| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This came up in another thread but I feel I should put this out there, as there seems to be some degree of confusion about the issue, let me state my case here afresh under a new title to grab peoples attention, I'd appreciate your input.
Spellcraft itself never states you need to see components of any sort being employed wether verbal, somantic and material...then all Wands, Staves, Scrolls and so forth should never entitle onlookers to a Spellcraft roll, and Spellcraft tests require you to be able to SEE your target only, a hidden or invisible target is immune to having Spellcraft rolls made against whatever they are casting.
I'd appreciate it if anyone would point me in the RAW where Spell-like Abilities that cannot be identified as by Spellcraft. You'll find infact it says they can be counterspelled normally as normal spells do (see below) and may be dispelled in addition to this, it does NOT say you have to use Dispel Magic to counterspell Spelllike Abilities, it says you can do so normally.
And Counterspelling by its very definition requires you to be able to identify the spell being cast (regardless of how its done) and then cast a proper counterspell against the magic being used. If Spellike Abilties were NOT subject to counterspelling normally it would say so under the entry but it states it works normally.
But as it is written in the RAW, all Spell-like Abilities are still SPELLS, and therefore allow an onlooker to make a Spellcraft test. What some are arguing is perhaps what 3.5 and 3.0 argued this to be but Pathfinder makes a VERY clear distinction about this
As of yet, I have seen no entry in the core rulebook or other Pathfinder books to suggest that Spelllike Abilities are immune to spellcraft tests. They're not, they work just like spells, save they dont need the messy components...
As for your query about the Knowledge rolls, that is something you may make to identify a spell that is in place OR to identify a spell that just targeted you, so you could rely on either method to identify any Spell-like Ability to detect what is coming at you. But you cannot make a Knowledge test to perform a Counterspell in ANY circmstance, it MUST be a Spellcraft roll.
Now reading what Counterspell says suggests you can very well indeed use Spellcraft... and read what it says about Spelllike Abilities too and you'll see why below.
Spell-like Abilities (Sp) (Page 554, Core Rulebook)
"Spell-like Abilities, as the name implies are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spelllike Abilities are subject to Spell Resistance and Dispel Magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as a Antimagic Field). Spelllike Abilities can be dispelled AND counterspelled as normal"Counterspells (Page 207 Core Rulebook)
"How Counterspells Work : To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing to ready an action (see Combat on page 203). In doing so you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. You may still move at your normal speed, since Ready is a standard action. If the target of the counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level), this check is a free action. If the check succeeds you correctly identify the opponents spell and can attempt to counter it, if your check fails you cannot do any of these two things..."
You CANNOT use Knowledge (Arcana) to perform a Counterspell at all, it MUST be a Spellcraft roll, without exception. It is for this reason that you get Spellcraft rolls period against Spelllike Abilities or against a spell being cast in general, from a Wand or Staff, etc as long as your able to see the caster clearly.
I'd appreciate it if anyone would point me in the RAW where Spell-like Abilities that cannot be identified as by Spellcraft.
I think the problem may stem from a 3.5 -> PF conversion issue.
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.
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.
Since spell-like abilities have no verbal or somatic components, in 3.5 you wouldn't be able to use spellcraft to identify a spell-like ability. This restriction is not present in Pathfinder. Someone could cast a spell with no components (e.g. Stilled, Silent) and still make a spellcraft check to identify the spell.
Whether or not this was the intent of PF is currently unknown (at least to my knowledge).
Apparently a change that slipped right under everyone's nose is that Paizo completely changed the rules for spell-like abilities in Pathfinder.
I'd appreciate it if anyone would point me in the RAW where Spell-like Abilities that cannot be identified as by Spellcraft.I think the problem may stem from a 3.5 -> PF conversion issue.
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.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.Since spell-like abilities have no verbal or somatic components, in 3.5 you wouldn't be able to use spellcraft to identify a spell-like ability. This restriction is not present in Pathfinder. Someone could cast a spell with no components (e.g. Stilled, Silent) and still make a spellcraft check to identify the spell.
Whether or not this was the intent of PF is currently unknown (at least to my knowledge).
That was more or less my observation yes, they changed how things work with regards to Spellike Abilities, now they can be identified by Spellcraft as long as the character can directly see someone using the Spell/Spellike Ability and the opponent isnt hidden or invisible.
And to further add interest to what I am sure will be a growing debate, Specialist Wizards get bonuses to identifying spells from their chosen school and penalties to identifying spells from forbidden schools of magic.
Since the singular, only requirement of a Spellcraft test now is that someone must be able to see the caster, theres no relevance to the 3.5 wording that states you must see the material, verbal and/or somantic components as theyre being used. Its a blanket roll against all Spell-like Abilities/Spells. Knowledge (Arcana) rolls cant be made as part of a Counterspell action, it has to be Spellcraft as it states in the ability itself, and since Spell-like Abilities can be counterspelled normally its tidied up the symmetry between Spells and Spellike abilities by bracketing them together in this way...I guess it was for ease of play and to help things run smoother.
Against a spell-like ability (or a stilled and silent spell for that matter) I would probably impose some sort of penalty to the spellcraft check due to "poor conditions". But otherwise, that appears to be exactly how it works in pathfinder PoC.
I am still not seeing it. Nowhere does it say you can counterspell SLA's.
There is no longer a definition for "what" you see, I suppose this was made to streamline the system. Wether you see someone waving their hands and chanting or just standing and 'staring', you get a Spellcraft roll either way.
Thats just the way it works now, why?, thats another question.
But that is the RAW, the entry for Spellcraft was changed for a reason I would guess, and it supercedes anything written in 3.5...why this happened is another matter, but the fact remains it has, and it looks deliberate. I like others just had to accept this.
This came up in another thread but I feel I should put this out there, as there seems to be some degree of confusion about the issue, let me state my case here afresh under a new title to grab peoples attention, I'd appreciate your input.
Spellcraft itself never states you need to see components of any sort being employed wether verbal, somantic and material...then all Wands, Staves, Scrolls and so forth should never entitle onlookers to a Spellcraft roll, and Spellcraft tests require you to be able to SEE your target only, a hidden or invisible target is immune to having Spellcraft rolls made against whatever they are casting.
Using wands, staves and scrolls is using a magic item, not casting a spell, by the PF RAW there is no DC for IDing the use of magic items, thus no spellcraft check.
Wands and staves are spell trigger with is very different from spell casting. Scrolls are spell completion which means you are performing the last part of the spell, so you can argue that you might get a spellcraft roll there, but by the RAW you don't.
I'd appreciate it if anyone would point me in the RAW where Spell-like Abilities that cannot be identified as by Spellcraft. You'll find infact it says they can be counterspelled normally as normal spells do (see below) and may be dispelled in addition to this, it does NOT say you have to use Dispel Magic to counterspell Spelllike Abilities, it says you can do so normally.And Counterspelling by its very definition requires you to be able to identify the spell being cast (regardless of how its done) and then cast a proper counterspell against the magic being used. If Spellike Abilties were NOT subject to counterspelling normally it would say so under the entry but it states it works normally.
Using dispel magic is part of normal counterspelling and does not require you to ID the spell. Not being able to ID a spell doesn't stop you from counterspelling normally.
But as it is written in the RAW, all Spell-like Abilities are still SPELLS, and therefore allow an onlooker to make a Spellcraft test. What some are arguing is perhaps what 3.5 and 3.0 argued this to be but Pathfinder makes a VERY clear distinction about thisAs of yet, I have seen no entry in the core rulebook or other Pathfinder books to suggest that Spelllike Abilities are immune to spellcraft tests. They're not, they work just like spells, save they dont need the messy components...
Except the part in the PF rules that state you must clearly see the spell being cast to identify it with spellcraft.
As for your query about the Knowledge rolls, that is something you may make to identify a spell that is in place OR to identify a spell that just targeted you, so you could rely on either method to identify any Spell-like Ability to detect what is coming at you. But you cannot make a Knowledge test to perform a Counterspell in ANY circmstance, it MUST be a Spellcraft roll.Now reading what Counterspell says suggests you can very well indeed use Spellcraft... and read what it says about Spelllike Abilities too and you'll see why below.
Quote:
Spell-like Abilities (Sp) (Page 554, Core Rulebook)
"Spell-like Abilities, as the name implies are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spelllike Abilities are subject to Spell Resistance and Dispel Magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as a Antimagic Field). Spelllike Abilities can be dispelled AND counterspelled as normal"Counterspells (Page 207 Core Rulebook)
"How Counterspells Work : To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing to ready an action (see Combat on page 203). In doing so you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. You may still move at your normal speed, since Ready is a standard action. If the target of the counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level), this check is a free action. If the check succeeds you correctly identify the opponents spell and can attempt to counter it, if your check fails you cannot do any of these two things..."You CANNOT use Knowledge (Arcana) to perform a Counterspell at all, it MUST be a Spellcraft roll, without exception. It is for this reason that you get Spellcraft rolls period against Spelllike Abilities or against a spell being cast in general, from a Wand or Staff, etc as long as your able to see the caster clearly.
Except you can still use dispel magic to counterspell without IDing the spell at all.
The only change made from 3.5 to PF is that you are not able to counterspell spell like abilities. Nothing else in PF RAW suggests that anything else about spell like abilities changes from 3.5 to PF.
Spell-like Abilities can be Counterspelled, says as much on Page 554 of the Core Rulebook (and even then says it can be counterspelled normally, without conditions or restrictions) and reading Counterspell itself it requires a Spellcraft roll to accomplish.
A creature with "Slow" as a Spellike Ability could thereby be countered by a spellcaster with a readied action and a "Haste" spell handy as long as he passes his Spellcraft roll.
I'd wager this game mechanic was changed to streamline the spellcasting system and make 'spells' easier to understand and use I would guess. Spell-like abilities are still spells at the end of the day, even if they are cast differently but it seems as if Spellcraft is an essential tool based on the RAW especially to the RAW of Spellike Abilities which concurrs with it through the medium of counterspelling which is SPECIFICALLY states works normally (ie...unconditionally, unimpedied, no need to use generic 'dispel magic' all the time because that would NOT be normal for counterspelling if that is the only means available)
And regardless what the text of 3.5 says under Spellcraft, it is replaced in whole by the text of Pathfinders version, which says all you have to do is SEE the spell being cast, doesnt say HOW and doesnt mention the components...so it makes it a simplified process
PRD wrote:Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
Nowhere does it carry the very specific wording from 3.5 that you need to see the components specifically...ergo, you no longer have to, this was tweaked and/or nullified, wether you love it or hate it its the rules.
There is no longer a definition for "what" you see, I suppose this was made to streamline the system. Wether you see someone waving their hands and chanting or just standing and 'staring', you get a Spellcraft roll either way.Thats just the way it works now, why?, thats another question.
But that is the RAW, the entry for Spellcraft was changed for a reason I would guess, and it supercedes anything written in 3.5...why this happened is another matter, but the fact remains it has, and it looks deliberate. I like others just had to accept this.
Except the entry for spellcraft DIDN'T change. The DCs and wording for everything on identifying spells being cast is the same. If anything, PF simplified things by removing the ability to ID spells by hearing the verbal component since you must see the spell being cast.
That only thing that has changed about spellcraft is that you can now use it for IDing magic items.
Spell-like Abilities can be Counterspelled, says as much on Page 554 of the Core Rulebook (and even then says it can be counterspelled normally, without conditions or restrictions) and reading Counterspell itself it requires a Spellcraft roll to accomplish.A creature with "Slow" as a Spellike Ability could thereby be countered by a spellcaster with a readied action and a "Haste" spell handy as long as he passes his Spellcraft roll.
I'd wager this game mechanic was changed to streamline the spellcasting system and make 'spells' easier to understand and use I would guess. Spell-like abilities are still spells at the end of the day, even if they are cast differently but it seems as if Spellcraft is an essential tool based on the RAW especially to the RAW of Spellike Abilities which concurrs with it through the medium of counterspelling which is SPECIFICALLY states works normally (ie...unconditionally, unimpedied, no need to use generic 'dispel magic' all the time because that would NOT normal for counterspelling if that is the only means available)
Exactly how is using dispel magic not normal counterspelling?
You are using the rules specific to counterspelling to justify how you think a general ability should work across the board. Do you not see how backwards that line of thinking is?
Spell-like Abilities can be Counterspelled, says as much on Page 554 of the Core Rulebook (and even then says it can be counterspelled normally, without conditions or restrictions) and reading Counterspell itself it requires a Spellcraft roll to accomplish.A creature with "Slow" as a Spellike Ability could thereby be countered by a spellcaster with a readied action and a "Haste" spell handy as long as he passes his Spellcraft roll.
I'd wager this game mechanic was changed to streamline the spellcasting system and make 'spells' easier to understand and use I would guess. Spell-like abilities are still spells at the end of the day, even if they are cast differently but it seems as if Spellcraft is an essential tool based on the RAW especially to the RAW of Spellike Abilities which concurrs with it through the medium of counterspelling which is SPECIFICALLY states works normally (ie...unconditionally, unimpedied, no need to use generic 'dispel magic' all the time because that would NOT normal for counterspelling if that is the only means available)
Exactly how is using dispel magic not normal counterspelling?
You are using the rules specific to counterspelling to justify how you think a general ability should work across the board. Do you not see how backwards that line of thinking is?
Using Dispel Magic as the SOLE means to Counterspell Spell-like Abilities LIMITS spellcasters who face off against a creature with a spellike ability they can otherwise counterspell. If a mage had a spare "Haste" and wanted to counterspell a "Slow" spellike ability he identifies, why should be be penalised and forced to use Dispel Magic instead?, if that were the case the Spellike ability is NOT counterspelled normally, it is restricted. And it WOULD NEED TO MENTION SUCH IN THE ABILITY DESCRIPTION...which it utterly fails to do, all it says is it can be counterspelled normally. No exceptions.
Thereby, its not 'normal' because the mage is restricted.
Dispel Magic is an OPTION, but your proposing it to be one of very few spells a mage could ever hope to use. Thats wrong, it'd see mages wasting 3rd level slots on the only thing they could hope to counterspell devils and demons spellike abilities with...and that isnt "normal".
Using Dispel Magic as the SOLE means to Counterspell Spell-like Abilities LIMITS spellcasters who face off against a creature with a spellike ability they can otherwise counterspell.Thereby, its not 'normal' because the mage is restricted.
Dispel Magic is an OPTION, but your proposing it to be one of very few spells a mage could ever hope to use. Thats wrong, it'd see mages wasting 3rd level slots on the only thing they could hope to counterspell devils and demons spellike abilities with...and that isnt "normal".
Against a creature with spell-like abilities, dispel magic is the only option, that doesn't change the fact that that is part of normal counterspelling. In 3.5, casters didn't even have that option.
It 'used' to be the only option, thanks to the rewording of Spellcraft and the distinctiveness of Spellike abilities being 'counterspelled normally', it doesnt matter how you articulate the arguement, as it is written all you need to do is SEE the target casting the spell/spelllike ability, point to me in the write up of Spellcraft where it says you need to witness the components being used like it did in 3.5...and you can counterspell the spellike ability normally by casting the appropiate spells, not JUST Dispel Magic because that would be limiting and does not fit the text of either Spellcraft or what Counterspell says.
It used to work that way but now you cant, there isnt any such thing in Pathfinder anymore...how it used to work and how it works now are two different beasts, this one is more simplified than the last, its the truth wether you love it or hate it unfortunately...
But the restriction that you must clearly see the spell being cast is still present in PF. What if anything is there to see for a spell like ability?The person dropping his/her guard in concentration?
Forget spell-like abilities for right now, and talk about silent stilled spells. Handle them, then go on to tougher critters!
-James
The problem is a lapse in concetration does not automatically and instantly tell you "hey, that person is casting a fireball".
It 'used' to be the only option, thanks to the rewording of Spellcraft, it doesnt matter how you articulate the arguement, as it is written all you need to do is SEE the target casting the spell/spelllike ability, point to me in the write up of Spellcraft where it says you need to witness the components being used like it did in 3.5...
It used to work that way but now you cant, there isnt any such thing in Pathfinder anymore...how it used to work and how it works now are two different beasts, this one is more simplified than the last, its the truth wether you love it or hate it unfortunately...
No, in 3.5 spell-like abilites could not be counterspelled at all.
From the 3.5 SRD:
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp)
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described.
A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. 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 takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell:
Using a spell-like ability while threatened provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a Concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and to being dispelled by dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated.
A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A spell-like ability that can be used at will has no use limit.
For creatures with spell-like abilities, a designated caster level defines how difficult it is to dispel their spell-like effects and to define any level-dependent variables (such as range and duration) the abilities might have. The creature’s caster level never affects which spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name. If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature’s Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a spell-like ability is:
10 + the level of the spell the ability resembles or duplicates + the creature’s Cha modifier.
Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster’s spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.
Some creatures are actually sorcerers of a sort. They cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. In fact, an individual creature could have some spell-like abilities and also cast other spells as a sorcerer.
The problem is a lapse in concetration does not automatically and instantly tell you "hey, that person is casting a fireball".
But the restriction that you must clearly see the spell being cast is still present in PF. What if anything is there to see for a spell like ability?The person dropping his/her guard in concentration?
Forget spell-like abilities for right now, and talk about silent stilled spells. Handle them, then go on to tougher critters!
-James
Your exactly right...by 3.5's ruleset, not by Pathfinders text.
Pathfinder works differently in this regard, it looks like they simplified it...I'm as mystfied as you are, but the RAW of Spellcraft says all you have to do is 'see' the person casting the spell, doesnt matter how its accomplished, in order to make the roll.
Spell-like Abilities (Sp) (Page 554, Core Rulebook)
"Spell-like Abilities, as the name implies are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spelllike Abilities are subject to Spell Resistance and Dispel Magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as a Antimagic Field). Spelllike Abilities can be dispelled AND counterspelled as normal"
Again, that was 3.5 you just quoted, this is Pathfinder, this supercedes it. Please check page 554 of the Core Rulebook, it is entirely a different writeup from what 3.5 says, and unfortunately, Pathfinder supercedes/replaced it.
The problem is a lapse in concetration does not automatically and instantly tell you "hey, that person is casting a fireball".
No the spellcraft check does that. Not sure how, but if you see the caster and make the check there you go.
In 3.0 and 3.5 there were other stipulations, but I don't see them in PF.
-James
That was exactly it...they changed the text of Spell-like Abilities and Spellcraft, wether you accept it or not, for whatever unknowable reasons they had to change it...they did. Spell-like abilities have a different write up and so does Spellcraft, love it or hate it....PF overrides 3.5 in any area.
Your exactly right...by 3.5's ruleset, not by Pathfinders text.Pathfinder works differently in this regard, it looks like they simplified it...I'm as mystfied as you are, but the RAW of Spellcraft says all you have to do is 'see' the person casting the spell, doesnt matter how its accomplished, in order to make the roll.
At best, I would give you a +20 penalty to the check because the you are trying to observe their spellcasting which is effectively invisible, and +20 is the penalty for observing something that is invisible. Also don't forget to apply the +1 per 10 feet to their spellcraft check. So standing right next to them, DC of 35 + spell level, they need to roll a 20 with 15 + spell level total bonuses to their spellcraft check.
At worst, I would say the check simply fails as that cannot clearly see the spell that is being cast because there is nothing to see.
Nearly impossible roll or flat out failure, you pick.
Edit: I stand corrected. They can be dispelled according to the core book.
The problem is a lapse in concetration does not automatically and instantly tell you "hey, that person is casting a fireball".
No the spellcraft check does that. Not sure how, but if you see the caster and make the check there you go.
In 3.0 and 3.5 there were other stipulations, but I don't see them in PF.
-James
The stipulation of being able to clearly see the spell being cast is still there.
With a spell-like ability or a still+silent spell, there is nothing to see.
Spellcraft
(Int; Trained Only)You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells as they are being cast.
Check: Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question. This skill is also used to identify the properties of magic items in your possession through the use of spells such as detect magic and identify. The DC of this check varies depending upon the task at hand.
Action: 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....
Now that makes it seem that the spell must have a visual affect to be counterspelled. Fireball might be a good example, while something like charm person could not be counterspelled.
Now that makes it seem that the spell must have a visual affect to be counterspelled. Fireball might be a good example, while something like charm person could not be counterspelled.
No, identifying a spell by its effect is clearly a function of Knowledge(Arcana) and at that point it is too late to counterspell it. To identify a spell that is in the process of being cast requires spellcraft.
I am not arguing with HOW it used to work in 3.5
Logic aside, Pathfinder clearly states no such rules with regards to individual components...this was 3.5's ruling. They did this I guess to make things simplified.
I UNDERSTAND your arguements but it doesnt change the fact that Pathfinder made specific changes between 3.5 and Pathfinder with regards to Spellcraft and Spell-like Abilities
It doesnt matter what Spellike ability is used, while some are more 'visual' than others, there is no distinction in the rules for this visual aspect (there was one in 2nd Edition D&D), all spells are to some extent 'visible' enough to allow Spellcraft tests. And since Spellike Abilities are STILL spells, it works within these mechanics.
Contradiction/Fact 1 ) Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell or be counterspelled in 3.5...there is no such distinction in Pathfinder anylonger, infact the very description of Spellike Abilities on Page 554 states they CAN be counterspelled normally.
Contradiction/Fact 2 ) Spellcraft USED to require being able to witness components in use by 3.5's VERY SPECIFIC wording. Show me the wording in Pathfinder...there isnt, I've looked, they changed it. Its more or less a meagre perception based test with visual penalties applied. If you want to houserule a +20 penalty or whatever if you think its so 'covert' then go ahead, but thats not the rules as written...your free to use it however you like in your games though
Contradiction/Fact 3 ) Since Spell-like Abilities are ELIGABLE to be counterspelled now in Pathfinder, and the very write up makes no specific exceptions that prevent Spellcraft from being used upon it (which would give credit to the 'Dispel Magic' only theory for counterspells VS spelllike abilities), any eligable spell that could counterspell said spelllike ability can be employed. That is NORMAL, unrestricted, fair...it would have to say it cannot be counterspelled normally for your arguement to work in this case
How do you account for these changes?, only thing I can think of...ease of play, they simplified the system, and its how they have written it down. Unless they errata it, its how its written in black and white.
No, identifying a spell by its effect is clearly a function of Knowledge(Arcana) and at that point it is too late to counterspell it. To identify a spell that is in the process of being cast requires spellcraft.Now that makes it seem that the spell must have a visual affect to be counterspelled. Fireball might be a good example, while something like charm person could not be counterspelled.Spellcraft
(Int; Trained Only)You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells as they are being cast.
Check: Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question. This skill is also used to identify the properties of magic items in your possession through the use of spells such as detect magic and identify. The DC of this check varies depending upon the task at hand.
Action: 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....
Charender then what SLA's can be counterspelled? The book clearly says it's possible now, but the limits of spellcraft still have to apply. Maybe the other caster releases the energy to negate the bead before it becomes a fireball.
Charender then what SLA's can be counterspelled? The book clearly says it's possible now, but the limits of spellcraft still have to apply. Maybe the other caster releases the energy to negate the bead before it becomes a fireball.No, identifying a spell by its effect is clearly a function of Knowledge(Arcana) and at that point it is too late to counterspell it. To identify a spell that is in the process of being cast requires spellcraft.Now that makes it seem that the spell must have a visual affect to be counterspelled. Fireball might be a good example, while something like charm person could not be counterspelled.Spellcraft
(Int; Trained Only)You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells as they are being cast.
Check: Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question. This skill is also used to identify the properties of magic items in your possession through the use of spells such as detect magic and identify. The DC of this check varies depending upon the task at hand.
Action: 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....
There is however...NO visual aspect to Spelllike Abiltities based on how they are explained in 3.5 (that would explain how they could NOT be counterspelled). Since they CAN now be counterspelled, there MUST be something to see and therefore something to point out, identify and counterspell. This is what I am trying to get at....
Spellike Abilties work differently now, and all aspects have to be analysed, including how this 'visual' aspect for allowing counterspelling now ties into the new write up from Spellcraft
Charender then what SLA's can be counterspelled? The book clearly says it's possible now, but the limits of spellcraft still have to apply. Maybe the other caster releases the energy to negate the bead before it becomes a fireball.No, identifying a spell by its effect is clearly a function of Knowledge(Arcana) and at that point it is too late to counterspell it. To identify a spell that is in the process of being cast requires spellcraft.Now that makes it seem that the spell must have a visual affect to be counterspelled. Fireball might be a good example, while something like charm person could not be counterspelled.Spellcraft
(Int; Trained Only)You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells as they are being cast.
Check: Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question. This skill is also used to identify the properties of magic items in your possession through the use of spells such as detect magic and identify. The DC of this check varies depending upon the task at hand.
Action: 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....
You can always use dispel magic to dispel a spell or spell-like ability without needing to identify it. That is more than you could do in 3.5.
There is however...NO visual aspect to Spelllike Abiltities based on how they are explained in 3.5 (that would explain how they could NOT be counterspelled). Since they CAN now be counterspelled, there MUST be something to see and therefore something to point out, identify and counterspell. This is what I am trying to get at....Spellike Abilties work differently now, and all aspects have to be analysed, including how this 'visual' aspect for allowing counterspelling now ties into the...
You must still see the spell being cast for spellcraft.
Spell-like abilities have no casting to be seen.
+20 to the DC of the spellcraft check or check cannot be made.
Where does it say 'Dispel Magic' is the ONLY means to counterspell a Spellike ability?
Thats what your proposing
And that doesnt constitute "normal counterspelling" if there is these unique restrictions that your imposing.
Where does it say 'Dispel Magic' is the ONLY means to counterspell a Spellike ability?Thats what your proposing
And that doesnt constitute "normal counterspelling" if there is these unique restrictions that your imposing.
It is the only means for countering a spell that you cannot identify.
You are the one who keeps claiming that something that is written in the section on counterspelling is not a normal part of counterspelling.
If you are unable to identify the spell for any reason. Because you failed your spellcraft check, because you couldn't see the caster, because they were using a still spell or spell-like ability, then dispel magic IS the normal way of countering the spell.
|
Where does it say that a (Sp) does not require any V,S, or M/DF to cast?
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, 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 suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal.
There is however...NO visual aspect to Spelllike Abiltities based on how they are explained in 3.5 (that would explain how they could NOT be counterspelled). Since they CAN now be counterspelled, there MUST be something to see and therefore something to point out, identify and counterspell. This is what I am trying to get at....Spellike Abilties work differently now, and all aspects have to be analysed, including how this 'visual' aspect for allowing counterspelling now ties into the...
You must still see the spell being cast for spellcraft.
Spell-like abilities have no casting to be seen.
+20 to the DC of the spellcraft check or check cannot be made.
Ah but they do have casting that can be seen...thats why they are eligable to be Counterspelled, which they werent able to be before.
Your arguement would be flawless by 3.5 logic, but I am working from the new rules and now (Sp) abilities can be counterspelled, it changes ALOT of things. You cant have some spells be 'visible' and others not, thats as logical as the arguement for 'facing', but unfortunately there is NO RULES for either. All (Sp) abilities MUST have a visual aspect now if they can be counterspelled normally.
Spellike Abilties work differently now, and all aspects have to be analysed, including how this 'visual' aspect for allowing counterspelling now ties into the new write up from Spellcraft
So the visual aspect is just seeing the spell/SLA being cast?
It does not bother me balance-wise, but my suspension of belief is having a hard time accepting how I know what the creature is doing, even though it is not doing anything except concentrating.This needs some fluff. It just doesn't feel right.
You can always use dispel magic to dispel a spell or spell-like ability without needing to identify it. That is more than you could do in 3.5.Charender then what SLA's can be counterspelled? The book clearly says it's possible now, but the limits of spellcraft still have to apply. Maybe the other caster releases the energy to negate the bead before it becomes a fireball.No, identifying a spell by its effect is clearly a function of Knowledge(Arcana) and at that point it is too late to counterspell it. To identify a spell that is in the process of being cast requires spellcraft.Now that makes it seem that the spell must have a visual affect to be counterspelled. Fireball might be a good example, while something like charm person could not be counterspelled.Spellcraft
(Int; Trained Only)You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells as they are being cast.
Check: Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question. This skill is also used to identify the properties of magic items in your possession through the use of spells such as detect magic and identify. The DC of this check varies depending upon the task at hand.
Action: 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....
How so? You could dispel almost any ongoing magic(spells and SLA) affect in 3.5 without needing to identify it.
Where does it say that a (Sp) does not require any V,S, or M/DF to cast?
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, 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 suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal.
From the PRD:
Special AbilitiesA number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.
Spell-Like Abilities: 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.
There is however...NO visual aspect to Spelllike Abiltities based on how they are explained in 3.5 (that would explain how they could NOT be counterspelled). Since they CAN now be counterspelled, there MUST be something to see and therefore something to point out, identify and counterspell. This is what I am trying to get at....Spellike Abilties work differently now, and all aspects have to be analysed, including how this 'visual' aspect for allowing counterspelling now ties into the...
You must still see the spell being cast for spellcraft.
Spell-like abilities have no casting to be seen.
+20 to the DC of the spellcraft check or check cannot be made.
Ah but they do have casting that can be seen...thats why they are eligable to be Counterspelled, which they werent able to be before.
Your arguement would be flawless by 3.5 logic, but I am working from the new rules and now (Sp) abilities can be counterspelled, it changes ALOT of things. You cant have some spells be 'visible' and others not, thats as logical as the arguement for 'facing', but unfortunately there is NO RULES for either. All (Sp) abilities MUST have a visual aspect now if they can be counterspelled normally.
And you are trying to shoehorn the specific rules for counterspelling into a global rule that effects all spellcraft checks. That is like me using the rules for trip attack for justify how I think the survival skill should work.
The counterspell rules say to make a spellcraft check. By your logic if I am trying to counter a spell I ALWAYS get a spellcraft check no matter what, because the rules for counterspelling override the rules for spellcraft.
If the caster is invisible do I get a check? Yes if I am counterspelling, no otherwise.
If the caster is hiding behind a wall do I get a check? Yes if I am countering a spell, no otherwise.
and so on and so on.
Alright, I am officially confused now, the Core Rulebook contradicts itself. I just found a second entry in the Core Rulebook for Spellike Abilities and its confusing as hell...
Entry mentioned on Page 221 of the Core Rulebook.
Spellike AbilitiesUsually a spellike ability works just like the spell of that name. A spelllike ability has no verbal, somantic or material components, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spellike ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somantic component (EDIT : Such as a 'Burning Hands' spell would not require the caster to use ANY hands whatsoever, it just 'appears' in midair)
A spellike ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless otherwise noted in the ability or the spells description. In all other ways, the spellike ability functions just like a spell.
Spellike abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do no function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spellike abilities cannot be used to counterspell or can they be counterspelled.
Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerors do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spellike abilities and actual spellcasting power.
NOW EVEN MORE CONFUSING...
Entry found for Spellike Abilities (Sp) on Page 554 of the Core Rulebook.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, 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 suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal.
Now I am officially confused, two entries contradict one another in the SAME BOOK....I'm inclined to change my opinion and stick to the one that agrees with 3.5.
No counterspell = no visual aspect = no spellcraft test.
How so? You could dispel almost any ongoing magic(spells and SLA) affect in 3.5 without needing to identify it.
you are not dispelling the effect after the fact, you are using dispel magic as a counter spell... which you can always do if you do not have the correct other spell memorized to counter spell with.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Alright, I am officially confused now, the Core Rulebook contradicts itself. I just found a second entry in the Core Rulebook for Spellike Abilities and its confusing as hell...
Entry mentioned on Page 221 of the Core Rulebook.
Spellike AbilitiesUsually a spellike ability works just like the spell of that name. A spelllike ability has no verbal, somantic or material components, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spellike ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somantic component (EDIT : Such as a 'Burning Hands' spell would not require the caster to use ANY hands whatsoever, it just 'appears' in midair)
A spellike ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless otherwise noted in the ability or the spells description. In all other ways, the spellike ability functions just like a spell.
Spellike abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do no function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spellike abilities cannot be used to counterspell or can they be counterspelled.
Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerors do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spellike abilities and actual spellcasting power.NOW EVEN MORE CONFUSING...
Entry found for Spellike Abilities (Sp) on Page 554 of the Core Rulebook.
Now I am officially confused, two entries contradict one another in the SAME BOOK.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, 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 suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal.
That does imply that Paizo did not intend to radically change how spell-like abilities work from 3.5
I believe they intended spell like abilities to be counterable with dispel magic, but that did not intend for the way spellcraft wroks to change.
While my opinion has been radically changed by the discovery of this second, contraditory entry - it matches the write up for 3.5 so I am inclined to go with that.
That being said, one entry says it cant be counterspelled (though you can dispel the magic once its active on the target of course), and the other says it can. The contradiction of both entries in the same book led me to be somewhat confused about this whole situation.
actually it IS a contradiction, but I am inclined to think that the second one is correct as it is an obvious departure from 3.5 that could not have made it in unless deliberate, where as the first one smacks of 3.5 cut and paste job.
you are not dispelling the effect after the fact, you are using dispel magic as a counter spell... which you can always do if you do not have the correct other spell memorized to counter spell with.How so? You could dispel almost any ongoing magic(spells and SLA) affect in 3.5 without needing to identify it.
OK. I misunderstood. I thought he was saying the dispel thing was new.
actually it IS a contradiction, but I am inclined to think that the second one is correct as it is an obvious departure from 3.5 that could not have made it in unless deliberate, where as the first one smacks of 3.5 cut and paste job.
Both entries were found in the Pathfinder Rulebook, pages 221 & 554, both contradict one another. I think this may need some official clarification.