|
...RAW also says metamagic feats have no effect when it comes to identifying spells.
Basically what needs to be clarified is what was meant by "you must be able to clearly see the spell" in the spellcraft section.
...
This is mistaken, the RAW says metamagic is not taken into account when counterspelling. counterspelling and identifying are two separate things even though they are dependent.
This is mistaken, the RAW says metamagic is not taken into account when counterspelling. counterspelling and identifying are two separate things even though they are dependent.
You are correct! Thanks for pointing that out. This once again brings all interpretations to be valid by RAW and not contradicted.
Granted, I'm leaning more in favor of the RAI interpretation as quote earlier in this thread, but every opinion once again has equal and fair footing.
|
|
Personally I use my exp with rl combat to answer such questions
For example AOOs never occur because I saw my opp do something, it's always because he dropped his guard or left an opening in his guard. Neither of which would tell me why he made the mistake.
There only two exceptions,
First is movement which then in rl would only apply when "running past" me and not from circling around me.
Second is gang up. Most cannot effectively defend against several opps at the same time so when he goes to atk one he dropping guard towards someone else and even without attacking his ability to defend himself is reduced with every additional opp because to parry or dodge is making an opening somewhere and keeping those openings where no one can take advantage of them becomes ever more difficult with more opp.
I also have my general rule that no one can break the laws of physics(or whatever laws I use for that world anyway) without doing something specific to counter act them (like cast a spell).
edited.
This is mistaken, the RAW says metamagic is not taken into account when counterspelling. counterspelling and identifying are two separate things even though they are dependent.
...RAW also says metamagic feats have no effect when it comes to identifying spells.
Basically what needs to be clarified is what was meant by "you must be able to clearly see the spell" in the spellcraft section.
...
I noticed that later, but the devs have stated intent. They even removed the language for compontents.
At this point it becomes an issue of "do what I say" or "do what I meant".
What do components have to do with metamagic? Sounds like two different issues there.
My point is that spellcraft(PF version) does not say you need to be able to see the component of the spell to identify it. The devs also stated this was true
In 3.5 you had to be able to hear or see it.
Shallow is trying to say that if someone uses a stilled silence spell that you can't identify it, however under PF rules not being able to hear or see the components, which the metamagic feats in question allow you to bypass, is no longer an issue.
In short the verbage has been changed which I recently quoted by comparing the PF and 3.5 version.
I also listed a quotes by James, and Jason saying components are not a factor in identifying spells.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, a new analogy came to mind earlier today and I figured I'd share it. It's easy to visualize and gives up more cognitive language nouns to work with.
A caster casting a spell = A caster petting a dog.
Petting is the verb, similarly to casting.
For all instances of spell, we will replace the noun dog.
A spell's components explain what you must do or possess to cast the spell.
A dog's components (this is the section of the book referring to a spell's description, and because the wording on this sounds odd, I will infer that this simply means that specific part of the spell's description. Essentially, I view this as a game term.) explain what you must do or possess to pet the dog.
Verbal component = "Nice doggy!"
Somatic component = The petting motion performed by the caster.
Material component = A doggy treat, or a brush perhaps.
You can apply metamagic feats to remove these, which basically means we can just stand there staring at the dog, and suddenly he's pet. He's happy, we're happy. This dog is now pet and I didn't even have to bend over to touch him.
You cast the spell, and there's (four legged, long nosed) spell looking back at you. The spell is there whether or not you said "Nice doggy".
Okay, so we're petting a dog? What's my point again?
Well, glad you asked, me!
Identify Spell Being Cast
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
Okay, so:
Identifying a dog as it is being pet requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the dog as it is being pet, and this incurs...This helps us exemplify the fact that a spell (dog) is not the same as casting a spell (petting a dog).
So let's apply some metamagic feats! No more "Nice doggy" verbal component, no more petting motion, and no more doggy treat! Can we still see the dog?
Yes.
Now this is where things get tricky... let's translate this back into game terms. First, we'll make a pit-stop off at our verb. Try all of the above again, but remove "petting" and replace it with "creating". This gives us a stronger analogy without changing any of the logic. It's just... more Frankenweenie... which is grosser and harder to picture. We're now creating a dog, probably by sewing him up from all these dog parts we found laying around. The verbal component can be "It's ALIVE!", the somatic can be a stitching motion, and the materials can be thread. This new analogy helps show where all of our sticking point arguments come from.
So, the next question arises! When is there "dog"? We're now creating the dog, so do you have to finish before there is "dog"?
Well, considering that the counter-spelling requires a readied action that is completed before the actual action that spawned it, we could NEVER counter-spell unless there was "dog". It doesn't matter if you use the feats or not, you need "dog" to see "dog". This makes me surmise that the counter-spell rules must infer that there is "dog", even before the "creating" is completed. I guess all those organs and fur that we're patching together to create dog is considered dog.
Now comes the second point of argument! Some say there is no additional visual representation of "dog". We now have invisible dog that we are trying to create.
Unfortunately, invisible dog comes with the same fallacies. Even without using feats to create invisible dog, we need to see it to counter-spell it. So if we work under the assumption that there is no visual components, then once again, counter-spelling becomes impossible even without using the feats!
In order to make counter-spelling work even without the feats, we must be able to see the spell (no invisible dog), and it must exist before casting (partially created dog is still dog).
Yeah, weird analogy, but I think it simplifies a complex wordage issue.
Thank God!
Hopefully the designers will clean up the wording to reflect their intent.
Don't you mean "Thank Dog"!?
*giggle uncontrollably for a full three minutes*
Okay, I'm done now... >.>
|
|
Also consider that when counterspelling you have to identify the spell before it is completed (at least for instantaneous spells) but when not counterspelling you have all the time in the world to identify and can identify it well after it happens.
I have yet to see this big difference addressed.
edit wow snacking while writing is bad just above me Grenmeera does point this out.
also like I stated in the fighter bab thread when in combat alot of attacking and parrying goes on the attacks per round you get are just the serious attacks.
This is mistaken, the RAW says metamagic is not taken into account when counterspelling. counterspelling and identifying are two separate things even though they are dependent.
...RAW also says metamagic feats have no effect when it comes to identifying spells.
Basically what needs to be clarified is what was meant by "you must be able to clearly see the spell" in the spellcraft section.
...
My point was if I can't ID it then by proxy I can't counterspell it. Which means that a metamagic feat has in fact decreased the vulnerabliity of the spell to being countered which is against the rules for meta-magic.
RAW
You keep using this word I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)
|
|
...
My point was if I can't ID it then by proxy I can't counterspell it. Which means that a metamagic feat has in fact decreased the vulnerabliity of the spell to being countered which is against the rules for meta-magic.
Yep, and that is the point. So many want to look at a situation that RAW didnt take into account and make a debate over it when in the end the entire book falls under the purview of the golden rule, what the GM says goes. PF used their own words but they kept that rule.
Yep, and that is the point. So many want to look at a situation that RAW didnt take into account and make a debate over it when in the end the entire book falls under the purview of the golden rule, what the GM says goes. PF used their own words but they kept that rule.
It's always been my favorite rule! Add in the versatility of circumstance bonuses and you get to keep the flavor of ye olde style role-playing alongside a stylistic and direct mechanical system.
My Verbal components get to be the Humpty Dance!
My Material components get to be plastic noses!
My Somatic components get to be... well, let's leave that up to the imagination.
By the way, am I casting Charm Person or Hideous Laughter? I still haven't decided...
RAWYou keep using this word I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)
It never does. :(
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules as written don't support the argument either way. The meta magic feats don't say they impact the identification of such spells, and spell craft/counter spelling doesn't say it imparts penalties. So whatever is happening in game, as long a s you can see the caster and he's not invisible, you can tell he's doing something and try to identify what.
The rules don't support shallow's argument that the spell is impossible to identify.
One of the developers has weighed in with his feelings on how meta magic would impact casting.
The problem doesn't appear to be the rules, the problem appears to be with your interpretation of the rules, being biased by what you want the rules to mean. As long as you continue to stick your head in the ground and ignore everyone, demanding attention from another developer, nothing that gets said here will make any difference,
They should just lock this thread too and put us out of your misery.
And eschew materials was (if ever - can't realy remember if anyone actually choose this) used to just ease the tracking of components for casters...
Your component pouch is often taken from you when captured. :) It certainly comes in handy to still be able to cast when you're tied up, gagged, stripped of all equipment, and thrown in a dungeon.
Incidentally, there is nothing in the rules that details that components are by any means required to see a spell is being cast. Nor are they connected to counterspelling or identifying anything being cast. At least, not that I've seen in the books or by anything presented in this thread. Ergo, the only way I could rule it at my table with a strait face would be to accept that casting a spell can be seen even without components.
So after reading this thread and the rules (GrenMeera's analogy is pretty good, and reflects my conclusions as well), it would seem to me that there is a side effect of casting spells that can be seen, and that is what Spellcraft is examining. The rules are abstract, not specifying the exact form of the effect, but from "clearly see the spell", we know it's visual. This may cause some concern, but verbal and somatic components aren't described in any detail, either; it's up to the GM to nail down the specifics, such as whether missing teeth interferes with the verbal component, or whether having a sprained pinky interferes with the somatic component. So, we'll survive.
But I'm still unsure of a couple things, which probably have to be GM calls:
Can spells being cast be seen while invisible, i.e. does invisibility extend to the spell? I'm divided. I'd think that yes, they can be seen, same as dropping an object while invisible, or loosing an arrow.
How does Heighten Spell affect all this? Clearly, metamagic does not affect identification -- not directly, anyway, since Spellcraft (and countering spells) mentions spell level, not level of spell slot. But Heighten Spell affects a spell's level. I would say that the DC to identify does increase, but the same spell without any metamagic, including Heighten, can still counter it (as well as other spells that work: "opposing" spells mentioned directly in the spell's entry, Dispel Magic, and Greater Dispel Magic), which I believe is the simple intent of that line: that you don't need to duplicate the spell being countered exactly to counter it. But if the countering mage is using Improved Counterspell, is it necessary to use a spell of the same school, one level above the modified spell level via heighten (but not other metamagics, of course), or just one level above the original spell level?
(Blech, I am having sentence structure issues today :P Those are a little complex, there.)
Edit: reworded "component" where I was speaking generally to avoid use of a game term.
Spellcraft does say that the perception skill can apply to spellcraft as far as penalties go, and if you are invisible you get a +20 to your stealth check.
That should add a +20 to spellcraft checks at least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Material component = A doggy treat, or a brush perhaps.
If a treat is a component (dog consumes it, you need another treat to do it again), then a brush is a focus (you need it to pet the dog, but then you can put it away and use it repeatedly.)
Great metaphor, by the way. I expect I will get some use from it in the future.
Spellcraft does say that the perception skill can apply to spellcraft as far as penalties go, and if you are invisible you get a +20 to your stealth check.
That should add a +20 to spellcraft checks at least.
That depends on if the effects of spellcasting is affected as well. If you're invisible and summon a creature, that creature isn't invisible - whether the casting is visible or not isn't stated by RAW.
Basically, in GrenMeera's analogy, it's a DM call whether or not the dog is invisible when you are.
Spellcraft does say that the perception skill can apply to spellcraft as far as penalties go, and if you are invisible you get a +20 to your stealth check.
That should add a +20 to spellcraft checks at least.
That depends on if the effects of spellcasting is affected as well. If you're invisible and summon a creature, that creature isn't invisible - whether the casting is visible or not isn't stated by RAW.
Basically, in GrenMeera's analogy, it's a DM call whether or not the dog is invisible when you are.
If you can't see the caster then you can't see him casting any more than you can see him pick up a stick.
If you can't see the caster then you can't see him casting any more than you can see him pick up a stick.
Agreed, but spellcraft doesn't require you to see the caster, just the spell. And I thought if an invisible character picked up an item, that item didn't get invisible?
your right you do see the stick just not whats holding it.
If you can't see the caster then you can't see him casting any more than you can see him pick up a stick.Agreed, but spellcraft doesn't require you to see the caster, just the spell. And I thought if an invisible character picked up an item, that item didn't get invisible?
You can never see spell, only the affects of the spell if it has any visual affects.
If you had to see a spell then charm person could not be spellcrafted.The fact that the perception skill is needed in certain cases shows intent. They should have written it as you need to be able to see the "casting of the spell", but bad wording is all over the CRB.
A post I replied to. Read my quote at the bottom regarding the sorcerer.
If you can't see the caster then you can't see him casting any more than you can see him pick up a stick.Agreed, but spellcraft doesn't require you to see the caster, just the spell. And I thought if an invisible character picked up an item, that item didn't get invisible?You can never see spell, only the affects of the spell if it has any visual affects.
If you had to see a spell then charm person could not be spellcrafted.
If you look through the thread I think you'll understand what I mean. One interpretation shared by me, GrenMeera, Ashiel and others, say more or less:
Since spellcraft say you must see the _spell_, rather than saying the _act of spellcasting_, the spell must exist while you are casting it (or counterspelling is impossible) and be visible in itself (or otherwise identification is impossible). This goes for all spells regardless of components.GrenMeera made an excellent analogy a few posts ago, I suggest you read it and you'll understand our viewpoint. :)
If a treat is a component (dog consumes it, you need another treat to do it again), then a brush is a focus (you need it to pet the dog, but then you can put it away and use it repeatedly.)
Great metaphor, by the way. I expect I will get some use from it in the future.
Ooh, I like the brush as a foci! Nice clarification!
Also, I'm suddenly getting a lot of positive remarks in regard to that analogy I made. Thanks go to you, Stazamos, and stringburka for your support!
I'd like to point out that Ross Byers got "favorited" for saying he liked my analogy and for creating a good addendum to the brush, meanwhile I haven't gotten a single "favorite" for the analogy in the first place. XD
Where's da' love! ^.^
I read it. I understand that RAW says "see the spell". I am saying the RAI is different. If it is not different then perception really has no baring on the issue.
I still think they should have kept the 3.5 ruling that said the components had to be seen. It worked much better than way.
Not that it adds any sort of credibility to either side of the argument, but in virtually all of the the official D&D-endorsed PC games I've ever seen (such as the Infinity Engine games Baldur's Gate I & II, Icewind Dale I & II, Planescape: Torment; Neverwinter Nights; etc), there is definitely visual cues to people casting spells beyond bat poo and flailing arms. I mean, sure, there's flailing arms and mystical sounding words; but spells are always accompanied by various forms of energy swirling about and/or gathering for the spell. You quite definitely can see a spell being cast, even though in Neverwinter Nights you have Spellcraft (which is auto-rolled every time you see someone casting a spell, to see if you recognize the spell).
EDIT: Some examples: PCs casting magic missile, burning hands, etc.
|
|
A pc game always has visual even when they shouldn't because that is what attracts people, (all the pretty lights *starts drooling*).
Charm person would never ever work if there were undeniable signs of spellcasting. There is even a skill trick to sleight of hand to to cast spells with somatic comps and make the movements unrecognized as spellcasting with the example given of using charm person on someone at a party and no one being the wiser.
RAW doesn't cover but RAW doesn't seem to look at anything beyond the standard form when they are written thus it is reasonable to assume they can be gotten around if one is creative and takes the needed steps to do so.
If a treat is a component (dog consumes it, you need another treat to do it again), then a brush is a focus (you need it to pet the dog, but then you can put it away and use it repeatedly.)
Great metaphor, by the way. I expect I will get some use from it in the future.
Ooh, I like the brush as a foci! Nice clarification!
Also, I'm suddenly getting a lot of positive remarks in regard to that analogy I made. Thanks go to you, Stazamos, and stringburka for your support!
I'd like to point out that Ross Byers got "favorited" for saying he liked my analogy and for creating a good addendum to the brush, meanwhile I haven't gotten a single "favorite" for the analogy in the first place. XD
Where's da' love! ^.^
I keep extending the metaphor. What if we consider the dog to be magic itself? Then a 'spell' is a trick that the dog knows, instead of trying to fit all the different spells into a single action (petting), or getting weird (assembling a dog from parts).
|
|
A lot of arguments mention things when the spell occurs, like seeing the creature that is summoned from a summon spell.
Identifying after the fact works when such things are present but when counterspelling, you have to recognize the spell before the spell is completed. That gives two different types of situations in which to use spellcraft to id a spell. Some recognition of that fact would be nice.
I keep extending the metaphor. What if we consider the dog to be magic itself? Then a 'spell' is a trick that the dog knows, instead of trying to fit all the different spells into a single action (petting), or getting weird (assembling a dog from parts).
Oh, I really like this! This greatly improves the components as well. You don't necessarily need to say "Good doggie" in order to pet a dog, or have a treat. However, you DO need to say "Sit" in order to get a dog to perform his trick, as well as need a treat. A "whistle" can now take the place of a focus (or one of those training clickers).
All this still means the same logic. You can still see the trick.
Charm person would never ever work if there were undeniable signs of spellcasting.
Would you mind expanding upon the idea that Charm Person would not work if you saw, for example, a small flash of blue light? I don't see how this would make the spell impossible. Magic will still affect the target's mind, would it not? I'm not certain I see what made you come to this conclusion.
RAWYou keep using this word I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)
uncooked right?
RAW, a charmed person isn't going to care if he or she is charmed once it occurs. Even if the person who saw ID'd that you were casting a charm on them, once charmed, they would react to you in the best possible way for anything. If anything, a charmed individual would willingly fail further saving throws to remain being your devoted friend, because that is what is going to seem natural for them to do.
Example:
If an orc is attacking a sorcerer and the sorcerer casts charm person on the orc, the orc's attitude, mannerisms, and behavior will all shift suddenly. The orc very well probably saw the sorcerer casting the spell. However, the orc now does not want to harm the sorcerer. So the sorcerer, who has Orcish as a language, explains to the orc "You're not killing me right now because you're under a magic charm. If released from it, you may try to kill me again."
The orc would avoid coming out of that charm as fervently as possible. The orc would willingly allow the sorcerer to keep re-applying the spell every day if needed, because the orc wouldn't risk suddenly not loving the sorcerer as he does. If someone offered to break the charm, the orc would refuse.
RAW, a charmed person isn't going to care if he or she is charmed once it occurs. Even if the person who saw ID'd that you were casting a charm on them, once charmed, they would react to you in the best possible way for anything. If anything, a charmed individual would willingly fail further saving throws to remain being your devoted friend, because that is what is going to seem natural for them to do.
You can't CHOOSE to fail a save on a charm, it represents the natural unconscious resistance you have to being charmed in the first place. It would take extraordinary circumstances to negate that. What the charm does while the spell lasts, is to cause the victim to simply not think about the fact that they were charmed or simply not pay the fact much attention.
Now much of the reaction they have when the spell lapses will depend on circumstance.
*facepalm* You really do seem to just try to disagree with everything I say, don't you?
Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
I really do try to avoid talking out of my ass, y'know.
You can't CHOOSE to fail a save on a charm,
I thought you could willingly fail any saving throw? Is there any RAW that supports this?
Never said it was a good thing.
This is the last time I'm going to ask this then I'm gonna just wait.
Can anyone cite any rule/feat/archetype or anything to support the conclusion that said spell is impossible to ID and thus Counter?
You quoted every set of rules but the spellcraft rules. Those are the ones that are most relevant.
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 we decide that "see" actually means to perceive visually, you argument is toast, so lets assume for a second that "see" actually means percieve(see, hear, smell, taste, or feel).
At the very least, still/silent metamagic means that there is less spellcasting to perceive, and thus the spellcasting harder to percieve clearly. Adding perception circumstance penalties to spellcraft check because of metamagic is perfectly in keeping with the RAW. At worst, it makes perceiving the spellcasting clearly impossible, which means the spellcraft check fails automatically. The RAW is vague enough, that depending on how you interpret the word "clearly" both options are valid interpretations.
For those of you saying that a wizard can use spellcraft to sense the magic of another spell caster, remember that by RAW, spellcraft can be used by anyone, even someone who is unable to use magic. Even a superstitious barbarian can id spells with spellcraft if he has ranks in the skill.
By RAW, you should also be adding in a distance penalty of +1 per 10 feet of distance to all spellcraft checks.
Further, any cover(standing around a corner) or concealment(blur spell) would allow the caster to make a stealth check. The stealth check can be used as a circumstance bonus to the DC of all spellcraft checks since it also prevents the spellcasting from being seen clearly. Thus, any bonuses to stealth(size, total cover, invisibility) can been seen as penalties to perception and thus penalties to spellcraft.
Finally, as for relevance. Invisible spellcasters are fairly common, and spell-like abilities are defined as being just like the spell they mimic but without components.
Overall, I could go either way. Either metamagic makes spellcraft impossible, or a smart caster can rack up so many perception penalties to the spellcraft roll that it becomes effectively impossible to id the spell. 100 feet away + invisibility + 15 on a stealth check + target is distracted = DC 65 + spell level to id the spell.
Overall, I could go either way. Either metamagic makes spellcraft impossible, or a smart caster can rack up so many perception penalties to the spellcraft roll that it becomes effectively impossible to id the spell. 100 feet away + invisibility + 15 on a stealth check + target is distracted = DC 65 + spell level to id the spell.
I hope he ate his cereal with an elixer of spellcraft this morning. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a more official answer:
In short by RAW you can use spellcraft, but he understand if a GM wished to rule otherwise.
Hey there Everybody]The rules here are certainly not clear, because they generally assume that the act of casting a spell has some noticeable element. Notice I did not say component, because I think the rules are silent on parts of spellcasting that are codified components versus those that occur without any sort of codification, such as the wiggle of a finger, change in breathing and other flavor bits that happen when a spellcaster makes the magic happen, as it were.
Back to the topic at hand, since the rules are silent here, I think it is well within the GMs purview to impose a penalty to the Spellcraft check to identify a spell without components (V, S, M). Since there is no real increase for spells with just one, I would guess that this penalty is not very large, perhaps only as much as -4.
This is, of course, up to your GM to adjudicate.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingEdit: I should also note that I also agree with James, that a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.
Put a fork in this thread it's done.
I love reading all your threads, shallowsoul. You are the only person I've ever seen who can start a thread asking a question of how the rules work (or rather stating your opinion of how they should work without even asking a question then say people who don't agree with it are wrong), have someone quote the lead director of the game stating that the way you are interpreting it is incorrect, and still have the argument go on for three pages after that. [slowclap]
Silent and still spell are for being able to cast while silenced or prevented from performing somatic components. Allowing them to stop all attempts at identifying the spells makes them too powerful for the spell level adjustment they have.
Does it really make sense that a silent, stilled, materials less spell can be identified in this way? Probably not. But Pathfinder isn't a reality simulator. This is far from the only thing that doesn't make real world sense in the game.
You can't CHOOSE to fail a save on a charm,I thought you could willingly fail any saving throw? Is there any RAW that supports this?
At the risk of possible threadjacking:
Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature canvoluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a
spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to
magic can suppress this quality.
Silent and still spell are for being able to cast while silenced or prevented from performing somatic components. Allowing them to stop all attempts at identifying the spells makes them too powerful for the spell level adjustment they have.
I have to disagree. Making spells impossible to counter gives these feats absolutely no power increase whatsoever since nobody ever counterspells to begin with. They just ready an action to blast opposing casters with damage spells, forcing impossible to beat Concentration check DCs.
Not that it adds any sort of credibility to either side of the argument, but in virtually all of the the official D&D-endorsed PC games I've ever seen (such as the Infinity Engine games Baldur's Gate I & II, Icewind Dale I & II, Planescape: Torment; Neverwinter Nights; etc), there is definitely visual cues to people casting spells beyond bat poo and flailing arms. I mean, sure, there's flailing arms and mystical sounding words; but spells are always accompanied by various forms of energy swirling about and/or gathering for the spell. You quite definitely can see a spell being cast, even though in Neverwinter Nights you have Spellcraft (which is auto-rolled every time you see someone casting a spell, to see if you recognize the spell).
I'm with Ashiel here (unusual, that :)
There's nothing that says spells are somehow undetectable just because you've stilled and silenced them. A spell is still being cast, and just as it still provokes an AoO, it is still identifiable. Whether there's a penalty and how much that penalty should be is up to your GM, but there's been many reasonable suggestions here.
Also consider that this is, indeed, a game, not a simulation. To a non-trivial extent, the rules exist to make the game playable more than they exist to define the physics of a nonexistant reality. Yes, of course, it's always nice if they're intuitive enough that it just makes sense, but the game has to be playable too.
So I'm all for imposing a penalty on Spellcraft checks vs. Eschewed/Silenced/Stilled spells, but that's very different than a blanket "sorry, you have zero chance of even noticing a spell was cast, never mind identifying it."
I'm with Ashiel here (unusual, that :)
Well, you can be with me instead if that makes it any easier?
Or, I can palm that object. Casting a spell with still, silent, and eschewed materials feats lets me 'palm that object' (ie. stealth cast)
Well, the point of the analogy was to solidify language for logical interpretation. Essentially, deductive reasoning entails that you can swap two equally true sentences to the same logic and create the same conclusion.
Your new analogy changes the verb and it's pretext. The RAW rules do not do this, as "casting" is never mentioned as another word or given a description such as "stealth casting". So the alignment of "pick up" an object and "palm" an object starts creating a looser analogy to the stated rules. This results in the remainder of the logic being based upon an unstated pretext.
Another aspect of your analogy is that you refer to people needing to see you palm the object. There is a reliance on the visuals of the action, and not the object itself. However, the rules state that the spell must be seen, and not the casting of the spell. The rules are in reference to the noun. To bring this back to your analogy it would be more correct to say for your argument:
Palming an object makes the object unseen during the palming.
However, once again, this relies on the pretext that stealth is created through the metamagic feats.
Still, I am completely happy that you have a differing opinion on this, but I hope that this helps clarify the analogy and it's purpose. You are free to disagree with it, but since you mentioned that you didn't understand it, I thought I'd explain it another way.
I think 'spell' is synonymous with the casting of it.
Actually, that sentence right there solidifies how your interpretation works from your perspective and makes sense. Once again, we have different views, but I like when they are both clearly given. :)