Who said the verbal, somatic, or material components are the only signs of a spell being cast?What other signs would there be?
If you can ready an action against a psionic power, or an SLA why not a silenced stilled spell.
PS: This argument came up recently and the 3.5 psionics rule supports that you can ready an attack against psionics, and the 3.5 FAW supports that SLA's are purely mental actions, but they can be readied against. Instead of rehashing the same old arguments I can try to give a link to a long thread if you like.
Who said the verbal, somatic, or material components are the only signs of a spell being cast?What other signs would there be?If you can ready an action against a psionic power, or an SLA why not a silenced stilled spell.
PS: This argument came up recently and the 3.5 psionics rule supports that you can ready an attack against psionics, and the 3.5 FAW supports that SLA's are purely mental actions, but they can be readied against. Instead of rehashing the same old arguments I can try to give a link to a long thread if you like.
No thank you. I will start my own. That way this thread can get back on track.
Two words: Anti-magic field. Followed quickly by the next words: Expect Errata to come.
Requirement: 10 ranks in spellcraftEffective Spell Level Increase: 1
Effect: Select a number of targets within the spell area of effect no higher than your spellcasting attribute (Int for Wizards, Cha for Sorcerers, ect.) that will be unaffected by the spell. This can only affect spells with an area of effect.
Not exact, but I'm not sure exactly what I can get away with either.
Antimagic field is one of those spells that never sees use except from dragons. Why? Because it generally screws the caster casting it more than it does the enemy.
This feat actually makes it WORTH casting. What's wrong with that?
Also, one could interpret the rules to mean that though the targets are unaffected by antimagic field, any spells they attempt to cast through it are (since the spell effects can't go through the field and aren't themselves protected by the metamagic feat). This would make it little more than a defensive buff zone for the one using it.
I would definitely give the "terrible conditions" penalty (probably twice -- once for each feat) to the person trying to identify a spell being cast in a room full of people talking that is still and/or silent along with the distracted penalty.And do you impose penalties on spellcraft rolls for verbal only spells? I mean they don't have Somatic or Material components already.. so why should they not be harder to ID? How are they different from stilled eschewed material spells?
This argument has come up and it boils down to house rules. There were feats in 3.5 expressly to conceal casting and they had nothing to do with these metamagic feats.
-James
Actually you are completely wrong.
Identify Spell Being Cast: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action,
1. Favorable and unfavorable conditions depend upon the sense being used to make the check. For example, bright light might increase the DC of checks involving sight, while torchlight or moonlight might give a penalty. Background noise might reduce a DC involving hearing, while competing odors might penalize any DC involving scent.
2. As for unfavorable conditions, but more extreme. For example, candlelight for DCs involving sight, a roaring dragon for DCs involving hearing, and an overpowering stench covering the area for DCs involving scent.
The spellcraft skill specifically states you include penalties from the perception skill when trying to ID a spell as it is being cast. Being unable to hear verbal components of a spell (because there aren't any -- no matter why they aren't there) and unable to see the hand movements (because there isn't any no matter why they aren't there) in a crowded room with lots of people talking would be terrible conditions -- and distracting to boot (from all the other noise and people).
And as a matter of fact I would hold to that for spells that don't have those components should have at least unfavorable conditions applied to the check -- after all it is hard to hear and see what isn't there -- that is definitely unfavorable to the one trying to identify the spell, and is provided for in the rules as they currently stand.
|
Could be all kinds of things. Maybe the sound in vicinity changes. Maybe there's a visible aura around a casting mage. Maybe runes appear briefly around him.Who said the verbal, somatic, or material components are the only signs of a spell being cast?What other signs would there be?
Or maybe a big F-ing Fireball comes down from the sky.
Really, I don't care how many Metamagics you apply to spells as obvious as Fireball, if you cast them (and I'm DMing) everyone with Spellcraft gets a check. Now, they may not quite know who cast it.... but that's another discussion.
EDIT: I will mention that in the situation described above (NPC talking with people), I would wholeheartedly apply the distracted penalty. Why? Because they're distracted o.O
Could be all kinds of things. Maybe the sound in vicinity changes. Maybe there's a visible aura around a casting mage. Maybe runes appear briefly around him.Who said the verbal, somatic, or material components are the only signs of a spell being cast?What other signs would there be?Or maybe a big F-ing Fireball comes down from the sky.
Really, I don't care how many Metamagics you apply to spells as obvious as Fireball, if you cast them (and I'm DMing) everyone with Spellcraft gets a check. Now, they may not quite know who cast it.... but that's another discussion.
EDIT: I will mention that in the situation described above (NPC talking with people), I would wholeheartedly apply the distracted penalty. Why? Because they're distracted o.O
I imagine something like fireball would be pretty obvious AFTER it had been cast (especially since the red exploding bead comes from your direction). As the spell was being cast, however, no one would see it coming, much less be able to identify it.
In any case, I was thinking of something a little less...visual...something like charm person for example.
The spellcraft skill specifically states you include penalties from the perception skill when trying to ID a spell as it is being cast. Being unable to hear verbal components of a spell (because there aren't any -- no matter why they aren't there) and unable to see the hand movements (because there isn't any no matter why they aren't there) in a crowded room with lots of people talking would be terrible conditions -- and distracting to boot (from all the other noise and people).
And as a matter of fact I would hold to that for spells that don't have those components should have at least unfavorable conditions applied to the check -- after all it is hard to hear and see what isn't there -- that is definitely unfavorable to the one trying to identify the spell, and is provided for in the rules as they currently stand.
My thoughts exactly.
No thank you. I will start my own. That way this thread can get back on track.Who said the verbal, somatic, or material components are the only signs of a spell being cast?What other signs would there be?If you can ready an action against a psionic power, or an SLA why not a silenced stilled spell.
PS: This argument came up recently and the 3.5 psionics rule supports that you can ready an attack against psionics, and the 3.5 FAW supports that SLA's are purely mental actions, but they can be readied against. Instead of rehashing the same old arguments I can try to give a link to a long thread if you like.
I was saying just go there and browse instead of having everyone repeat everything that was already said. All I will do is copy and paste from the other thread if a new one comes up. Making the same argument in multiple threads, multiple times does not really make a lot of sense.
For the record, I agree that trying to identify spellcasting in a noisy and crowded tavern with poor lighting conditions while distracted etc etc etc, would bring penalties to the check. No doubt at all about that.
There would still be a check, though, even if the spell had no VSM components. Why? The rules say so.
Could be all kinds of things. Maybe the sound in vicinity changes. Maybe there's a visible aura around a casting mage. Maybe runes appear briefly around him.Who said the verbal, somatic, or material components are the only signs of a spell being cast?What other signs would there be?Or maybe a big F-ing Fireball comes down from the sky.
Really, I don't care how many Metamagics you apply to spells as obvious as Fireball, if you cast them (and I'm DMing) everyone with Spellcraft gets a check. Now, they may not quite know who cast it.... but that's another discussion.
EDIT: I will mention that in the situation described above (NPC talking with people), I would wholeheartedly apply the distracted penalty. Why? Because they're distracted o.O
I imagine something like fireball would be pretty obvious AFTER it had been cast (especially since the red exploding bead comes from your direction). As the spell was being cast, however, no one would see it coming, much less be able to identify it.
In any case, I was thinking of something a little less...visual...something like charm person for example.
...The spellcraft skill specifically states you include penalties from the perception skill when trying to ID a spell as it is being cast. Being unable to hear verbal components of a spell (because there aren't any -- no matter why they aren't there) and unable to see the hand movements (because there isn't any no matter why they aren't there) in a crowded room with lots of people talking would be terrible conditions -- and distracting to boot (from all the other noise and people).
And as a matter of fact I would hold to that for spells that don't have those components should have at least unfavorable conditions applied to the check -- after all it is hard to hear and see what isn't there -- that is definitely unfavorable to the one trying to identify the spell, and
There are no penalties. By RAW the silence stilled spell gives not advantage. Check the other thread or you can start a new one, but my claim in the other thread was never refuted with any evidence from the book. You are free to house-rule as you wish though.
Actually you are completely wrong.
Respectfully I disagree.
If spellcraft checks depended upon the number of components (VSM) of the spell then they would have said so directly rather than indirectly.
Trying to shoehorn this on to it is disingenuous.
-James
It's not a shoehorn at all. The rules state specifically to include these modifiers.
Trying to hear something that doesn't make a sound is darn near impossible -- that's an unfavorable condition. I even copied the rules for determining an unfavorable or terrible condition (I'll do so again):
1. Favorable and unfavorable conditions depend upon the sense being used to make the check. For example, bright light might increase the DC of checks involving sight, while torchlight or moonlight might give a penalty. Background noise might reduce a DC involving hearing, while competing odors might penalize any DC involving scent.
2. As for unfavorable conditions, but more extreme. For example, candlelight for DCs involving sight, a roaring dragon for DCs involving hearing, and an overpowering stench covering the area for DCs involving scent
IF an overpowering stench is a terrible condition for smelling something then large amounts of noise especially when the thing you are trying to hear isn't making a sound would be just as terrible.
The fact you are looking for something that isn't happening too just makes it more so.
Now I'm not saying you don't know that a spell was cast -- I'm saying there is a specific means in the rules already for applying a modifier for bad conditions for identifying the spell that is cast without resorting to home rules -- especially since it is already in the rules to apply these penalties.
Except Neither Silent Spell nor Still Spell let you hide your spellcasting.
To wit: Anyone with one rank of Spellcraft can attempt to identify your spell while it is being cast. This is an automatic thing that everyone in the room could do if they have a rank of Spellcraft. You'll note that there is nothing in Silent Spell or Still Spell that prevents this check, or that even makes this check harder in any way.
Which means that all those people in the room who have a rank of Spellcraft still see you do something, even if you don't chant arcane words or make mystical gestures in the air, and they can immediately roll to identify what you just cast. And all the rest of the people who have zero ranks of Spellcraft still see exactly the same thing as the Spellcraft crowd (they see you doing something to cast a spell), they just don't know how to identify the spell you just cast.
I'm sorry but I just don't buy that someone can identify something with no signs.
Spellcraft reads "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't see the spell, much less its somatic component, you can't make the check.
So now we know, according to Jason Bulmahn. The "edit" at the end is especially informative.
|
Back to the OP's question. I dunno but i think some of them are worth it. as many have said it depends on the way you see and play your character. I am currently DMing the last of the RotRL, campaign in which you fight a lot of Rune, Cloud and Storm giants, who are immune to electricty. Our sorceror used energy substitution (we are allowing 3.5 stuff) to cast chain lightning(acid) to hit a group of 8 of them. worked well, considering that the sorceror has such a limited selection of spells. It expanded his abilities to bypass monster's immunities/resistances to elemental energies greatly.
Situational? yes but i can see a lot of situations where certain feats would get used.
So now we know, according to Jason Bulmahn. The "edit" at the end is especially informative.
And we all know that Jason has never gotten the rules for pathfinder wrong before or changed his mind after printing and redeclared the exact opposite of what he just declared earlier in the same thread.
And we all know that Jason has never gotten the rules for pathfinder wrong before or changed his mind after printing and redeclared the exact opposite of what he just declared earlier in the same thread.
So now we know, according to Jason Bulmahn. The "edit" at the end is especially informative.
Actually, I've never seen Jason do that, and I've only seen James do it once.
Actually, I've never seen Jason do that, and I've only seen James do it once.And we all know that Jason has never gotten the rules for pathfinder wrong before or changed his mind after printing and redeclared the exact opposite of what he just declared earlier in the same thread.
So now we know, according to Jason Bulmahn. The "edit" at the end is especially informative.
Hm... good point... I going to have to forcefully change their names... just too close for me with all those darn 'J's involved...
Beyond that however I would suggest that Jason as busy as he is could have forgotten or overlooked the part about perception applying to the spellcraft check... his post even implies this since he seems (not I'm not saying he does -- just seems to) to reference a penalty but not the rules already in place.
EDIT: I just asked as much in the referenced thread in fact. I figure that would be about the easiest way to lay this to rest.
I'm fairly sure when the spellcraft skill specifically references the penalties in the perception check for identifying a spell being cast this is a situation that is almost perfect for that though.
Grrrrnnnnrrgggh. That hurt to read. Wow, are they trying to drive away old fans? Okay, rethorical question, I know they do.Thanks for the rest of the info. I'd have liked to read those stories with El, Mordenkainen and Dalamar. They sound fun.
They are. I don't know off the top of my head what Dragons they appeared in, or how many paizo still has as PDFs.
OTOH, I'd love to see a 'cutting room floor' version for laughs.
** spoiler omitted **
That was fun. :) Too bad they are not written up somewhere else. :p
FWIW, there is one Metamagic Feat I think of as very useful, it's from Tome & Blood. If I had been unable to get a metamagic rod with the Feat, I would have taken it.
It's Subdual Substitution, allowing a spell to do non-lethal damage (at +0 to levels, I believe). In an urban environment, it allows for crowd control without killing (seriously reducing how ticked off the local authorities are), and in more standard games it makes captures far simpler (and it allows for times when you don't want to kill for RP reasons).
FWIW, there is one Metamagic Feat I think of as very useful, it's from Tome & Blood. If I had been unable to get a metamagic rod with the Feat, I would have taken it.
It's Subdual Substitution, allowing a spell to do non-lethal damage (at +0 to levels, I believe). In an urban environment, it allows for crowd control without killing (seriously reducing how ticked off the local authorities are), and in more standard games it makes captures far simpler (and it allows for times when you don't want to kill for RP reasons).
I heard that there was a nearly identical feat in the APG.
Note: Scorching Ray has a 'number of Rays' cap, which are fixed dmg. This does nothing for them.
wow, does that give Magic Missile builds a high level kick.
How does it do anything for Magic Missile that has a cap on the number of missiles (much like scorching ray has a cap on the number of rays in fact)?
{b}Because magic missiles do one die per missile, and Scorching Rays do 4d6 per Ray. One applies cleanly, and the other does not. I suppose you could allow an additional ray to be fair...
==Aelryinth
So, centering this back on my request.
Given the Fey bloodline sorcerer outlined earlier, what metamagic feats would you recommend, and why?
Is there a metamagic feat that increases the Hit Die cap on a Sleep spell? :)
|
|
For the record, I agree that trying to identify spellcasting in a noisy and crowded tavern with poor lighting conditions while distracted etc etc etc, would bring penalties to the check. No doubt at all about that.
There would still be a check, though, even if the spell had no VSM components. Why? The rules say so.
Agreed. Now I'm leaving the thread :)
Using metamagic rods still comes under the #1 reason that the OP does not like them, they still increase the time it takes to cast a spell, unless I have misses an errata somewhere.
Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated
feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified
number of times per day. A sorcerer still must take a full-round
action when using a metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic
feat he possesses (except for quicken metamagic rods, which can be
used as a swift action).
Except Neither Silent Spell nor Still Spell let you hide your spellcasting.
To wit: Anyone with one rank of Spellcraft can attempt to identify your spell while it is being cast. This is an automatic thing that everyone in the room could do if they have a rank of Spellcraft. You'll note that there is nothing in Silent Spell or Still Spell that prevents this check, or that even makes this check harder in any way.
Which means that all those people in the room who have a rank of Spellcraft still see you do something, even if you don't chant arcane words or make mystical gestures in the air, and they can immediately roll to identify what you just cast. And all the rest of the people who have zero ranks of Spellcraft still see exactly the same thing as the Spellcraft crowd (they see you doing something to cast a spell), they just don't know how to identify the spell you just cast.
I'm sorry but I just don't buy that someone can identify something with no signs.
Spellcraft reads "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't see the spell, much less its somatic component, you can't make the check.
So now we know, according to Jason Bulmahn. The "edit" at the end is especially informative.
Thanks.
Note: Scorching Ray has a 'number of Rays' cap, which are fixed dmg. This does nothing for them.
wow, does that give Magic Missile builds a high level kick.
How does it do anything for Magic Missile that has a cap on the number of missiles (much like scorching ray has a cap on the number of rays in fact)?
{b}Because magic missiles do one die per missile, and Scorching Rays do 4d6 per Ray. One applies cleanly, and the other does not. I suppose you could allow an additional ray to be fair...
==Aelryinth
I'm not disagreeing with you. I just do not understand. Please elaborate.
A metamagic feat reduced to -1 does not change the original spell's level.
That -1 cannot be applied to another feat...that's applying -1 to TWO feats, not just one, and the feat does not do that.
+0 base metas do not lower the cost of other metas. Examples were given to that point in the errata, too.Not feat efficient, anyways.
==Aelryinth
Please realize that if additional metamagic feats do not act upon the level as modified by other feats then applying metamagic that says the spell takes a slot of the actual level (meaning +0) means that the spell takes a slot of the actual level regardless of what else has been applied since except for heighten spell and I think sanctum spell the actual level of the spell does not change. So it does not change the original spells level since it is applied after the level has already changed.
Also the errata has no examples containing +0 feats so far as I can see so unless you can show me where the examples are then I will have to say you are mistaken on that point.
A spell can only go down one from its the total of all the metamagic values. You basically get to add all of them together and then subtract 1.
FAQ page 36
If a character with Arcane Thesis (Player’s Handbook II, 74) applies multiple metamagic feats to the chosen spell, is the spell’s slot reduced by one level, or by one level per metamagic feat applied?
Arcane Thesis reduces the total spell level of a metamagic-affected spell by one, regardless of the number of metamagic feats applied. An empowered (+2 levels), still (+1 level), silent (+1 level) fireball would be 6th level.
The FAQ did come out after the errata so you can consider the errata too be more official if you want, but the intent is what the FAQ is for.
Yeah the way I read Intensified Spell (as posted), it would simply add 5 dice, rather than up the cap by 5 dice.
I certainly hope I'm wrong. That would be broken.
Also, how would this interact with other metamagic feats like Empower Spell or Maximize spell? Would the additional dice be affected or not?
Would an Empowered Intensified Maximized fireball deal 90 + (15d6 x .5) damage? Or would it be 60 + 5d6 + (10d6 x .5) damage?
Yeah the way I read Intensified Spell (as posted), it would simply add 5 dice, rather than up the cap by 5 dice.
I certainly hope I'm wrong. That would be broken.
Also, how would this interact with other metamagic feats like Empower Spell or Maximize spell? Would the additional dice be affected or not?
Would an Empowered Intensified Maximized fireball deal 90 + (15d6 x .5) damage? Or would it be 60 + 5d6 + (10d6 x .5) damage?
The first one. Just like an Empowered, Maximized Freezing Sphere.
And I think you mean x1.5, unless you want to halve the damage.
A metamagic feat reduced to -1 does not change the original spell's level.
That -1 cannot be applied to another feat...that's applying -1 to TWO feats, not just one, and the feat does not do that.
+0 base metas do not lower the cost of other metas. Examples were given to that point in the errata, too.Not feat efficient, anyways.
==Aelryinth
Please realize that if additional metamagic feats do not act upon the level as modified by other feats then applying metamagic that says the spell takes a slot of the actual level (meaning +0) means that the spell takes a slot of the actual level regardless of what else has been applied since except for heighten spell and I think sanctum spell the actual level of the spell does not change. So it does not change the original spells level since it is applied after the level has already changed.
Also the errata has no examples containing +0 feats so far as I can see so unless you can show me where the examples are then I will have to say you are mistaken on that point.
A spell can only go down one from its the total of all the metamagic values. You basically get to add all of them together and then subtract 1.
FAQ page 36
If a character with Arcane Thesis (Player’s Handbook II, 74) applies multiple metamagic feats to the chosen spell, is the spell’s slot reduced by one level, or by one level per metamagic feat applied?
Arcane Thesis reduces the total spell level of a metamagic-affected spell by one, regardless of the number of metamagic feats applied. An empowered (+2 levels), still (+1 level), silent (+1 level) fireball would be 6th level.The FAQ did come out after the errata so you can consider the errata too be more official if you want, but the intent is what the FAQ is for.
This was re-revised to follow the original explanation. The above example would properly be a level 4 spell. I.e. he got it wrong the first time (the quote is in the Char Ops boards somewhere).
It still does not allow a +0 spell to get moved to a -1 level spell. The cost is applied independently per feat, and no metamagic feat can be reduced to a negative cost.
Metamagic Spell reduces the total metamagic cost on a spell by 1, to a minimum of 1. Efficient Metamagic does the same for a Metamagic Feat.
-------------
As for magic missile example, your maximum dice of dmg on magic missile is 5d4+5...each missile is one dice. Intensify spell would take that up one level, and the max dmg would be 10d4+10, or ten dice and ten missiles. It scales just like a fireball, but each dice is rp
Scorching Ray accumulates Rays in lots of 4d6. You can't raise its limit by 5 dice. You could rule it to go up by a Ray, however, I suppose, and that would be fair. 4 rays for 16d6 dmg at level 15 for a 3rd level spell isn't that bad...and Arcane Thesis would drop the level back to 2nd, or 'free'. +33% dmg for nothing is nice.
REal nice for Magic missile builds, however. Force Missile Mage gets net +1 caster level with MM's, and Arcane Thesis adds another +2. At level 10, you'd be getting 9 missiles per spell, and working your metamagic wonders upon them. At level 17, you'd have 12 base, Empowered, Twinned, Admixtured, Energized...mmmm, feel the love!
==Aelryinth
Yeah the way I read Intensified Spell (as posted), it would simply add 5 dice, rather than up the cap by 5 dice.
I certainly hope I'm wrong. That would be broken.
Also, how would this interact with other metamagic feats like Empower Spell or Maximize spell? Would the additional dice be affected or not?
Would an Empowered Intensified Maximized fireball deal 90 + (15d6 x .5) damage? Or would it be 60 + 5d6 + (10d6 x .5) damage?
The first one. Just like an Empowered, Maximized Freezing Sphere.
And I think you mean x1.5, unless you want to halve the damage.
No, I meant to say .05, the 1.0 portion is already accounted for in the maximized damage portion of the spell. If it read x 1.5, you would essentially be doubling the damage of the spell at NO cost.