turns blue while casting, does this allow an 'observer' to pin point the location of an invisible caster of said spell? Or causes my veins to stand out? Or my eyes to go milky white?
You seem to be making up rules about what constitutes as a manifestation, that they must be completely separate from the caster, and that is the only option. Your notion of manifestations is one possibility, so it is not technically wrong for a GM to rule that way. It is however certainly not the only possibility, so pretending that that is the only option IS wrong.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
BigNorseWolf wrote: bbangerter wrote:
You made the claim "The manifestation shares the same space as the caster...". I challenged you to support that idea from the rules. The manifestation may, or may not, share the same space as the caster - again left open to GM fiat to rule how they like.
The FAQ says look at the artwork
In the artwork the glowy things are right on the caster
So the glowy things are in their space. Please, don't add to the confusion:
Quote: You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products The FAQ in no way maintains that the artwork defines how manifestations MUST appear. In fact, they say the exact opposite in the rest of the sentence:
Quote: but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. I'm curious, why did you try to imply that the FAQ provided a definitive answer on this subject?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
BigNorseWolf wrote: bbangerter wrote:
You made the claim "The manifestation shares the same space as the caster...". I challenged you to support that idea from the rules. The manifestation may, or may not, share the same space as the caster - again left open to GM fiat to rule how they like.
The FAQ says look at the artwork
In the artwork the glowy things are right on the caster
So the glowy things are in their space. If you want to reference the FAQ, you should at least read the entire sentence regarding that.
FAQ wrote:
You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details.
The artwork is something they suggest can be used for inspiration of how the manifestations occur. They then go right on to say it does not have to occur that way, but rather encourage groups of players to come up with their own ideas.
Saying "Here are some ideas of how it might work" is not the same as "Here is how it works".
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
