If someone concentrates to the point of provoking an AoO under normal circumstances it is not to hard to tell that they are spellcasting.
It's easy to tell if they've dropped their guard, that I'll agree.
I think the guy that zones out while you are waiting to chop his head off is pretty obvious.
Thus a Stealth check might be required on his part.
It is nowhere near as oblivious(not noticeable) as trying to steal or lie to someone.
Obvious, you mean. Note that Slight of Hand is EXPLICITLY meant to be used under 'close observation' and still get away with it. For both Bluff and Slight of Hand there are explicit mechanics for noticing it - (this is RAW). They should interact with Ready Action (Ready is the general case, Bluff/Slight of Hand are exceptions - you have to notice them to know it's going on) under their own rules.
You and LT are arguing what makes sense from a simulationist point of view. I am arguing the rules. The rules dont make for any such considerations.
When rules fail the common sense test, you apply common sense. Yes, the rules for ready say you get to attack when the conditions you state happen. This is CLEARLY broken, as it fails to account for the fact that you can state conditions that you cannot verify.
Sounds like a FAQ/Rules Clarification/Errata is required.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Just to clear up any remaining confusion, what we are actually discussing is as follows..
Can someone detect that a caster is casting if that caster is casting a still, silent spell?
You can ready an action 'if he starts to cast a spell, I do X'.
He starts to cast a stilled silent spell, X happens.
Simple.
|
You can ready an action 'if he starts to cast a spell, I do X'.He starts to cast a stilled silent spell, X happens.
Simple.
While this is "correct" by definition of RAW due to poor wording, there is the tricky little fact that RAI would judge that you can only ready an action vs. something you can detect or otherwise react to.
We aren't talking about the spell contingency here people.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You can ready an action 'if he starts to cast a spell, I do X'.He starts to cast a stilled silent spell, X happens.
Simple.
While this is "correct" by definition of RAW due to poor wording, there is the tricky little fact that RAI would judge that you can only ready an action vs. something you can detect or otherwise react to.
We aren't talking about the spell contingency here people.
Sine LT seems to enjoy quoting only the part of the rule "Impossible lie -20 to bluff" and not the rest of the rule "Some lies are too impossible to believe" I'm just pointing out again that RAW/RAI LT is playing a different game than the rest of us, since a) No rule can be cited that says 'stilled/silent spell cannot be countered' and b) using the 3.5 SRD as a guide, psionic powers (which are by default stilled and silenced) specifically can be readied against.
Quoting only the rules that support your case is not an argument. In fact, specifically ignoring parts of the rules that hamstring your case is a way to undermine your argument. This is what LT is doing. As soon as it goes from RAW, to RAMT, any sort of comparison is out the window.
As is for his build, it only works in a vaccum. Other characters need to expend their resources to pick up where he's lacking. Identifying items/auras? Well now the cleric needs to spend some of his precious few points on knowlege Arcana, and/or spellcraft. blasting? Better hope that the cleric chose the fire domain. Getting information? Well the rogue now needs to have the full skillset of Diplomacy/sense motive since all the Sorcerer can do is spell cast and tell people he's actually a strange animal/monster he has no knowlege of. OF course, if he takes leadership (assuming survival to 7th level, the player selects the cohort, etc) then he's succeeded in admitting a wizard two levels lower can fill his role effectively. Congratulations!
|
I'd argue that the Sorcer's versatility is as good as than the Wizards. Let's say we have a situation where a low-level caster needs to cast Web.
Wizard:
Situation 1 - In Spellbook, Memorized
Situation 2 - In Spellbook, Not Memorized, Has Scroll
Situation 3 - In Spellbook, Not Memorized, No Scroll
Situation 4 - Not in Spellbook, Not Memorized, Has Scroll
Situation 5 - Not in Spellbook, Not Memorized, No Scroll
Situations 1 and 2 let the wizard cast the spell. Situation 3, he's useless. Situation 4, he casts the spell (but gives up the oportunity to later learn that spell). Situation 5, he's again useless. Also, depending on how life-or-death the situation is, the wizard might be unwilling to cast the spell in situation 4, even if it costs the party.
Sorcerer:
Situation 1: Spell Known
Situation 2: Spell not Known, Has Scroll
Situation 3: Spell not Known, No Scroll
In situations 1 and 2, the sorcerer casts the spell. In situation 3, he's useless.
By RAW and RAI a stilled silenced spell provokes. If the two could be combined to ignore an AoO it would be stated.
Just one quibble with that statement. It kind of assigns god-like qualities to the game designers by implying that they have the ability to foresee every possible situation and think of everything. Just as plausible an explanation is that they didn't think of it. However, the comparison with SLAs is fairly convincing to me, so I'll concede that the designers probably would treat silenced, stilled spells the same way.
I won't argue RAW with anyone because there are far better rules lawyers out there than me. What I bring to the table is 30+ years of experience as a DM and decent logical skills. As I stated previously, I'm not really a RAW devotee. I try to make the RAW fit into a logical framework of some sort, and if they don't I work with my players to decide if we want to keep them. Game balance is also important. More often than not, if a rule doesn't make a lot of logical sense, it is there because of game balance, so I try and be careful about tinkering with those.
I understand your point about using RAW as the standard for discussion here, but believe that interesting discussions can also revolve around house rules and personal interpretations of the RAW, so long as they are clearly identified as such.
Just to clear up any remaining confusion, what we are actually discussing is as follows..
Can someone detect that a caster is casting if that caster is casting a still, silent spell?
It has been argued that the AoO is a "spell casting detector". I've argued that it is not - not without an egregious amount of metagaming.
The AoO is provoked because the caster has dropped their guard, not because the caster is casting.
Likewise, an SLA provokes an AoO because the critter drops it's guard, not because of the SLA in and of itself.Billy Blork points out that, with casting on the defensive, the AoO isn't even provoked, because the guard isn't dropped. This supports the argument that it isn't casting the spell which provokes the AoO, but the associated dropping of the guard which provokes it.
So, we go back to the point I started this part of the thread with - there seems to be no rules which indicate that a person can detect a spell being cast if they don't see it or hear it and aren't being targetted by it.
All you have to do for a ready action is state the condition. Nothing is needed to know if someone is casting a spell by RAW. From a simulation point of view there should be a way to tell when a spell is being cast, but by the rules, there is no rule to detect spell casting. If there was a skill it would be spellcraft, but spellcraft only tells you what spell is cast. Maybe the intense stare of the caster lets it be known that a spell is being cast and if you can ready an action against and SLA then you can do it against a spell. RAW nothing supports your view. You would have to find a rule that supported spell casting needing a skill to be detected. Currently the rule is "state it". It being the condition you want to ready an action to attack on. See the bold sentence below.
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you...
This seems to be an example of rules lawyering and RAW worship at its finest, mixed with a goodly portion of metagaming. In readying an action, you would have to describe what it is exactly, in terms of something your CHARACTER could reasonably detect, your trigger is. With a silent, still spell, the options for detection are much more limited. Sure, you can make something up in your home game to give people a better opportunity to detect it, like all magic-users make a funny face (or intense stare) when they cast, or magic causes the air to shimmer around them, but that's just as much homebrew, if not more, as my suggestion that a Perception check would be called for. Also remember, this is in the middle of combat with lots of other things going on around. Detecting and reacting to a still, silent spell with a readied action should be difficult, at best.
Some stuff with Situations
I don't see how this is relevant. You should elaborate.
Also remember, this is in the middle of combat with lots of other things going on around. Detecting and reacting to a still, silent spell with a readied action should be difficult, at best.
I think its the 6 seconds that the sorcerer is concentrating and dropping his guard that gives it away.
@Wraithstrike, I want to throw some gas on the fire by playing devil's Advocate.
PRD:Under Readying Actions
Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell." If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result).
Once again spellcraft should be concentrate due to a typo, but that is neither here nor there.
I bolded what I thought might be something everyone is overlooking. How do you know they are a spellcaster?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Wraithstrike, I want to throw some gas on the fire by playing devil's Advocate.
I bolded what I thought might be something everyone is overlooking. How do you know they are a spellcaster?PRD:Under Readying Actions
Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell." If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result).
Once again spellcraft should be concentrate due to a typo, but that is neither here nor there.
You can ready the action against anyone. It just doesn't do much good if they're not a spellcaster. There's no spell to disrupt, but you're waiting for it, just in case.
All you have to do for a ready action is state the condition. Nothing is needed to know if someone is casting a spell by RAW. From a simulation point of view there should be a way to tell when a spell is being cast, but by the rules, there is no rule to detect spell casting. If there was a skill it would be spellcraft, but spellcraft only tells you what spell is cast. Maybe the intense stare of the caster lets it be known that a spell is being cast and if you can ready an action against and SLA then you can do it against a spell. RAW nothing supports your view. You would have to find a rule that supported spell casting needing a skill to be detected. Currently the rule is "state it". It being the condition you want to ready an action to attack on. See the bold sentence below.
Not true.
I ready an action to attack the next person who comes around the corner.
An invisible rogue comes around the corner, and I completely fail my perception check.
A visible fighter comes around the corner.
I will attack the fighter not the rogue.
Otherwise, you can use readied actions to circumvent the rules by allowing you to avoid the need for perception checks. By your interpretation, when I ready an action I get superhuman senses as a side benefit.
Player1: I ready an action to attack the next creature who comes around the corner.
DM: Ok, you make an attack
Player2: Something must have come around the corner and set off your readied action sense, I cast see invisible.
Likewise if I ready an action to attack someone if they cast a spell, and I cannot perceive that they are casting a spell, then I will continue waiting.
....like running around without underpants on!
You're a Demi-Lich. The last time you wore underpants the Elves were learning to walk on two legs and Dragons and Giants were still BFF.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
They dont fit because the game by RAW assumes you know when someone is casting, but not when they are evil, or laying.This is a circular arguement.
By RAW, no tangible evidence that a condition has been met is required for a readied action to go off.
Therefore, by RAW, you can ready an attack for when a person lies or when the person thinks something evil - just like you can, by RAW, attack someone who does something else which you have no tangible evidence for (such as casting a spell which you can't see, hear, sense any material components of, and aren't being targetted by).Realistically, though, using a readied action to detect lies, detect evil, or detect spell casting isn't going to be acceptable by most GMs.
Again, please point to the rule, as written saying that a stilled silenced spell does not set off the readied action of "He's casting a spell." I can find no such rule, but I can site the 3.5 ruling that actions can be readied against psionic powers which by default are stilled and silenced.
Anything else, is RAMT.
Case 1. Fighter has spellcraft, and KNOWS the caster is casting. Makes his attack.Case 2. The caster wildly gestures. The Fighter figures that's casting. Makes his attack.
Case 3. The caster provokes an AOO from concentrating. The Fighter figures that's casting. Makes his attack.
Case 4. The caster casts defensively a spell without ANY components. The Fighter's ally with spellcraft yells 'he's casting'. Makes his attack.
Case 5. The caster takes a standard action to bluff that he's casting. Fighter fails Sense Motive. Makes his attack.
One small quibble with Case 4. I wouldn't allow a character to yell something to another out of turn. Have to wait for their action to do so. Unless of course, they had readied an action themselves to yell something when they see the caster go ...
Agree with your basic point that the Spellcraft skill is important for one or more folks in the party to have, however, and that the wizard generally will have an advantage with it.
I still think sorcerers make up for many of their defects by not having to memorize spells each day. Absent powerful divination magic (which of course takes spell slots itself), there is always a strong possibility that the wizard won't have all the right spells memorized for whatever faces him that day. Those spell slots are thus wasted, in a sense. So I like the sorcerer's ability to access all his spells at any time to respond to unforeseen challenges, albeit that is limited by knowing far fewer spells.
Like 'em both, for different reasons.
|
|
Most wizards won't find themselves in situation 4.Also just because a wizard has more 'situations' does not mean all are equal by any means.
Sorcerers fail compared to wizards when specific once a day kind of spells come up. Do they take it as a spell known and only cast it once a day? If the need comes up for it and they haven't just leveled they might not even have that option.
Sorcerer casting can be useful, but in just as often its not.
I realize that I should have elaborated a bit more with what I was trying to say. I was basically trying to illistrate that BOTH classes can run across situations where they don't have the particular spell that is needed ready to be cast. This is typically where the pro-Wizard faction brings up scrolls...this argument has a fatal error" SORCERERS CAN CAST SPELLS FROM SCROLLS AS WELL.
Regarding my Situation 4 scenario, I think it's much more common than you would think. If a wizard finds a scroll of a spell that isn't already in his spellbooks, then he will want to save it and add it...nobody is arguing this. But the question is: will he have the chance? In games that I've played in, it's been 50-50 at best. Quite often the DM will throw out a situation that needs (or at least is vastly helped by) the ability to cast that spell before the wizard gets a chance to transcribe it.
Also, maybe I've just played in more frantic campaings than most of you, but rarely have I seen a PC wizard who has time to scribe reams and reams of spells. Usually they carry around maybe a half-dozen or so...they're usually too busy trying to save the damsel/town/region/nation/world or whatever to sit around for weeks at a time scribing scrolls.
All in all, I personally prefer the on-the-fly flexibility of the sorcerer to the etched-in-stone rigidity of the wizard. And once again, let me make this point because again: SORCERERS CAN USE SCROLLS TOO!
I'm not arguing that the Sorcerer is more powerful, or that they are completely balanced. But I do think they're much closer than some poeple in this thread are making out. The Wizard damn sure isn't so much more powerful that the Sorcerer should be refered to as "the Wizard's savant brother".
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Again, please point to the rule, as written saying that a stilled silenced spell does not set off the readied action of "He's casting a spell." I can find no such rule, but I can site the 3.5 ruling that actions can be readied against psionic powers which by default are stilled and silenced.
First, psionics -aren't- core.
Because it's not core, I'm not up on it. Please link to the Hypertext d20 where it states that psionic powers are still, silent, and can have readied actions against them.
Well even though you've ignored repeated requests to point out the rule that states that a stilled/silenced spell can't be readied against, I'll post it again and humour you.
The interrupting event strikes during manifestation if it occurs between when you start and when you complete manifesting a power (for a power with a manifesting time of 1 round or longer) or if it comes in response to your manifesting the power (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the manifesting of the power or a contingent attack from a readied action).
And here"The manifestation of powers by a psionic character is considered a psi-like ability" And "Psi-like abilities have no verbal, somatic, or material components"
Emphasis mine.Now you've been asked multiple times, here for one, to find the rule that says a stilled silent spell can't be readied against. A psionic power, which is stilled and silent (no verbal, somatic or material components) does.
|
|
Also, maybe I've just played in more frantic campaings than most of you, but rarely have I seen a PC wizard who has time to scribe reams and reams of spells. Usually they carry around maybe a half-dozen or so...they're usually too busy trying to save the damsel/town/region/nation/world or whatever to sit around for weeks at a time scribing scrolls.
That is why my wizard has a Ring of Sustenance. More downtime to study, and scribe
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd like to point out that, with Binding spells and Leadership, a Sorcerer does, in fact, have access to powerful divinations.
So with a spell the Wizard has too, and a feat everyone has, the Sorcerer can do something every other class can
"With Binding spells and leadership, a cleric does, in fact, have access to powerful divinations."
"With binding spells and leadership, a fighter does, in fact, have access to powerful divinations."
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Your source talks about a contingent attack from a readied action. It does not say that a psionic action, in and of itself, can be readied against.
Regardless, as I said, it's not even core.
Translation. Even though it is talking about a readied action being used against a power with no verbal somatic or material components, I'm not going to accept it since it doesn't help my argument.
Secondary comment: Still no citing a rule that a silent/still spell can't be readied against. Since he can't, LT has to accept that a still/silent spell can be readied against, RAW.
I'm through with arguing with LT. It's clear he can't address a point or, to use the vernacular "put up or shut up."
If an observer seeing the spellcaster when he/she is casting a stilled silent eschewed material spell, then he satisfies the requirements for Spellcraft to ID the spell.
Likewise is an observer hears an unseen spellcaster when he/she is casting a spell, then the observer meets the requirements for Spellcraft to ID the spell.
-James
While I agree this might be theoretically possible, surely there would be a hell of a lot of modifiers. Remember Spellcraft is a mundane, not a supernatural ability. It doesn't give the ability to read minds or see magical auras. You'd have a lot less info to go on, hence modifiers. I would say add five each to the DC for still, silent and eschewed materials, but that's just winging it from the top of my head, which is what I do best. So +15 in your first example, and +10 in your second.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If an observer seeing the spellcaster when he/she is casting a stilled silent eschewed material spell, then he satisfies the requirements for Spellcraft to ID the spell.
Likewise is an observer hears an unseen spellcaster when he/she is casting a spell, then the observer meets the requirements for Spellcraft to ID the spell.
-James
While I agree this might be theoretically possible, surely there would be a hell of a lot of modifiers. Remember Spellcraft is a mundane, not a supernatural ability. It doesn't give the ability to read minds or see magical auras. You'd have a lot less info to go on, hence modifiers. I would say add five each to the DC for still, silent and eschewed materials, but that's just winging it from the top of my head, which is what I do best. So +15 in your first example, and +10 in your second.
I understand. Like I said it's clearly in the domain of house rules. I'd hate to have entire classes that you can't effectively ready for. (psionics, or creatures with SLAs)
While I agree this might be theoretically possible, surely there would be a hell of a lot of modifiers. Remember Spellcraft is a mundane, not a supernatural ability. It doesn't give the ability to read minds or see magical auras. You'd have a lot less info to go on, hence modifiers. I would say add five each to the DC for still, silent and eschewed materials, but that's just winging it from the top of my head, which is what I do best. So +15 in your first example, and +10 in your second.
If you do it this way then Sorcerers will gain the advantage that every spell they cast is harder to ID cause they have Eschewed materials. I can see adding a modifier for a Silent, Still, eschewed spell. But if they have one component that you can see you should be able to make the regular check.
While I agree this might be theoretically possible, surely there would be a hell of a lot of modifiers. Remember Spellcraft is a mundane, not a supernatural ability. It doesn't give the ability to read minds or see magical auras. You'd have a lot less info to go on, hence modifiers. I would say add five each to the DC for still, silent and eschewed materials, but that's just winging it from the top of my head, which is what I do best. So +15 in your first example, and +10 in your second.If you do it this way then Sorcerers will gain the advantage that every spell they cast is harder to ID cause they have Eschewed materials. I can see adding a modifier for a Silent, Still, eschewed spell. But if they have one component that you can see you should be able to make the regular check.
Good point. For game balance sake, as opposed to logic, probably should skip the penalty for eschew materials. Although, with all the people arguing here that sorcerers are inherently inferior, maybe it would balance things a bit. :)
Cite please?What this wouldn't work against, however, is one of the three done on the defensive - as it doesn't lower the guard.
Casting on the defensive does not provoke an AoO. Do I really need to give you are rule quote for that?
In summation...
I am a fighter standing next to a mage with my sword drawn.
Mage casts a spell, I get an AoO.
Mage casts on the defensive, I don't get an AoO.
I ready an action to attack him if he looks like he is casting a spell.
Mage casts a spell with components, I attack him and get an AoO.
Mage casts a spell with components defensively, I attack him.
Mage fakes that he is casting a spell, I will attack him.
Mage casts a spell with no components, I get an AoO.
Mage casts a spell with no components defensively, I do nothing.
I ready an action to attack the mage if he lowers his guard.
Mage casts any spell normally, I will attack him, and get an AoO.
Mage casts on the defensive, I do nothing.
|
Casting on the defensive does not provoke an AoO. Do I really need to give you are rule quote for that?Cite please?What this wouldn't work against, however, is one of the three done on the defensive - as it doesn't lower the guard.
No, but it would still trigger a readied action against it. I think that's what he's referring to. I apologize if I'm wrong in that assumption.