|
Though I don't think the FAQ touches on whether you know you've been hit with debuffs. I suppose it depends on the spell, but most seem like they'd be obvious.
Or were GMs really telling their players "There's someone you can't see casting a spell silently over on the other side of the room."
I know I've never run it that way. They might hear the verbal components, but they won't know where or what is going on.
...
Though I don't think the FAQ touches on whether you know you've been hit with debuffs. I suppose it depends on the spell, but most seem like they'd be obvious.
...
The Saving throw rules strongly imply that you would only know you got hit by a spell if you passed the save or if it had an obvious effect.
A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.
If a GM wanted to be a real bastard then they could have an enchanter spam Still Silent Charm/Dominate spells on the party while under greater invisibility, and the party wouldn't have the slightest clue until it was too late, barring one of them passing a save (which isn't likely if this is a specialized enchanter we are talking about).
|
Or were GMs really telling their players "There's someone you can't see casting a spell silently over on the other side of the room."
I don't tell my players that now... because I don't believe that's how it works.
Rather, "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast". If you can't see the caster... then you can't see the spell they are casting.
Just think of it like weapon attacks. If you could see someone attacking you with a weapon then you can see that same person casting a spell. Too far away / too much concealment to locate who fired that arrow? Then you aren't going to spot a spell being cast from that location either.
Or were GMs really telling their players "There's someone you can't see casting a spell silently over on the other side of the room."I don't tell my players that now... because I don't believe that's how it works.
Rather, "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast". If you can't see the caster... then you can't see the spell they are casting.
Just think of it like weapon attacks. If you could see someone attacking you with a weapon then you can see that same person casting a spell. Too far away / too much concealment to locate who fired that arrow? Then you aren't going to spot a spell being cast from that location either.
The sniping rules are probably a good fit if one is to houserule something.
Prove that the entirety of your statement is true. So far nobody has been able to do so.Yeah it does. If you can see a spell being cast, you can identify it. Manifestations are merely an answer to 'how can you see a spell with no components?'Noticing a spell is being cast does not mean "I get to identify it".
You'd have to be pretty obtuse to not make that connection.
There is no point trying to satisfy RD on this one.This is true. Manifestations are not something I will ever like, and I will fight tooth and nail to see the ruling reversed.
There is no ruling to reverse. Manifestations were invented on the forum to explain the consequence of how the Still and Silent metamagics do not influence spell identification checks. It's also been made perfectly clear that if you don't run PFS, and I know that you don't. that you're perfectly free to houserule otherwise.
As a GM, I appreciate limits on casters running amok.
I would also like to remind players of the kinds of things GMs like me could do to you if enemy casters were allowed to hide stuff from you as effectively as some of you want to hide stuff from them. o wo Boy, wouldn't it SUCK to charge into a boss fight and get told that invisible casters had secretly stacked a ton of debuffs on you without you noticing?
That is how many GMs play casters already.
Despite what the FAQ says, a lot of the monsters that hide among humanity sure look like they should be secretly casting charm spells and spell like abilities(Succubus for instance).
The succubus charming an NPC doesn't work as well if flashy glowing lights appear around her.
Actually it does... if the NPC fails their save. And many NPCs aren't going to have the protections that player characters load up on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Manifestations are not something I will ever like, and I will fight tooth and nail to see the ruling reversed.
So you absolutely hate that componentless spells and Psychic Magic can be identified using spellcraft and otherwise noticed for things like taking AoOs, readied actions and counterspells? Because that's literally all the FAQ does.
Well, since the devs are pretty adamant about keeping Psychic Magic the same as all other magic, I doubt you'll ever get that. Fortunately, that's what House Rules are for.
So you absolutely hate that componentless spells and Psychic Magic can be identified using spellcraft and otherwise noticed for things like taking AoOs, readied actions and counterspells? Because that's literally all the FAQ does.
To correct you on item. AOOs from spellcrafting don't occur because Mr. Fighter says "Oh ho! you're casting a spell, I smack you!" They occur because of the lowering of defenses that spellcasting entails unless you take the motions needed to shore up your defenses... motions which have a chance of spoiling the spell if you don't make your check.
To correct you on item. AOOs from spellcrafting don't occur because Mr. Fighter says "Oh ho! you're casting a spell, I smack you!" They occur because of the lowering of defenses that spellcasting entails unless you take the motions needed to shore up your defenses... motions which have a chance of spoiling the spell if you don't make your check.
So you absolutely hate that componentless spells and Psychic Magic can be identified using spellcraft and otherwise noticed for things like taking AoOs, readied actions and counterspells? Because that's literally all the FAQ does.
I'm just referring to everything the FAQ mentions. The FAQ mentions AoOs and explains you can still make them against SLAs and Psychic Magic.
Everything the FAQ mentions was already covered someplace else in the RAW, the FAQ just clears things up and offers some fluff as to why these things still work without components.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Manifestations are not something I will ever like, and I will fight tooth and nail to see the ruling reversed.So you absolutely hate that componentless spells and Psychic Magic can be identified using spellcraft and otherwise noticed for things like taking AoOs, readied actions and counterspells? Because that's literally all the FAQ does.
I hate that developers continually lie to us to promote their own agendas (changing the rules in order to better sell the new pyschic classes, for example). I hate that several of my characters, who invested a great deal of resources in "stealth casting" can no longer "run amok in social situations" or in any other situation for that matter. I hate that the official stance is so vague that no two tables will ever really adjudicate it the same way. I hate the band-aid patch feats and abilities that they have put in place to allow for stealth casting--all of which either have far too steep prerequisites, remain so easy to spot as to be self-defeating, or simply no longer work BECAUSE of this new FAQ. I hate that the new system is FAR more complicated then "you are identifying spell components" rule of older editions. I hate that Paizo is dictating to its customers how magic should appear in their games. I hate that Paizo didn't take a different direction with this in general. I hate that the only way out is to resort to house rules (which I also hate). I hate that so many important questions continue to go unanswered. I hate that people's views on the matter have split the online community. I hate that people's views on the matter have split my group. I hate that the FAQ appears inconsistent with the RAW (for example, the FAQ implies manifestations don't need to be visual in nature, but the Spellcraft skill makes it clear that you have to see it). I hate that PFS, and the wider game as a whole, continues to grow even more limited in regards to effective character concepts and actions. I hate that GMs and players can't run these types of characters and scenarios how they want without resorting to house rules. I hate how a great many adventure paths, modules, and PFS scenarios no longer function as written. I hate that said adventure paths, modules, and PFS scenarios have not been changed to adapt to the new rules of the land. I hate that one or two people at Paizo can make such sweeping decisions for their company without better informing those creative artists who actually make the game as great as it is. I hate that so many of these problems will never get fixed because of Paizo's current policy on errata and FAQ releases. I hate a great many things about this FAQ, the problems it creates, and the perceptions it generates. And I'm not alone.
I hate that the new system is FAR more complicated then "you are identifying spell components" rule of older editions.
How is "That person is casting a spell, so I roll spellcraft to identify it" in any way complicated?
Honestly it seems like most of the problem people have with this FAQ is... stuff they're inventing to make the FAQ seem worse than it actually is.
Spellcraft can identify spells that lack components, which it's been able to do since the CRB was printed, the manifestation "rule" is simply an answer to the question 'how is that possible?'
To even call it a ruling seems disingenuous, because as written it literally doesn't do anything mechanical, it just presents an explanation for why a rule works the way it does.
So stop trying to extrapolate out corner cases and ambiguities for something that's ultimately pretty simple and most of your concerns just vanish on the spot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah the point is this FAQ doesn't go past how spellcraft works. that's it.
James Jacob said otherwise. Even if the NPC fails its save, it still knows that something was attacking its mind. The Succubus does get a bluff check, but the specifics of the manifestation would matter here.Actually it does... if the NPC fails their save. And many NPCs aren't going to have the protections that player characters load up on.As a GM, I appreciate limits on casters running amok.
I would also like to remind players of the kinds of things GMs like me could do to you if enemy casters were allowed to hide stuff from you as effectively as some of you want to hide stuff from them. o wo Boy, wouldn't it SUCK to charge into a boss fight and get told that invisible casters had secretly stacked a ton of debuffs on you without you noticing?
That is how many GMs play casters already.
Despite what the FAQ says, a lot of the monsters that hide among humanity sure look like they should be secretly casting charm spells and spell like abilities(Succubus for instance).
The succubus charming an NPC doesn't work as well if flashy glowing lights appear around her.
You're being dangerously incomplete. He said that the target may know, but the spell/effect changes it's mindset so that it does not care... at least until said effect wears off.
I hate that people's views on the matter have split the online community.
I've been with the community before it went online. They've always been split on rules since the first issue of Strategic Review. And home rule was the norm. Every GM I've played under would start with "I've got some of my own rules....."
I think an aspect to this that's overlooked is knowledge (arcana) which is what's used to identify a spell after the fact. Well, it "identif[ies] a spell effect that is in place" as well as "identify a spell that just targeted you." Compared to spellcraft's "identify a spell as it is being cast."
So, it sounds like there's a deeper change as from the way people are talking in this thread makes it sound like 3.5 and back did all the above with spellcraft alone. So, you gotta ask... what lets you use know(arc) in the first place? You "just know?"