Can this ability be used covertly such as during a handshake? Would the subject know they had been "scanned"?
Lore Keeper (Sp): You can touch a creature to learn about
its abilities and weaknesses. With a successful touch attack,
you gain information as if you made the appropriate
Knowledge skill check with a result equal to 15 + your cleric
level + your Wisdom modifier.
Well, you still have to make the successful touch attack. So, by RAW, even if the creature offers you its hand (or paw or talon or tentacle or whatever), you still have to roll a d20 and hit its touch AC to make the check.
Silly, I know, but RAW sometimes is.
As a spell-like ability, it has no components (verbal, somantic, etc.), so I think it would be rather covert. Not to say there's *no* way to identify the use of an ability like this, but since there's no saving throw, it's mostly an internal ability.
Spell like abilities are noticeable enough to provoke attacks of opportunities so I think they would be noticed as a part of a handshake.
Spell like abilities are noticeable enough to provoke attacks of opportunities so I think they would be noticed as a part of a handshake.
I could see it go either way, but that's a pretty good argument.
Spell like abilities are noticeable enough to provoke attacks of opportunities so I think they would be noticed as a part of a handshake.
Personally I don't think it has to be noticeable to provoke AoOs. I think it's enough that you have to focus on something else than the combat situation, so you can't anticipate their attacks.
Spelllike Abilities have always provoked Attacks Of Opportunity, if they didnt, then the creatures/users of these would never need to make a Concentration test (which they do need to do when threatened or grappled).
The only difference is it requires no verbal, somantic or material components but it does require at least some often mental action that does produce obviously magical effects - a character so affected by this type of ability for example would recieve a Save and if they passed they would know 'something' happened on the handshake but not know what. (Which can be dismissed by a Bluff roll or whatever).
All Spells and Spelllike abilities have visible components to the spell itself, wether it be sound, light or other effects - spells are not 'covert' enough to be subtle. (This was however a 2nd Edition D&D Mechanic that would resolve this as to what spells were subtle enough to be used when hidden for example). A rule of thumb is that spells have noticeable elements to it (hence why other characters recieve Spellcraft tests when watching you to see what it is your casting), but this can be overcome by being invisible or being sufficiently hidden/obscured.
Spelllike Abilities have always provoked Attacks Of Opportunity, if they didnt, then the creatures/users of these would never need to make a Concentration test (which they do need to do when threatened or grappled).The only difference is it requires no verbal, somantic or material components but it does require at least some often mental action that does produce obviously magical effects - a character so affected by this type of ability for example would recieve a Save and if they passed they would know 'something' happened on the handshake but not know what. (Which can be dismissed by a Bluff roll or whatever).
All Spells and Spelllike abilities have visible components to the spell itself, wether it be sound, light or other effects - spells are not 'covert' enough to be subtle. (This was however a 2nd Edition D&D Mechanic that would resolve this as to what spells were subtle enough to be used when hidden for example). A rule of thumb is that spells have noticeable elements to it (hence why other characters recieve Spellcraft tests when watching you to see what it is your casting), but this can be overcome by being invisible or being sufficiently hidden/obscured.
Ah, I didn't know all spells and spell-like abilities had visible components. Is there some kind of rule reference you could give me? Can't remember ever having seen that. I know that a creature passing a save knows something happened, but lore keeper doesn't allow a save.
Unless it's specifically stated in the prpg rules that all spells and spell-like abilities are obvious in nature, I'd rule that they aren't. Of course a fireball or sleet storm is obvious, but a silent, stilled owl's wisdom on self? I don't think it should be. The very idea of casting silent, stilled spells is usually to do it unnoticed.
I agree with stringburka. Spells and spell-like abilities generally provoke. But if you cast an eschewed materials, still, silent spell then an opponent would have to successfully make a spellcraft check to even realize that there is a spell-being cast that would provoke an attack of opportunity.
Though, a complication is that for spell-like abilities:
A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus.
But, we know that spell-like abilities do provoke attacks of opportunity.
A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus.But, we know that spell-like abilities do provoke attacks of opportunity.
To me, it's because you have to concentrate. In combat, you don't stand there waiting for the opponents attack roll, then roll your own, wait again and so on - you're constantly dodging and attempting to attack. When you have to focus on other stuff than dodging and parrying, like loading a crossbow or casting a spell, you won't dodge as well, and the opponent might have a chance of hitting you with their constant attacks - they get an attack of opportunity. Using a spell-like ability requires focus and concentration, even if you don't have to physically move or speak or anything - this distracts enough to cause an attack of opportunity.
That's how I've interpreted the rules, at least.
Let me further complicate the question by saying that we have historically allowed paladins to detect evil covertly or at least subtly too.
My thought is for a hand shake you are presumably approaching them and shaking hands... so getting a far away look in your eyes while shaking their hand would be at minimum odd, and most likely enough in a magic rich area for someone to suspect something.
It would be one thing if this was something you could hang back and avoid notice to do (like the paladin's detect evil) but you are up in their face shaking their hand... at minimum I would allow a perception check to know something isn't right.
My thought is for a hand shake you are presumably approaching them and shaking hands... so getting a far away look in your eyes while shaking their hand would be at minimum odd, and most likely enough in a magic rich area for someone to suspect something.
It would be one thing if this was something you could hang back and avoid notice to do (like the paladin's detect evil) but you are up in their face shaking their hand... at minimum I would allow a perception check to know something isn't right.
A skill check like perception, spellcraft or even maybe sense motive sounds like a good compromise. Any ideas for the DC if one went this way?
The problem, again, is that anyone who sees the ability being used is automatically entitled to a spellcraft roll to determine the nature of the magic being used, no perception or other roll required.
While not spelled out explicitly, it seems pretty clear that using the ability or casting the spell is so obvious that anyone will notice.
To me, it's because you have to concentrate. In combat, you don't stand there waiting for the opponents attack roll, then roll your own, wait again and so on - you're constantly dodging and attempting to attack. When you have to focus on other stuff than dodging and parrying, like loading a crossbow or casting a spell, you won't dodge as well, and the opponent might have a chance of hitting you with their constant attacks - they get an attack of opportunity. Using a spell-like ability requires focus and concentration, even if you don't have to physically move or speak or anything - this distracts enough to cause an attack of opportunity.The important thrust of this reply, with which agree, is that the attack is provoked not because opponents recognize a spell-like ability is cast, hey, now's my chance to pounce...it's because they notice a lack of concentration on the battle around them, an an apparent opening or two to attack. Which at least supports the idea that, out of combat, it might not be so obvious.
However, you might also give the caster a sleight of hand check or bluff check (touched on in earlier post, slightly different context) to make it fly...if they have ranks and talent in this field, that rewards them, if not, too hard to fool people.
LOL! Well sleight of hand hand or bluff would be right out of there for my character, but if one went that way it still raises the question of DC for said checks.
Sleight of Hand and Bluff are opposed checks, so the DC is set by whatever you roll. You roll SoH/Bluff and they roll Perception/Sense Motive. Whoever has the higher number wins.
A skill check like perception, spellcraft or even maybe sense motive sounds like a good compromise. Any ideas for the DC if one went this way?
While I would agree with the bluff vs sense motive I'm not sure SoH would really apply. Maybe a bluff vs SM first to know something is wrong, then a spellcraft vs CL +5 or +10 for them to know whats going on.
The problem, again, is that anyone who sees the ability being used is automatically entitled to a spellcraft roll to determine the nature of the magic being used, no perception or other roll required.
While not spelled out explicitly, it seems pretty clear that using the ability or casting the spell is so obvious that anyone will notice.
Not quite.
Identify Spell Being Cast: 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.
If you can clearly see a spell that is being cast, you are entitled to a spellcraft roll. Since spell-like abilities have no visible spellcasting associated with them, then you cannot clearly see the spell as it is being cast, thus no spellcraft roll.
Beyond that, if you are in a magic heavy world where people may anticipate these kind of things, there may be a low level wizard watching for dirty tricks via detect magic or similar detection spells. That is something I would do if I were a ruler in a fantasy world.
Well, you still have to make the successful touch attack. So, by RAW, even if the creature offers you its hand (or paw or talon or tentacle or whatever), you still have to roll a d20 and hit its touch AC to make the check.Silly, I know, but RAW sometimes is.
Touching a willing target does not require an attack roll. If the guy has his hand out to shake it, he is a willing target.
Also...
Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.
You can cast the ability, then hold the charge indefinately until you shake hands.
Several problems with your post Charender:
1. The rules you quoted don't say you can't make the check -- it says you take penalties on the check.
3. Would work if this was a touch spell which it is not. It is a spell-like ability which don't normally follow all the rules for spells. You can't "hold the charge" since it isn't a spell it activates when you touch them as a standard action, and not prior to that moment, due to the fact that you are not "casting" anything... the same reason you gave actually for what you claimed in part 1.
Now on part 1: If you said, "That's for identifying a spell not a spell like ability" you might have something...
*stuff that is wrong*
Well I appreciate the thought that you've put into you're argument, none of it is backed up by the rules. If you can see a spell being cast, you get a spellcraft roll. That's the rule. Still, silent, eschewed, have no effect on this roll. If any of them did, it seems like something that would be mentioned somewhere. Show me a rule that says otherwise and I'll happily agree. Until then, there is no "secret spellcasting."
... there is no "secret spellcasting."
In v3.5, there was close. Complete Scoundrel pg 85, Skill Trick "Conceal Spellcasting". If you had this skill trick and your sleight of hand check beat the observers perception check, the observer could not tell you were casting a spell, make an AoO against you for casting, nor attempt to counter your spell.
... there is no "secret spellcasting."In v3.5, there was close. Complete Scoundrel pg 85, Skill Trick "Conceal Spellcasting". If you had this skill trick and your sleight of hand check beat the observers perception check, the observer could not tell you were casting a spell, make an AoO against you for casting, nor attempt to counter your spell.
That's pretty cool. We have access to skill tricks, but it doesn't really help my character in question. BTW does the skill trick apply to spell like abilities, or is that a separate skill trick?
I would like to be able to use this ability subtly like a paladin's detect evil, but I don't think RAW supports it.
Of course any rule the players can liberally read can be used by the bad guys the same way, so I'm not too broken up by the notion. ;)
Thanks!
*stuff that is wrong*Well I appreciate the thought that you've put into you're argument, none of it is backed up by the rules. If you can see a spell being cast, you get a spellcraft roll. That's the rule. Still, silent, eschewed, have no effect on this roll. If any of them did, it seems like something that would be mentioned somewhere. Show me a rule that says otherwise and I'll happily agree. Until then, there is no "secret spellcasting."
While I'm not saying you are wrong, you are using what seems to be circular logic. Your argument seems to follow this line of logic:
1. Whenever a spell is seen cast, observers get spellcraft rolls.2. Since all observers get spellcraft rolls, the spell is obviously seen cast.
Your argument is proving itself, because if spells aren't seen, observers don't get spellcraft checks and as such the check is not proof of a spell being cast.
I would like to be able to use this ability subtly like a paladin's detect evil, but I don't think RAW supports it.
The RAW seems to be silent on the matter, unfortunately.
*stuff that is wrong*Well I appreciate the thought that you've put into you're argument, none of it is backed up by the rules. If you can see a spell being cast, you get a spellcraft roll. That's the rule. Still, silent, eschewed, have no effect on this roll. If any of them did, it seems like something that would be mentioned somewhere. Show me a rule that says otherwise and I'll happily agree. Until then, there is no "secret spellcasting."While I'm not saying you are wrong, you are using what seems to be circular logic. Your argument seems to follow this line of logic:
1. Whenever a spell is seen cast, observers get spellcraft rolls.
2. Since all observers get spellcraft rolls, the spell is obviously seen cast.Your argument is proving itself, because if spells aren't seen, observers don't get spellcraft checks and as such the check is not proof of a spell being cast.
The RAW seems to be silent on the matter, unfortunately.
I would like to be able to use this ability subtly like a paladin's detect evil, but I don't think RAW supports it.
You and Abraham both make well reasoned arguments, and I could see a ruling go either way, but I tend to lean his way.
I would be curious to get feed back from one of the designers, but I won't complain if the GM rules that i can't use the SLA very discreetly.
I would be curious to get feed back from one of the designers,
Me too. I think it's quite important to know if spellcasting always produces obvious effects, not only when someone is trying to cast spells covertly but also for when they don't really try but just so happens.
*stuff that is wrong*Well I appreciate the thought that you've put into you're argument, none of it is backed up by the rules. If you can see a spell being cast, you get a spellcraft roll. That's the rule. Still, silent, eschewed, have no effect on this roll. If any of them did, it seems like something that would be mentioned somewhere. Show me a rule that says otherwise and I'll happily agree. Until then, there is no "secret spellcasting."
Going back to the 3.5 SRD
Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry
Now, the PF SRD is vague about what constitutes seeing the spellcasting, so I would use the 3.5 version for clarification. I see nothing in the PF version of spellcraft that negates or overrides the way spellcraft worked in 3.5.
If a spell has no verbal or somatic components, then you get no spellcraft roll.
Several problems with your post Charender:
1. The rules you quoted don't say you can't make the check -- it says you take penalties on the check.
3. Would work if this was a touch spell which it is not. It is a spell-like ability which don't normally follow all the rules for spells. You can't "hold the charge" since it isn't a spell it activates when you touch them as a standard action, and not prior to that moment, due to the fact that you are not "casting" anything... the same reason you gave actually for what you claimed in part 1.
Now on part 1: If you said, "That's for identifying a spell not a spell like ability" you might have something...
If I had inflict light wounds as a spell like ability I could still hold the charge correct? Why would this spell-like ability be treated any different?
There are no spells that activate on touch, there are only touch spells. What you suggest would be an entirely new category of spell, touch spells that cannot be held as charges. Spell-like abilities are like spells with no components and thus follow the same rules as spells. Which means they will fit into the same categories as spells.
If someone created a spell that acted just like this ability, it would be a touch spell. Since we don't have a full spell entry like we have for a spell like inflict light wounds, we have to extrapolate the spell that this spell-like ability is based on. I would still treat the ability just like any other touch spell.
If you had "Inflict light wounds" as a spell like ability you would notice that it is a spell like ability that specifically mimics a spell and therefore works like the spell does.
In the case of the lore keeper ability it does not duplicate any known spell and doesn't reference any other rules therefore only works as it says it does.
If you had "Inflict light wounds" as a spell like ability you would notice that it is a spell like ability that specifically mimics a spell and therefore works like the spell does.
In the case of the lore keeper ability it does not duplicate any known spell and doesn't reference any other rules therefore only works as it says it does.
No where does it specifically state that the touch attack is part of the casting. In fact, since it is a spell-like ability the ability by definition has no somatic component, thus I would strongly argue that the attack is not part of the casting of the spell. I still don't see anything in the ability as written that says you cannot hold the charge.
Actually it specifically states that the touch is needed. Please note --once again -- you don't cast spell like abilities. You use them.
"Lore Keeper (Sp): You can touch a creature to learn about its abilities and weaknesses. With a successful touch attack, you gain information as if you made the appropriate Knowledge skill check with a result equal to 15 + your cleric level + your Wisdom modifier."
It isn't a spell. It doesn't reference any spell. It doesn't state you can hold the charge. Since it isn't a spell normal spell effects/rules do not apply to it (spell like ability effects/rules do). It does specifically state you must touch the creature to use the ability. You can't "pre-use" it because you can't "pre-touch" the target.
Actually it specifically states that the touch is needed. Please note --once again -- you don't cast spell like abilities. You use them.
"Lore Keeper (Sp): You can touch a creature to learn about its abilities and weaknesses. With a successful touch attack, you gain information as if you made the appropriate Knowledge skill check with a result equal to 15 + your cleric level + your Wisdom modifier."
It isn't a spell. It doesn't reference any spell. It doesn't state you can hold the charge. Since it isn't a spell normal spell effects/rules do not apply to it (spell like ability effects/rules do). It does specifically state you must touch the creature to use the ability. You can't "pre-use" it because you can't "pre-touch" the target.
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spell-like abilities and actual spellcasting power.
"In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell." is the important part IMO That means a spell-like ability use the same rules that spells use. A touch spell-like ability is a touch spell-like ability.
You are saying that the touch attack is a somatic component of the spell-like ability, when the rules flat out state that spell-like abilities do not have somatic components.
Right, Lore Keeper isn't a touch spell. Touch spells have Range: Touch in their descriptor, Lore Keeper doesn't.
Right, Lore Keeper isn't a touch spell. Touch spells have Range: Touch in their descriptor, Lore Keeper doesn't.
That is the problem, we don't have the description of the spell it is mimicing. Absent that, I can argue it both ways, and we will never get a resolution.
It doesn't mimic a spell at all. That's where I get the point of "can't do this" since the ability specifically says it works on a touch. I see it as an "I touch you and gain this knowledge" not "I decide I might want to touch you later to gain this knowledge so I'll charge it now."
The ability isn't a crossbow where you can load it ahead of time. I would put it like "preconcentrating" on dectect evil for a paladin or "precharging" lay on hands.
In the case of an ability like this you have to touch to activate the ability.
It doesn't mimic a spell at all. That's where I get the point of "can't do this" since the ability specifically says it works on a touch. I see it as an "I touch you and gain this knowledge" not "I decide I might want to touch you later to gain this knowledge so I'll charge it now."
The ability isn't a crossbow where you can load it ahead of time. I would put it like "preconcentrating" on dectect evil for a paladin or "precharging" lay on hands.
In the case of an ability like this you have to touch to activate the ability.
But that implies that the touch is a somatic component which is required to cast the spell.
Either the touch is a component of casting(IE somatic component) or is it just required to discharge the spell after casting it(standard touch spell).
Actually it's neither. It's activation. You can't simply stand there and use the ability. Without something to touch it doesn't work. You don't have a somatic component (that being hand movements you have to do to cast a spell before the touch attack -- please note that the touch attack isn't a somatic component for touch spells either, it is a free action after casting the spell... after all you aren't still casting it the next turn when you are holding the charge with say, inflict light wounds) you have a touch dependent ability.
The difference:
Somatic components are things you must do while casting a spell, if you don't do them you don't cast the spell. A touch spell is also touch dependent, however with an actual touch spell you can hold the charge -- that is wait until later to touch someone.
Touch dependent spell-like abilities (such as this one and lay on hands) are "primed" in that as soon as you spend a standard action to touch someone you use the ability -- but you must touch them and use the standard action -- otherwise you get nothing.
Actually it's neither. It's activation. You can't simply stand there and use the ability. Without something to touch it doesn't work. You don't have a somatic component (that being hand movements you have to do to cast a spell before the touch attack -- please note that the touch attack isn't a somatic component for touch spells either, it is a free action after casting the spell... after all you aren't still casting it the next turn when you are holding the charge with say, inflict light wounds) you have a touch dependent ability.
The difference:
Somatic components are things you must do while casting a spell, if you don't do them you don't cast the spell. A touch spell is also touch dependent, however with an actual touch spell you can hold the charge -- that is wait until later to touch someone.
Touch dependent spell-like abilities (such as this one and lay on hands) are "primed" in that as soon as you spend a standard action to touch someone you use the ability -- but you must touch them and use the standard action -- otherwise you get nothing.
1. Lay on Hands is supernatural not spell-like.
2. You are proposing that touch spell-like abilities do not behave like touch spells, except spell-like abilities are supposed to behave just like spells without components.
Spells and Spell-like Abilities function and work the same way mechanically, though Spell-like Abilities do not need verbal, somantic or material components they do require effort of some sort on the part of the user (otherwise they would never provoke Attacks Of Opportunity...which they most certainly do).
Spell-like Abilities dont require verbal or somantic components but they DO require some concentration and have obviously magical effects when used - they are not covert or any more stealthy than a normal mage who uses it, the only difference is HOW the end result is achieved, two roads to the same end but all those who witness the creature/caster using the spell/spellike ability get Spellcraft rolls (no exceptions).
No two mages on the street exactly cast any given spell the same way, but there are things about spellcasting that are notable that another mage would notice the opponent is using a "Burning Hands" spell against him or on someone else if he passed his Spellcraft test even though his working of the spell is different (this is why when you fail to copy spells to a spellbook you have to get another sample of it from another source, which is different than the one you tried with before, and you have to gain a rank in Spellcraft to make this learning aspect mechanically possible for a spell that was inproperly copied).
To identify a spell/spellike abiliity thats in effect that you didnt see cast is a slightly higher DC. A Spell-like "Mage Armor" is no different than a Spell version for this purpose, both produce very similar visible results but the methods to achieve each met the same conclusion. Ergo, you get a spellcraft roll, unless your proporting that Spell-Like Abilities are somehow too alien for anyone to understand which is absurd - they are simple mechanical effects designed to make them work seamlessly in the game and they produce effects identical to that of spells, which still require a STANDARD ACTION to use like spells do unless the spell is a Immediate, Swift or Full Round action of course...but even then the spell works the same way regardless how its cast.
Spells and Spell-like Abilities function and work the same way mechanically, though Spell-like Abilities do not need verbal, somantic or material components they do require effort of some sort on the part of the user (otherwise they would never provoke Attacks Of Opportunity...which they most certainly do).Spell-like Abilities dont require verbal or somantic components but they DO require some concentration and have obviously magical effects when used - they are not covert or any more stealthy than a normal mage who uses it, the only difference is HOW the end result is achieved, two roads to the same end but all those who witness the creature/caster using the spell/spellike ability get Spellcraft rolls (no exceptions).
No two mages on the street exactly cast any given spell the same way, but there are things about spellcasting that are notable that another mage would notice the opponent is usin a "Burning Hands" spell or whatever if he passed his Spellcraft test.
To identify a spell/spellike abiliity thats in effect that you didnt see cast is a slightly higher DC. A Spelllike "Mage Armor" is no different than a Spell version for this purpose, both produce very similar visible results but the methods to achieve each met the same conclusion. Ergo, you get a spellcraft roll, unless your proporting that Spell-Like Abilities are somehow too alien for anyone to understand which is absurd - they are simple mechanical effects that produce effects idetical to that of spells, which still require a STANDARD ACTION to use like spells do unless the spell is a Immediate, Swift or Full Round action of course...but even then the spell works the same way regardless how its cast.
I would have to disagree with your supposition that ALL spells have obvious effects Burning hands and fireball have very obvious effects, and not matter how you cast them, someone will know that a spell has been cast.
What obvious effect does detect magic have? If I cast detect magic, outside of the verbal and somatic components of casting the spell, what obvious effect would there be to tell anyone that I cast a spell? If I cast detect magic then walk into the room, outside of the fact that I would seem distracted by maintaining concentration on my DM spell(sense motive check to notice the distraction), what visible effect would there be to let anyone know that I was maintaining a spell?
Most divination spells give the caster knowledge by planting that knowledge directly in their head, and as such they would have very little, if any, visible effect for someone to see.
Also, I would disagree that 2 mages will casting the same spell would have significant differences. While they may not use the exact same motions, they will use many of the same components when casting identical spells. Slight variations are why you cannot take a 10 on spell craft rolls, but if the castings were completely different, then spellcraft as a skill would not work.
I am proposing that someone with this ability could use the ability while not being observed and hold the charge on their hand. If they touch anyone else, the charge is expended. So if they have to shake hands with multiple people in a reception line, the ability goes off on the first person touched. This is standard for how touch spells work. Further if someone is using detect magic in the area they will detect the aura of a divination spell on the person when they are holding a charge of the spell.
If the caster tries to cast the spell while being observed, everyone observing the player would get a sense motive check to notice that something seems amiss with the player, but since there are no verbal or somatic components to observe, there would be no spellcraft check.
If the target of the spell makes their saving throw, they would know that a spell had been cast on them. They would not know who did it, but the person who just shook their hand would be the most obvious suspect.
"Detect Magic" is a 60 ft cone, ever seen "Wrath Of The Dragon God"?, a D&D movie no less, it showed the spell being used and it created a cone of golden transparent light that 'illuminated' magical auras in the vicinity.
Since the ages of 2nd Edition, spells then had factors in the spells themselves that explained how 'vulgar' or 'obvious' the spell was to onlookers and ALL spells produced some kind of effect regardless what it was.
In 3.5 and Pathfinder, all spells are not some mundane handwave or incomprehensible muttering, they have elaborate and deliberately obvious effects (the Somantic and Verbal part), but so do Spell-Like Abilities, they provoke Attacks Of Opportunity and rightly so, they function like spells in every aspect but they are conjured a little differently. Note that nowhere has it ever been written that Spell-Like abilities are alien to "Spellcraft" tests, it works just the same.
A hundred mages who all would cast "Mage Armor" never do it the same way, each has a different understanding of the spell and wrote it into their spellbooks differently - thus, they cast it differently from one another. But key components of the spell remain the same that allows people to use Spellcraft to identify the spell when it has been cast regardless how it came about. Otherwise what your proposing is that Spelllike Abilities, as well as all Wands, Staves and other items that produce spell effects should be exempt from this roll...which is NOT part of the RAW of Pathfinder I am afraid or 3.5.
"Detect Magic" is a 60 ft cone, ever seen "Wrath Of The Dragon God"?, a D&D movie no less, it showed the spell being used and it created a cone of golden transparent light that 'illuminated' magical auras in the vicinity.Since the ages of 2nd Edition, spells then had factors in the spells themselves that explained how 'vulgar' or 'obvious' the spell was to onlookers and ALL spells produced some kind of effect regardless what it was.
In 3.5 and Pathfinder, all spells are not some mundane handwave or incomprehensible muttering, they have elaborate and deliberately obvious effects (the Somantic and Verbal part), but so do Spell-Like Abilities, they provoke Attacks Of Opportunity and rightly so, they function like spells in every aspect but they are conjured a little differently. Note that nowhere has it ever been written that Spell-Like abilities are alien to "Spellcraft" tests, it works just the same.
A hundred mages who all would cast "Mage Armor" never do it the same way, each has a different understanding of the spell and wrote it into their spellbooks differently - thus, they cast it differently from one another. But key components of the spell remain the same that allows people to use Spellcraft to identify the spell when it has been cast regardless how it came about. Otherwise what your proposing is that Spelllike Abilities, as well as all Wands, Staves and other items that produce spell effects should be exempt from this roll...which is NOT part of the RAW of Pathfinder I am afraid or 3.5.
Actually, it is RAW for 3.5.
3.5 SRD for spell craftThe 3.5 SRD specifically states that you must observe verbal or somatic components of a spell being cast to identify it.
As for visible effects, it is a movie of course they are going to make EVERYTHING have special effects. No where in the spell description for detect magic is there anything to suggest that it has any visible effect. I haven't seen that movie, but did he spend more than 3 seconds(a standard action) to cast the spell? Did he have to maintain concentration on the spell afterwards? You will have to excuse me if I don't consider Hollywood to be the final say for answers to rules questions.
And we agree that multiple casters casting the same spell would all use the same key components. Thus if you are unable to observe those key components you are unable to identify the spell being cast.
Nowhere under the RAW of "Spellcraft" are Spell-like Abilities exempted, and indeed "Spell-Like Abilities" are mentioned in their own entry as being the following...
"Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is surpressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal"
That was on Page 554 of the Core Rulebook.
So Spell-Like Abilities can be counterspelled...now what is entailed in a counterspell?, it DEMANDS the character make a Spellcraft test to identify the spell being cast before the required spell is used to counterspell it. IF the entry said Spell-Like abilities could not be Counterspelled, only then could you say Spellcraft did not apply to them.
Counterspell = Spellcraft Test + Correct Spell To Counterspell
No Counterspell is possible without a Spellcraft Test
Pretty clear cut to me by the RAW, worked the same way in 3.5 too.
And as for the spell used in the WoTC approved movie, the character who used it stood there with her hands in a arcane gesture, pointing it around causing the cone of golden yellow energy to shine around the room, causing magical auras to illimunate where she found a Ring of The Ram hidden in a clay pot in the Goblin Chief's hut. And this wasnt Hollywood, it was a straight to DVD release and directly WoTC approved, it had Bruce Payne reprising his role as Damodar from the first movie.
Nowhere under the RAW of "Spellcraft" are Spell-like Abilities exempted, and indeed "Spell-Like Abilities" are mentioned in their own entry as being the following...
"Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is surpressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal"That was on Page 554 of the Core Rulebook.
So Spell-Like Abilities can be counterspelled...now what is entailed in a counterspell?, it DEMANDS the character make a Spellcraft test to identify the spell being cast before the required spell is used to counterspell it. IF the entry said Spell-Like abilities could not be Counterspelled, only then could you say Spellcraft did not apply to them.
Counterspell = Spellcraft Test + Correct Spell To Counterspell
No Counterspell is possible without a Spellcraft TestPretty clear cut to me by the RAW, worked the same way in 3.5 too.
And as for the spell used in the WoTC approved movie, the character who used it stood there with her hands in a arcane gesture, pointing it around causing the cone of golden yellow energy to shine around the room, causing magical auras to illimunate where she found a Ring of The Ram hidden in a clay pot in the Goblin Chief's hut. And this wasnt Hollywood, it was a straight to DVD release and directly WoTC approved, it had Bruce Payne reprising his role as Damodar from the first movie.
Dispel Magic as a CounterspellYou can usually use dispel magic to counterspell another spell being cast without needing to identify the spell being cast. Dispel magic doesn't always work as a counterspell (see the spell description).
You are not required to identify the spell being cast to counterspell it. Worked the same way in 3.5. That only proves my point that the spelcraft check is based on observing the casting of the spell. If the check was based on observing the effect, then the spell has already gone off, and it is too late to counterspell it. "Oh hey I am surrounded by fire and my flesh is burning, that wizard must have cast a fireball, let me counterspell it"
And no, spell-like abilities are not specifically exempted, any spell that has no verbal or somatic components is exempted from spellcraft checks. That includes quickened spells, spells with no verbal or somatic components via still and/or silent spell metamagic, and spell-like abilities.
Did you actually click the link I posted? The second line of the spellcraft DC chart says "DC 15 + spell level - Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry." That is verbatum from the 3.5 SRD and I see nothing in the PF SRD that changes how identifying a spell being cast works. The DC is even that same as it was in 3.5.
Finally, I don't care how a movie chose to represent magic. They were making a movie for entertainment. Nothing in the description of most divination spells even suggests that they have any kind of visible effect. Second Ed had a description of detect magic that made items glow to the caster, but that was a long time ago.
In reference to what 'counts' as a spell is what your missing, Spell-Like Abilities and Spells are the same thing, unless your trying to distinguish one as being totally alien to the other in the same manner that Psionics and Magic are not the same (and it is because they are explicitly mentioned in Psionics that they are not).
When it says "Spell-like abilities can be dispelled AND counterspelled as normal" note that the "dispelled" part is NOT chained to the "Counterspelled" part as if to explain that it is the ONLY means to couterspell a Spell-like Ability because its not. It says they can be dispelled and counterspelled normally, if Dispel Magic and similar effects were the ONLY means to counterspell it then it would not be done so "normally". "Normally" implies without restriction, which is what your proposing that ONLY Dispel Magic and similar effects work for counterspelling unidentified effects (thats simply an advantage Dispel Magic offers, it wasnt its absolute intention to be the sole counterspeller against spell-like abilities).
For your arguement to work the wording would have to say "Spell-Like abilities cannot be identified through the use of Spellcraft, and may only be counterspelled and dispelled by Dispel Magic and similar effects"
But since the wording is pretty clear that any mundane, basic counterspell would apply then it is evident that one can use Spellcraft to identify a spell or spell-like ability being cast...
Note the wording of "Spellcraft", it mentions SPELLS and that is exactly what Spell-like Abilities are, their parameters and function are exactly the same, you still get spell resistance, you can dispel an active SPELL thats been cast through a Spell-Like ability as sure as you could versus a spell thats been cast normally, and both can be counterspelled without complication - which is exactly what the wording of Spell-Like ability states.
Note that NOWHERE through any of the books does Spell-Like Ability be metioned as to be so distinct that it is exempt from Spellcraft rolls, it not - it works the same way spells do, but it requires a mental action to activate. The effects are otherwise exactly the same and pathfinder states and I quote for "Spellcraft" under the skills section in the Core Rulebook, the written RAW which supercedes anything written by and for 3.5.
Spellcraft
Action : Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action (EDIT : note that it says nothing about verbal or somantic gestures - only that the spell was witnessed to be cast), but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors. (EDIT : still no mention anywhere of somantic and verbal components)
Nowhere does it state you MUST witness the verbal and/or somantic components of a spell being cast, only that the spell must be witnessed when it is cast REGARDLESS of how it came to be cast and by what.
Thereby, you get Spellcraft no matter how a spell is cast as long as it happens in your presence, the DC is higher if your observing a spell effect in progress that you didnt see being cast. But you ALWAYS get a Spellcraft test if you witness any spell being used in your presence.
In reference to what 'counts' as a spell is what your missing, Spell-Like Abilities and Spells are the same thing, unless your trying to distinguish one as being totally alien to the other in the same manner that Psionics and Magic are not the same (and it is because they are explicitly mentioned in Psionics that they are not).
I think you are misunderstanding him rather than the reverse. We are all here aware that spells and spell-like abilities are similiar in this case. What we're arguing for is that spells and spell-like abilities may have their verbal and somatic components as their only telling part, in cases where the spell doesn't say anything else. Divinations seem to be especially prone to this. Detect magic, see invisible, message - neither HAS to have an obvious magic effect by RAW, as far as we've found. You COULD rule that for example the eyes glow when you're affected by see invisible, but you could as well rule that it's impossible to tell.
The same goes for casting a stilled, silent see invisible. You could rule that the caster only seem to be concentrating on something, or you could rule obvious magic effects (such as glowing eyes). In either case, 3.5 didn't allow a spellcraft check on such spells, and pathfinder says nothing about it. That is what a spell-like ability is similiar to - a silent, stilled spell.
We're not arguing it should be different between spells and spell-like abilities, we're arguing this might apply for both spell-like abilities and silent, stilled spells. That they can be dispelled has nothing to do with the issue.
Nowhere does it state you MUST witness the verbal and/or somantic components of a spell being cast, only that the spell must be witnessed when it is cast REGARDLESS of how it came to be cast and by what.
Thereby, you get Spellcraft no matter how a spell is cast as long as it happens in your presence, the DC is higher if your observing a spell effect in progress that you didnt see being cast. But you ALWAYS get a Spellcraft test if you witness any spell being used in your presence.
It says you must clearly see the spell to identify it, but it doesn't say that all spells can be clearly seen (especially not if their somatic component is removed). It doesn't say you always get a spellcraft check when someone casts a spell and you're present, it says you only get a spellcraft check if you can clearly see the spell.
The discussion at hand isn't "do you get a spellcraft check if you see a spell?", it's "can you always see a spell?" Since the description of identifying spells doesn't say so, it actually is of no value here.
----
On a side note, could you try to use a little less italics, capital letters and boldning? It makes it harder to read. Also, you seem to be putting words in people's mouth quite frequently, I've seen in both this and other threads, try to refrain from it. Many people will see it as rude, and it's a bit confusing. Not trying to be a besserwisser or anything, it's just a hint for how to have better forum discussions :)