Gnorm's page

I'm not saying that every spell needs an equivalent spell word, but when you can't create an undead creature with the system, you're missing something.

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the Undeath effect word already do this? It seems to already be Animate Dead minus the 25 gp/hd cost.

Either way, I'm looking forward to seeing what you end up adding to the system.

Yeah, I completely understand where you're coming from. Either seems arguable from a RAW point of view and either makes enough sense (the idea of all magic use being known especially makes sense if you're trying to reduce the use or power of magic). I don't have a problem with that interpretation, although I personally prefer making someone have at least a point in spellcraft.

I just wasn't sure because a few people in the thread seemed absolutely sure that everyone is aware of nearby magic use and I had trouble figuring out if that was 100% RAW or a particular interpretation of a vague rule. Seems like it's the second :)

Odlus wrote:

and more just being able to sense the pull on the Aether as the spell comes into being, or something like that

You are now the first person who even attempted to answer my question! Thank you! We finally have an alternative explanation in the thread.

Odlus wrote:

a random commoner in a bar will have no idea what the Paladin is doing on that basis.

I agree and always have. A random person without the skill cannot identify the spell. However Spellcraft never mentions anything about knowing there's magic.

There is a difference between knowing that magic happened and being able to identify what it is. In your interpretation, can it not be said that everybody nearby feels a pull on the Aether but has no idea what happened unless they can identify it with Spellcraft?

I could see allowing it for a high enough spell just for a sort of rule of cool thing (the magic is so powerful that even Billy 5 miles away feels something crazy is about to go down), but I don't think it has much basis in the rules. Then, as you pointed out, the problem with my interpretation is that I'm assuming that detecting the casting of a spell at all falls under the use of Spellcraft, which it never mentions... just identifying what the spell is. How exactly you know a spell is being cast seems absent from the rules.

As far as I can tell there's really no set ruling on this, so I'm basing my interpretations on popular fantasy tropes. And anyone nearby being able to sense when magic happened (even if they don't know what exactly the magic did) would ruin a lot of potential sneaky spell uses. And, now that I think about it, it would make one of the uses for the Spellsong feat pretty pointless, why would you bother attempting to hide the fact that you're casting a spell if everyone can sense it anyway? Unless Spellsong is meant to hide the spell from that natural "magic sense" everyone apparently has, which would then seem support the idea that normal magic use is extremely obvious to everyone nearby (or else Bards wouldn't have to take a feat to hide their casting). But then that makes you wonder why it's a Perception / Sense Motive check in this case but not normally when it comes to everyone's natural "magic sense." It it just for the sake of hiding the V/S components of the spell, essentially making the feat a Still Spell ect. without requiring the increased spell level slot? Does that mean it is an effect that doesn't actually do anything since everyone just "knows" you used magic anyway?

Very frustrating/interesting issue.

Except for the magic. I generally always agree with the aforementioned stance mentioned by Jason Buhlman that magic itself is something to see/smell/hear/taste/feel.

It doesn't need a spell component to be seen, because the glowing eyes is always an option.

As all threads that I take this stance, may I remind everybody that the book does not mention that magic has a visual effect. The book ALSO does not mention that magic does NOT have a visual effect. The interpretation that magic has a visual effect is an opinion of Jason Buhlman and others such as myself, and is practically the only way to explain how Spellcraft and identifying a spell actually works....

I'm pretty new to Pathfinder, just got the core rules a few weeks ago, but my interpretation of Spellcraft has always been less identifying physical aspects of the spell like "hey, he wiggled his pinky five times at X speed and waved his hand in a Z, he's clearly casting a Sleep spell!" and more just being able to sense the pull on the Aether as the spell comes into being, or something like that. It's subtle enough that you need to be witnessing the spell as it's being cast to detect it, but it does exist and those properly trained in Spellcrafting can do it.

But, anyway, I don't have a problem with someone trained in Spellcrafting being able to detect a Paladin using a spell-like ability like Detect Evil. The thing that I'm confused about is the claim I've seen in this thread that anyone around the Paladin will know they are using magic because of this.

Spellcrafting is a trained skill. As far as I'm aware (like I said, I'm pretty new so I can very well be wrong) someone who hasn't "trained" in Spellcrafting (put a point in it) is completely unable to make a Spellcrafting check, which means, no, a random commoner in a bar will have no idea what the Paladin is doing on that basis. They may think the Paladin is up to something if they're staring at someone, and if they are familiar with what Paladins can do then they might be able to suspect what they're up to. But I'm not seeing how some of the people in this thread have come to the conclusion that every random Joe in the area will know the Paladin used magic the moment he tries to use Detect Magic, no mater how discretely.

Even if we go with the interpretation that Spellcrafting is your ability to see physical things caused by the casting of magic, such as glowing, and not some kind of "sixth sense" type thing, it's still a trained ability, meaning that the "evidence" is subtle enough that not everyone even knows it is there. And this doesn't have real basis in a RAW discussion, but just on an aesthetics level I don't think I like the idea that a bard lights up like a magical christmas tree just from casting Prestidigitation.