| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A witch likes to cast Evil Eye and Misfortune on everybody the party meets while other party members engage them in conversation.
Would the targets of witch hexes know they are being targeted?
Would wearing a helmet or mask help hide what the witch is doing?
What if the witch is invisible?
You know when you attempt a saving throw. Nothing official says you know the source of SU abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil Eye does not actually require the witch make eye contact, so there's no reason a mask or helmet would hide it.
If the witch is invisible they wouldn't notice her until she started to Cackle. They would, however, notice that creeping feeling Evil Eye mentions and I'd give them a Knowledge Arcana check to figure it out.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone making a save knows what they are saving vs.
Su don't require verbal, somatic, or material components. So it is unlikely someone would know who originated the effect.
If the hex emulates a spell, and the spell has a visible effect, you could make a spellcraft check to see it being "cast" but that wouldn't tell you who the caster is.
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
Since nearly all invisibility references point to the spell, using Evil Eye does not break invisibility, since it is not a spell. They still know they made a save.
However, a Mesmerist can use a Hypnotic Stare and the target doesn't know it is being affected.
/cevah
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone making a save knows what they are saving vs.
Su don't require verbal, somatic, or material components. So it is unlikely someone would know who originated the effect.
If the hex emulates a spell, and the spell has a visible effect, you could make a spellcraft check to see it being "cast" but that wouldn't tell you who the caster is.
"Succeeding on a Saving Throw
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."
A target does not know what effect they are saving against, even if they succeed if it does not have an obvious effect. If they fail the save they do not even know they were under attack without an obvious effect.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil Eye does not actually require the witch make eye contact, so there's no reason a mask or helmet would hide it.
If the witch is invisible they wouldn't notice her until she started to Cackle. They would, however, notice that creeping feeling Evil Eye mentions and I'd give them a Knowledge Arcana check to figure it out.
Evil Eye and Misfortune are attacks, so she would become visible as soon as she use them.
@Cevah
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.
|
|
Evil Eye does not actually require the witch make eye contact, so there's no reason a mask or helmet would hide it.
If the witch is invisible they wouldn't notice her until she started to Cackle. They would, however, notice that creeping feeling Evil Eye mentions and I'd give them a Knowledge Arcana check to figure it out.
Evil Eye and Misfortune are attacks, so she would become visible as soon as she use them.
@Cevah
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.
Declaring the attack isn't enough, though, for clarification. You maintain invisibility through the attack until its end, where the invisibility ends. This is why a rogue who is invisible can get their sneak attack. If they were visible the moment they declared the attack, they would not be invisible during the roll and thus would not get sneak attack dice from being invisible.
So, for the intents and purposes here, so long as the hex was successful and does not have an obvious physical effect... it would just look like the witch suddenly appeared after making the hex attack with no one realizing an attack was made.
If the opponent saved, though, they would be aware they were under some form of magical attack at the same time of the witches sudden appearance. So, it would be easy to assume the witch was the cause so long as they appeared somewhere the opponents perception check could notice them.
By the strictest readings of the spell, invisibility, witch hexes do not count as an attack. There are not weapons or spells, but supernatural abilities.
Wrong. "Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks." CRB pg. 208
By that logic casting any buff spell breaks invisibility.
By that logic casting any buff spell breaks invisibility.Not offensive. Hence buff.
Giving yourself an advantage in combat isn't an offensive measure? Casting Weapon of Awe is an offensive action(bonus to damage), and so it Haste(bonus to attacks, extra attack when full attacking). Buffing before combat is merely premeditated offensive actions.
|
|
Giving yourself an advantage in combat isn't an offensive measure? Casting Weapon of Awe is an offensive action(bonus to damage), and so it Haste(bonus to attacks, extra attack when full attacking). Buffing before combat is merely premeditated offensive actions.By that logic casting any buff spell breaks invisibility.Not offensive. Hence buff.
Buffs are not attacks.
You could be buffing your strength to carry more coins, for example.
You could cast Haste to run faster.
I see no similar use for Misfortune or Evil Eye
|
|
Giving yourself an advantage in combat isn't an offensive measure? Casting Weapon of Awe is an offensive action(bonus to damage), and so it Haste(bonus to attacks, extra attack when full attacking). Buffing before combat is merely premeditated offensive actions.By that logic casting any buff spell breaks invisibility.Not offensive. Hence buff.
Please re-read the invisibility spell. It covers this. If you are being purposely obtuse, you can ignore this post as it only clarifies the difference between an attacking spell and a non-attacking spell.
" For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell.Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area."
For further clarification notice that the definition of attack would include targeting an enemy with haste. A buff spell CAN be an attack but only if an enemy is targeted.
Haste, weapon enhancement spells and other spells not directly targeting adversaries are not attacks, and don't break invisibility. Even the pit spells are not considered attacks, since they target the terrain and not adversaries. Same for summon monster and similar spells.
Attack spells target an adversary - do damage, require saves or what have you. Cloud spells (like stinking cloud) also don't count as attacks, even though they have definite adverse effects on adversaries.
Anything different is a house rule, and IMHO not a very good one. Invisibility is limited enough as it is, with duration in minutes.
|
|
Haste, weapon enhancement spells and other spells not directly targeting adversaries are not attacks, and don't break invisibility. Even the pit spells are not considered attacks, since they target the terrain and not adversaries. Same for summon monster and similar spells.
Attack spells target an adversary - do damage, require saves or what have you. Cloud spells (like stinking cloud) also don't count as attacks, even though they have definite adverse effects on adversaries.
Anything different is a house rule, and IMHO not a very good one. Invisibility is limited enough as it is, with duration in minutes.
For clarification, a pit or cloud spell is an attack if an enemy is in its casting AOE.
"For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."
So you can not cast a spell that includes an enemy in its initial AOE without ending Invisiblity. This also includes spells that allow re-targeting or purposeful movement like Flaming Sphere.
But it would only be an indirect attack if after casting a spell a foe enters the spells AOE. Such as Cloudkill moving in subsequent turns and enveloping a foe. This would not end Invisiblity.
Evil Eye does not actually require the witch make eye contact, so there's no reason a mask or helmet would hide it.
If the witch is invisible they wouldn't notice her until she started to Cackle. They would, however, notice that creeping feeling Evil Eye mentions and I'd give them a Knowledge Arcana check to figure it out.
Evil Eye and Misfortune are attacks, so she would become visible as soon as she use them.
@Cevah
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.
Extending the quote:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
The Combat page defines attacks and defines using Su abilities. It does not say using an Su ability is an attack.
It tells of Attack(melee), Attack(ranged), Attack(unarmed), Attack of Opportunity, Touch Attacks, and so on. It does not tell of Supernatural attacks.
The spell calls out attacks, and then adds that attacking includes spells. Why? Probably because using a spell is not an "attack" unless the specific spell states it is an attack. That is, spells with saving throws generally do not have attack rolls, so would be excluded. With this verbiage, they get included. I can see SLAs being included as they act like spells. Su abilities, on the other hand, are explicitly not like spells. If they don't have an attack roll, then they are not an attack.
I have played it as anything with an attack roll or requiring a save counts as an attack, but I think RAW is actually different. Remember, the spell calls out attacks, not hostile actions.
/cevah
For clarification, a pit or cloud spell is an attack if an enemy is in its casting AOE."For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."So you can not cast a spell that includes an enemy in its initial AOE without ending Invisiblity. This also includes spells that allow re-targeting or purposeful movement like Flaming Sphere.
But it would only be an indirect attack if after casting a spell a foe enters the spells AOE. Such as Cloudkill moving in subsequent turns and enveloping a foe. This would not end Invisiblity.
Oooh, my mistake. I stand corrected.
|
|
By that logic casting any buff spell breaks invisibility.
A buff spell isn't offensive.
Giving yourself an advantage in combat isn't an offensive measure? Casting Weapon of Awe is an offensive action(bonus to damage), and so it Haste(bonus to attacks, extra attack when full attacking). Buffing before combat is merely premeditated offensive actions.
Not offensive. Hence buff.
You are really trying to bend logic to support your idea. Please, read the whole, CRB, see how the rules integrate with each other and then return to this discussion if you are still convinced of your idea.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
By the strictest readings of the spell, invisibility, witch hexes do not count as an attack. There are not weapons or spells, but supernatural abilities.
Actually attack is pretty much anything the target would rather you not do, as adjudicated by the GM. So witch hexes often/always are attacks unless it's like a healing hex.
Again, the entire rules uses "spell" as shorthand for "spells and effects". So non spells are included, such as hexes.
|
|
Evil Eye does not actually require the witch make eye contact, so there's no reason a mask or helmet would hide it.
If the witch is invisible they wouldn't notice her until she started to Cackle. They would, however, notice that creeping feeling Evil Eye mentions and I'd give them a Knowledge Arcana check to figure it out.
Evil Eye and Misfortune are attacks, so she would become visible as soon as she use them.
@Cevah
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.Extending the quote:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.The Combat page defines attacks and defines using Su abilities. It does not say using an Su ability is an attack.
It tells of Attack(melee), Attack(ranged), Attack(unarmed), Attack of Opportunity, Touch Attacks, and so on. It does not tell of Supernatural attacks.
The spell calls out attacks, and then adds that attacking includes spells. Why? Probably because using a spell is not an "attack" unless the specific spell states it is an attack. That is, spells with saving throws generally do not have attack rolls, so would be excluded. With this verbiage, they get included. I can see SLAs being included as they act like spells. Su abilities, on the other hand, are explicitly not like spells. If they don't have an attack roll, then they are not an attack.
I have played it as anything with an attack roll or requiring a save counts as an attack, but I think RAW is actually different. Remember, the spell calls out attacks, not hostile actions.
/cevah
Derklord has already replied to this flawed argument, but let's repeat the citation and extend it:
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.
While it say spell most of the time in that citation, the example is a SU ability, and the phrase "All offensive combat actions," is decidedly clear.
The Combat page defines attacks and defines using Su abilities. It does not say using an Su ability is an attack.
It tells of Attack(melee), Attack(ranged), Attack(unarmed), Attack of Opportunity, Touch Attacks, and so on. It does not tell of Supernatural attacks.
Wrong section of the rules. You did notice that I gave a page number in my last post, right? The "attack" defined in the combat section has absolutely nothing to do with the "attack" defined in the magic section.
Yes, that's stupidly confusing. I recently talked about this very topic.@James Risner: Read the rules again: The reason summoning spells aren't offensive is because "the spells themselves don't harm anyone." Follow that guideline, and you know what is offensive and what not. Buffs spells don't normally harm anyone either, they just make it easier for allies to harm enemies. The examples only mention spells, but the main rule is includes any type of action.
Also, yo're contradicting yourself: An enemy healing an ally is also something I'd rather rather him not to, so that should be an attack too, doesn't it? By your reasoning, standing around doing nothing is an attack because I'd rather the enemy does not do that and offers him to be CdG'd instead.
You know when you attempt a saving throw.
Not quite. You know when you succeed in your save. A failed attempt gives no indication.
I'd say that's true for mind affecting saves. It might be true for will saves in general. It's probably not true for reflex and fortitude saves. If you are poisoned you should know it even if it doesn't damage you.
Not an attack = anything that does not target a foe, does not require a foe to make a saving throw, does not immediately affect a foe, does not impose a negative effect on a foe.
If it violates any one of those it is an attack.
Things that affect your allies cannot be attacks, pretty much by definition, - haste, bulls strength, mass heal etc.
The Combat page defines attacks and defines using Su abilities. It does not say using an Su ability is an attack.
It tells of Attack(melee), Attack(ranged), Attack(unarmed), Attack of Opportunity, Touch Attacks, and so on. It does not tell of Supernatural attacks.
Wrong section of the rules. You did notice that I gave a page number in my last post, right? The "attack" defined in the combat section has absolutely nothing to do with the "attack" defined in the magic section.
Yes, that's stupidly confusing. I recently talked about this very topic.
Every line in this text refers to spells except one line that refers to channeling, and the one line you point out. This is in a section on spells specifically.
Does this one line refer to offensive combat actions of spells or of all possible actions. Ordinarily, with all other text in the paragraph, and several paragraphs in a row about spells, I would say no. The line about channeling, however lends doubt. If you treat it like elsewhere as a listed exception, then it is the only exception and everything else is spells. Which means Su abilities are not covered since they are not spells or spell-likes.
I think that RAW a Su ability does not break invisibility, but the above text does weaken the case.
/cevah
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
They have used the spell stacking rules to block:
Stacking of Bashing (magical weapon property) and Spiked Shields (non-magical mundane item modification.)
Aspect of the Falcon multiplier (x2 to x3) and the threat range stacking (19-20 to 17-20).
Many other non spell effects.
So I totally don't understand why people continue to reject things that refer to "spells" for other effects. Spells are most of the effects in the game but they really don't want to balloon the book by "and other magical and non magical effects" every time the word spells is used?
Every line in this text refers to spells except one line that refers to channeling, and the one line you point out.
'Every sentence in that part exept half of them mention spells, therefore, it only applies to spells.' Are you serious? The first sentence addresses what this rule is to be used for, and the actual rule (four sentences) consists of one sentence stating the general rule, and three examples. The general rule includes all actions, and there are examples for both spell and non-spell actions.
This is in a section on spells specifically.
Er, yes, because it explains what the word "attack" in spells (like Invisibility) means. Where is your argument?
The line about channeling, however lends doubt.
Now it's getting ridiulous. You have an actual proof that your stance can not possibly be right (if the rule only did include spells, it couldn't possibly include rules for channeling), yet still refuse to change it.
When the rules say " All offensive combat actions (...) are considered attacks.", then they mean that every. Single. F+$$ing. Offensive. Combat. Action counts as an attack for spells like Invisibility!
I can't even call what you're doing 'grasping at straws' because there are no straws to grasp here. There is not the slightest thing that supports your stance.
|
|
They have used the spell stacking rules to block:
Stacking of Bashing (magical weapon property) and Spiked Shields (non-magical mundane item modification.)
Aspect of the Falcon multiplier (x2 to x3) and the threat range stacking (19-20 to 17-20).
Many other non spell effects.So I totally don't understand why people continue to reject things that refer to "spells" for other effects. Spells are most of the effects in the game but they really don't want to balloon the book by "and other magical and non magical effects" every time the word spells is used?
Wishful thinking coupled with "we will be free to do use this kind of shenanigans, but it would be unfair if the GM used them on us".
What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. 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. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
This is the FAQ. It seems that they can always tell who is doing the ability in question. I would like to know if what skills can be used to mask the manifestation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the FAQ. It seems that they can always tell who is doing the ability in question. I would like to know if what skills can be used to mask the manifestation.
Google the feats Cunning Caster (not legal in PFS) and Conceal Spell.
Every line in this text refers to spells except one line that refers to channeling, and the one line you point out.'Every sentence in that part exept half of them mention spells, therefore, it only applies to spells.' Are you serious? The first sentence addresses what this rule is to be used for, and the actual rule (four sentences) consists of one sentence stating the general rule, and three examples. The general rule includes all actions, and there are examples for both spell and non-spell actions.
3/5 is not half.
This is in a section on spells specifically.Er, yes, because it explains what the word "attack" in spells (like Invisibility) means. Where is your argument?
In the class descriptions, the word "level" refers to "class level" not "character level". This is because it is in a section on classes. Why should I assume something is talking about something beyond the section it is in if it does not call out that it is talking about something bigger? The paragraph is predominantly about spells. The paragraph is surrounded by discussion about spells ["Special Spell Effects"]. The discussion is in a chapter on Magic, which does not talk about anything other than spells until the very last page. How am I not to think the line in question applies to something other than spells?
The line about channeling, however lends doubt.Now it's getting ridiulous. You have an actual proof that your stance can not possibly be right (if the rule only did include spells, it couldn't possibly include rules for channeling), yet still refuse to change it.
I give an inch, and this?
When the rules say " All offensive combat actions (...) are considered attacks.", then they mean that every. Single. F@~#ing. Offensive. Combat. Action counts as an attack for spells like Invisibility!
I can't even call what you're doing 'grasping at straws' because there are no straws to grasp here. There is not the slightest thing that supports your stance.
As the term "offensive combat actions" is not defined, I have to use plain language to understand. In a section about spells, I assume it is talking about spells. Especially as it is NOT the first statement in a paragraph, like many things that call out exceptions.
I am applying consistency in using the rule set and come up with this interpretation. You take one statement from the middle of a paragraph and call it a general rule. That process does not make sense to me.
---
Conceal SpellThis is the FAQ. It seems that they can always tell who is doing the ability in question. I would like to know if what skills can be used to mask the manifestation.Google the feats Cunning Caster (not legal in PFS) and Conceal Spell.
/cevah
|
|
LOL, depend on the effect. If the failed roll had me turning into a fish I will notice the attempt. For a brief time, probably.You know when you attempt a saving throw.Not quite. You know when you succeed in your save. A failed attempt gives no indication.
You didn't consider the whole text. Turning into a fish falls under the "obvious physical effect" bit.
"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. "
As the term "offensive combat actions" is not defined, I have to use plain language to understand.
The text says " offensive combat actions (...) are considered attacks." Go open a dictionary and look up what the word "all" means.
3/5 is not half.
I already adressed that. In the very text you quoted. Which you apparently quoted without reading it. If you had read it, you would also understand why the whole thing is in the magic rules.
By the strictest readings of the spell, invisibility, witch hexes do not count as an attack. There are not weapons or spells, but supernatural abilities.Actually attack is pretty much anything the target would rather you not do, as adjudicated by the GM. So witch hexes often/always are attacks unless it's like a healing hex.
Again, the entire rules uses "spell" as shorthand for "spells and effects". So non spells are included, such as hexes.
So would Thrump the Barbarian know that Benton the Witch is hexing him?
By the strictest readings of the spell, invisibility, witch hexes do not count as an attack. There are not weapons or spells, but supernatural abilities.Actually attack is pretty much anything the target would rather you not do, as adjudicated by the GM. So witch hexes often/always are attacks unless it's like a healing hex.
Again, the entire rules uses "spell" as shorthand for "spells and effects". So non spells are included, such as hexes.
So would Thrump the Barbarian know that Benton the Witch is hexing him?
With the manifestation FAQ, everyone in the area will notice the witch is using magic. Thrump the Barbarian will notice if he has to save and makes it. Spellcraft checks will be needed to figure out what kind of magic was used.
|
|
LOL, depend on the effect. If the failed roll had me turning into a fish I will notice the attempt. For a brief time, probably.You know when you attempt a saving throw.Not quite. You know when you succeed in your save. A failed attempt gives no indication.You didn't consider the whole text. Turning into a fish falls under the "obvious physical effect" bit.
"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. "
I replied to VRMH asolute statement: "A failed attempt gives no indication.", not to the rule text. That is the reason of the LOL.
manefestations are for spells and SLA, not for SU.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
manefestations are for spells and SLA, not for SU.
Ah... Why?
Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation.
Why doesn't SU fall under "and the like"? Why would a SLA that makes a bolt of fire cause manifestations but a SU bolt of fire not? I see nothing under Supernatural Abilities to suggest it differs from Spell-Like Abilities in methods of detection. If it's been clarified, would you point me to where. As-is, it reads to me that you need special abilities to use magic without a manifestation and SU are 'magical but not spell-like'.
Well, for one thing, Supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity, do not allow for Spell Resistance, and cannot be dispelled; whereas Spells and Spell-like abilities are subject to all of the above. They are completely different things, and do not follow the same rules.
To hammer it home, it can also be noted that while Spellcraft can be used to determine a particular Spell or Spell-like ability is being used, you cannot use Spellcraft to identify a Supernatural ability as it is being used.
The FAQ answers a question explicitly for spells and SLAs, and it says "spell’s manifestation" and uses the word "spellcaster".
SU don't fall under "and the like" because the whole thing is about spells. SLAs are mostly spells. Psychic spells are spells. Stilled, silenced spells are spells. Does a monk attacking someone fall under the "and the like"? Because Ki Pool is SU, too. Can you instantly recognise ghoul fever with a mere spellcraft check?
How would one identify a hex? The Spellcraft skill has no option for identifiyng supernatural abilities.
How would one identify a hex? The Spellcraft skill has no option for identifiyng supernatural abilities.
Spymaster's Handbook has the unfortunately named "Recall Intrigues" knowledge skill option that lets you use assorted knowledge skills to identify class features as they are used.
Recall Intrigues (Knowledge)
You can identify feats and the class features of various classes with successful Knowledge checks when you observe the feats or class features being used.
Check: You can attempt a skill check to identify a feat or class feature when you observe it in use, similar to how Spellcraft can be used to identify a spell. The feat or class feature must have some observable effect in order for you to attempt the Knowledge check. For example, you can’t see the internal determination of Iron Will, so this ability can’t identify that feat. In general, if a feat or class feature creates a noticeable effect (such as the extra attack from using Cleave) or has a variable modifier a character must choose to use (such as Arcane Strike, Combat Expertise, or Enlarge Spell), it can be identified. If it creates a static bonus (such as Dodge or Lightning Reflexes), there’s no telltale sign to give it away.
The Knowledge skill required to identify a feat or class feature varies depending on the type of feat or class feature to be identified and is outlined in the Recall Intrigues (Knowledge) table above, along with the DCs of such skill checks.
Knowledge Arcana is used for identifying class features of classes that cast arcane or psychic spells. DC is 10 + the level at which the feature is gained. So DC 11 for hexes that can be taken at level 1.
manefestations are for spells and SLA, not for SU.Ah... Why?
Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation.Why doesn't SU fall under "and the like"? Why would a SLA that makes a bolt of fire cause manifestations but a SU bolt of fire not? I see nothing under Supernatural Abilities to suggest it differs from Spell-Like Abilities in methods of detection. If it's been clarified, would you point me to where. As-is, it reads to me that you need special abilities to use magic without a manifestation and SU are 'magical but not spell-like'.
Like deadbeat doom said, They can't be spellcrafted. Since you can spellcraft manifestations to ID the spell, it would seem that SU's wouldn't have any since they can't be identified.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So just to be clear, Thrump the Barbarian would know that somebody used magic on him regardless of whether or not he saved successfully but would not know that it was an Evil Eye hex or who did it without making a knowledge (Arcana) roll with DC 11?
No, on a failed save, Thrump doesn't notice anything. On a successful save, Thrump notices that something hostile tried to affect him, but nothing more than that.
If a check to identify is even possibly depends on if the GM uses those rules, and if he counts hexes as "observable".