| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Title says it, someone uses a SLA which has no verbal, somatic, material or focus component whatsoever.
Let's say Dimension Door.
Obviously they know something happened since the guy vanishes. But do they know what he did or if he just made himself invisible, used plane shift or greater teleport or whatever?
Any difference if someone has Detect Magic active at the time?
Title says it, someone uses a SLA which has no verbal, somatic, material or focus component whatsoever.
Let's say Dimension Door.Obviously they know something happened since the guy vanishes. But do they know what he did or if he just made himself invisible, used plane shift or greater teleport or whatever?
Any difference if someone has Detect Magic active at the time?
I'm also curious as to what, if anything, can identify Supernatural abilities. For example, if a Bard attempts to use Fascinate and fails, does the target know what happened?
I beleive under the general heading that describs spell like abilites in the core book it specifies they are NOT spells but magic powers that emulate what some spells do. As such they cannot be counterspelled and they cannot be identified with spellcraft.
Now, that said, I would not think it unreasonable that a character could use an apporpriate knowledge skill to try to know what spell like abilities might be available to a certain enemy and attempt to figure out what they did from there.
Detect magic will interact with an active spell like abilitiy in the exact same way that it would interact with the spell that it imitates, so if you study long enough you could get what school of magic it would be but not identify the exact power. Again though an appropriate Knowledge check might give you some insight to figure it out.
Yes, the point is that the creature in question is able to cast both Invisibility and Diminsion door as SLA. The characters may figure that out with knowledge, I was just wondering if they can ID which one it was.
Guess they can't, which is just fine with me. :)
I would say it's up to the GM.
How are spells and abilities described in game? Do the spellcasters whisper a few words and "pop", the spell happens? Or, while casting, do great glowing runes and shapes appear around the caster, swirling around until the final result?
Does an invisible spell make you slowly fade from sight, or instantly blink out of existence? Or do you vanish in a poof of clouds and sparkles?
It's all flavor.
Although, I think a good GM should always give the players an opportunity to figure out what happened, unless it was important in some way, such as messing up a good mystery storyline. Give them a chance with Spellcraft or Knowledge checks to figure out what happened, otherwise you'll end up with frustrated players.
If a player happened to have Detect Magic active at the time while focused on the creature... Sure, let them know, "You sense a presence of magic on the creature right before it disappears in a poof of clouds and sparkles."
|
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
If you can identify a spell via spellcraft, you can identify a spell-like ability via spellcraft.
perhaps this is something you could say "maybe" you could identify it. say an even or odd roll. even you know, odd you don't
its the easiest way to keep the game going and we make ALL of our "IFy" calls using this system. Saves so many arguments and time.
Then look it up later when you have the time. Just a suggestion.
|
|
To counter that, thoughIf you can identify a spell via spellcraft, you can identify a spell-like ability via spellcraft.Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
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
With no verbal, somatic, or material components, eyes on the caster might not be enough - you might need to be able to see (and be looking at) the target location for the spell.
JohnF that argument has been brought up before (spells with no components threads). However, the rules do not support it. There is absolutely no difference between identifying a spell that has no components and identifying a spell that has components. The same should apply to SLAs.
- Gauss
If you can identify a spell via spellcraft, you can identify a spell-like ability via spellcraft.Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
How does the player know when a spell-like ability is being cast though if there are no physical clues to the spell-like ability being used?
GM: The creature disappears with a quick poof.
Player: Can I use Spellcraft to identify what happened?
GM: There's nothing left to look at to identify.
Player: Before the creature disappeared.
GM: You weren't really paying attention before... at least you didn't say you were watching it closely.
Player: ! ! ! (considers throwing dice at GM)
If you can identify a spell via spellcraft, you can identify a spell-like ability via spellcraft.Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
This quote however, has had kind of a sneak errata in that several times when that quote has been used to support a rule interpretation, that interpretation has been shot down. For example, Spell Focus does not work on spell-like abilities. Augment summoning works but just for the summoner class - it's an exception to the general rule. According to that part of the magic rules, both spell focus and augment summoning should work - as should metamagic rods (which IIRC does not work according to devs).
Unfortunately, it's one of those times when the devs have made a ruling that clearly contradicts explicit RAW - which is fine if they make a mention of it and explain how those magic rules work.
With no verbal, somatic, or material components, eyes on the caster might not be enough - you might need to be able to see (and be looking at) the target location for the spell.
Jason Buhlman has stated that you by RAW always see a spell being cast if you see the caster and that components aren't really important. There's thousands of posts on the subject, for example here:
It seems you cannot "sneak cast" just by skipping components. It's a ruling I don't fully agree with, but there you have it.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5pv2&page=1?Identifying-a-spell-thats-Still ed-Silenced-and
How does the player know when a spell-like ability is being cast though if there are no physical clues to the spell-like ability being used?
GM: The creature disappears with a quick poof.
Player: Can I use Spellcraft to identify what happened?
GM: There's nothing left to look at to identify.
Player: Before the creature disappeared.
GM: You weren't really paying attention before... at least you didn't say you were watching it closely.
Player: ! ! ! (considers throwing dice at GM)
We don't know if there are no physical clues. Remember also that most spell-like abilities are standard actions - so they're not "quick poofs".
While I'm unsure about spell-like abilities (due to inconsistent rulings), spells with no components can be seen.
For an example of how there could be other effects, look at the sorceress from diablo 2: linky
You can easily identify the "school" of magic she's casting from without seeing her movement and without hearing her voice (actually there are no verbal components to her spells).
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 Publishing
Whether or not this applies to spell-like effects is hard to know though.
@stringburka
Thanks for that. I did not know a spell being cast is always seen. Good to know.
They should not be able to be identified. That is they main reason they can not be counterspelled. In 3.5 the components were vital to being observed in order to spellcraft a spell. That is why they could not counterspelled in 3.5. They still can not be counterspelled in PF. The only way that logic continues is because they can not be spellcrafted. If you can spellcraft a spell that has an actual spell counterpart then there is no logical reason the spell or even the same SLA can be use to counterspell the SLA.
An SLA is really nothing more than a spell without any components. Both are basically purely mental actions.
Things like this are why I can't consider PF to be "its own game". When I can stop going back to 3.5 to logicfy(not a real word, I know) an answer then I will.
I don't think that's necessarily true, wraithstrike. There could very well be another reasoning too. It's hard to say when it comes to magic. And if it can't be spellcrafted, how does that relate to Knowledge Arcana which is used to identify already cast spells? One would think that for consistency's sake the two should work the same way (it doesn't have to be that way but it would make sense).
Assuming you can't with spellcraft:
- If you can identify spell-like abilities with K(A) why can't you with spellcraft?
- If you can't identify spell-like abilities with K(A) is it then completely impossible to gain knowledge of spell-like abilities?
That is the reason for 3.5. If there was a reason for PF I would hope the devs would know the answer. The 3.5 answer also makes sense.
Knowledge arcana does not allow you to identify SLA's as they are cast. It does allow you to identify spell effects that are in place. That should apply to spells and SLA's. As an example if a wall of fire is there it is reasonable that I should know it is a wall of fire no matter which method was used to create it, but if someone is standing there motionless no matter if it is by an SLA or by a spell I really have no indicators to use to identify the spell until after it is cast. That is where knowledge arcana comes in.
Going back to spellcrafting if someone cast fireball and I can spellcraft the SLA then there is no reason why a fireball spell should not be able to bring it counter it. They are basically the same except for the fact that SLA's don't use slots which affects how they interact with feats.
They should not be able to be identified. That is they main reason they can not be counterspelled.
The developers have indeed stepped in and said that you can identify a spell without components, and using your logic, can indeed be counter-spelled.
There was a very long thread about this, and every GM can choose to interpret the RAW as they see fit. However, claiming that "it can't be done" does not fit in with the intent of the developers and is not backed up directly by RAW.
The simple answer is, the components are not the spell. You can still see a spell that has no physical components for casting. Whether it is arcane energies swirling, a strange pink mist, or the odd cold wind coalescing around the caster, a spell is more than simply it's components as stated directly by Jason Buhlman.
If you can identify spell-like abilities with K(A) why can't you with spellcraft?
You can identify spells only after they are cast using K(A), but not during. During the casting, it is spellcraft. I would say that the same is true for spell-like abilities.
To the OP:
I would assume that since a spell-like ability functions just like a spell, then it can be identified just like a spell. However, stringburka brought up real concerns that we cannot fully rely on this assessment of "functions just like a spell". It has been shaky at best in the past.
I said "should not", not can't because I was in the thread that you are speaking of. The "should not" is based on logic, that makes sense, and an answer would be nice for PFS play, no matter what that answer is.
I said "should not", not can't because I was in the thread that you are speaking of. The "should not" is based on logic, that makes sense, and an answer would be nice for PFS play, no matter what that answer is.
Well, I can always respect an opinion for what it's worth. You hit the nail on the head in that it would be nice to see official PFS clarification.
but if someone is standing there motionless no matter if it is by an SLA or by a spell I really have no indicators to use to identify the spell until after it is cast. That is where knowledge arcana comes in.
But by RAW and developer comment you can clearly identify a component-less spell being cast. See the Buhlman quote above.
And it's easy to justify too. Just look at a Diablo 2 sorceress - you can identify at least what school of spells she's using even if you can't hear chanting or see her motions.
Video games and movies don't translate well to how PF works. :)
I want the rules to make sense though*. I see no reason why I can spellcraft both but only counterspell one of them. They are essentially the same thing.
*I can make exceptions for balanced based reasons. This is more me posting out of annoyance than not understanding what the rule is. :)
I want the rules to make sense though*. I see no reason why I can spellcraft both but only counterspell one of them. They are essentially the same thing.
I'm not certain if anybody was saying that. As far as I can tell, you can identify them both using Spellcraft and you can counter-spell them both. In fact, the rules for spell-like abilities mention the caster level for Dispel, which I can see no other usage for except counter-spelling.
I've always viewed spell-like abilities as a creature's innate ability to form the same magical patterns as the cast spell. All affects are identical, and magical patterns are what is being dispelled in a counter-spell after all. It doesn't really matter WHY they're forming, but since magic is taking a patterned form (and not remaining wild magic, which is it's natural form), you may dispel it away (which I've always viewed as returning it to chaotic wild magic and therefore no spell).
Yes... I use the conservation of energy to define how magic works to me. =^.^= Wild magic surges from older D&D kinda' defined the premise.
The rules specifically say SLA's can not be counterspelled.
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 but they cannot be counterspelled or used to counterspell.
Ah, that is too true! Thanks wraithstrike! My eyes passed over that multiple times for some reason.
Wow, I will agree with you that it's odd that they can't be counter-spelled. I'm not certain I can easily create a serendipitous explanation for my table.
Hmmm... perhaps I'll flavor it to say that the magical energies are being formed by the creature's actual physical blood/body and therefore the magical pattern is protected by the life-force of the creature itself. I need to adjust my views of magic slightly to get this to work.
No problem. :)
Video games and movies don't translate well to how PF works. :)
I want the rules to make sense though*. I see no reason why I can spellcraft both but only counterspell one of them. They are essentially the same thing.
Still, we can use things seen in movies and video games to visualize how the world works - just as how it's based heavily on written fiction.
I agree. However, this is just one of many cases where spell and spell-like abilities work differently. Look at Spell Focus, for example - while the rules seem to suggest it would work on SLA's, it's been clarified they don't. The same thing with metamagic rods IIRC.
So basically, I think we need to treat spell-like abilities and spells as if they're alike in effect only, but that they still work differently.
And it can make sense. Let's make a comparision to programming. I know just a little bit of programming - a little Java and a little Lua basically. Now, if I get access to a piece of Java code I can usually figure out what it does and alter it to do what I want it to. If I get access to a piece of C+ code however, my knowledge of programming may be able to allow me to identify what the code is supposed to do, because some things are shared or can be understood from the context. I would not, however, be able to alter the code to successfully do something I want it to do (more frakk up the program, which might be analogous to dispelling, but let's keep it simple).
In this case, spells might be Java while SLA's are C+. They have enough similarities that one who knows spells might identify what an SLA does, but they aren't similar enough that ze can do much about it.
It's not a perfect comparision, but you get the idea.
|
Heres the thing...Spellcraft is used to ID spells AS they are being cast when you are ID spells. Since there are no verbal or somatic components to SLAs then the only thing you can hope for is a visual queue that you can use your Spellcraft to ID the SLA AFTER it is used. Like the Bonedevil has Wall of Ice at will and Invisiblity and Teleport...So if the Bonedevil uses Wall of Ice its pretty easy to ID it AFTER its already cast (duh look a wall of ice). Now, Invisibility and Teleport are a different story...both cause him to disappear, so the question is can you tell what he just did. Nope...not unless someone in the party already has See Invis up or True Seeing...But the Knowledge: Planes roll (if high enough so around 34) may give that information up if you are specifically asking to remember as that character what abilities it has...but again can you differentiate between the 2...nope.
You're missing a '+' there. It's C++, which is the post-fix incremental operator. =^.^=
Also if magic was written in C++, I might as well be Nethys. :)
Ossian666: What is the difference between a spell that has no components and a spell that has components? Nothing. The rules make no distinction. Spellcraft identifies both equally.
While I am still unsure of whether or not it should be 'during' or 'after' I do believe ALL SLAs should be able to have spellcraft applied.
In your example of Invisibility vs Teleport there should be visual cues that a person with spellcraft can use to tell the difference.
Example 1:
GM: The Bone devil fades from view.
PC: I roll my spellcraft check.
GM: You believe he used something similar to invisibility.
Example 2:
GM: The Bone devil vanished with a pop.
PC: I roll my spellcraft check.
GM: You believe he used something teleport related.
PC: Can I tell if it was a teleport or D-Door?
GM: You think it was teleport, D-Door has a different signature.
Regarding Knowledge Planes: Why a DC34? Bone Devil is only a CR9. 15+CR9 = DC24. DC19 if using 10 (common) as a base instead of 15 (uncommon).
- Gauss
|
|
Ossian666: What is the difference between a spell that has no components and a spell that has components? Nothing. The rules make no distinction. Spellcraft identifies both equally.
While I am still unsure of whether or not it should be 'during' or 'after' I do believe ALL SLAs should be able to have spellcraft applied.
In your example of Invisibility vs Teleport there should be visual cues that a person with spellcraft can use to tell the difference.
Example 1:
GM: The Bone devil fades from view.
PC: I roll my spellcraft check.
GM: You believe he used something similar to invisibility.Example 2:
GM: The Bone devil vanished with a pop.
PC: I roll my spellcraft check.
GM: You believe he used something teleport related.
PC: Can I tell if it was a teleport or D-Door?
GM: You think it was teleport, D-Door has a different signature.Regarding Knowledge Planes: Why a DC34? Bone Devil is only a CR9. 15+CR9 = DC24. DC19 if using 10 (common) as a base instead of 15 (uncommon).
- Gauss
Thats a GM call. Not a RAW call. There are no visual differences between Invisibility and Teleport as typed in the books. In both situations the enemy was there and now they aren't.
If you want to play it that way then cool, but in the book you'd need the visual queue AFTER the spell to know what SLA was used.
Edit: And I used 34 for the Bone Devil because you are trying to find out a SPECIFIC type of information. As a GM there is no way that I'd just give you a detailed and specific piece of information for meeting the DC.
Since there are no verbal or somatic components to SLAs then the only thing you can hope for is a visual queue that you can use your Spellcraft to ID the SLA AFTER it is used.
Please see the quote by Jason Buhlman above. Generally speaking, you are making an assumption that a developer specifically said otherwise to. It is not canon or RAW, but it is seemingly RAI that there IS a cue to magic that has nothing to do with components.
If Invisibility has a neat little counter-clockwise swirl of blue magic and Teleport sounds like "BAMF!" with a faint smell of brimstone, then I can certainly tell the difference. The point is, Jason stated that magic has additional unmentioned cues and the GM can decide what they are.
As always, RAW is unclear and it's fine that you would play this otherwise at your table, but there is certainly no definitive "this does not work" such as the way you phrased it.
Developer intent is free to be ignored, but it should be taken into consideration irregardless and I never feel comfortable advising fellow forum members to ignore the devs (though I very amply encourage respectfully questioning them).
There are no visual differences between Invisibility and Teleport as typed in the books. In both situations the enemy was there and now they aren't.
The book does not say that removing spell components affects spell identification either. In cases of quoting RAW, all rules are considered to be as stated until explicitly stated otherwise. In this case, the rules of identification remain unchanged.
Spellcraft allows you to identify a spell as it is being cast. The same cues that make this possible without components are still present in a SLA.
Also, it is Knowledge: Arcana to identify a spell after it is cast, using the spell effect as the cue.
Ossian666: See GrenMeera's post. The developers HAVE stated that there are visual cues not otherwise indicated in the spell descriptions. This makes sense on two levels.
First) It would turn an already massive section of spells into an even more massive section and possibly add another 50pages to the book.
Second) It would prevent GMs from being descriptive in their own right. If the GM wants to add blue swirl but the spell states red swirl some player will get his panties in a twist.
Finally: The game is about helping your players have fun. Not beating them over the head with the rules. While I am pretty rules oriented when something like this is not covered I say great! I can add the fluff I want.
Nothing states we cannot spellcraft spell-like abilities. You have applied concepts not in RAW (no components = no spellcraft). If we have to we can reference the following line:
In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Due to that line and no statement to the contrary we CAN spellcraft a spell-like ability normally. THAT is RAW.
- Gauss
|
|
There are no visual differences between Invisibility and Teleport as typed in the books. In both situations the enemy was there and now they aren't.The book does not say that removing spell components affects spell identification either. In cases of quoting RAW, all rules are considered to be as stated until explicitly stated otherwise. In this case, the rules of identification remain unchanged.
Spellcraft allows you to identify a spell as it is being cast. The same cues that make this possible without components are still present in a SLA.
Also, it is Knowledge: Arcana to identify a spell after it is cast, using the spell effect as the cue.
Bolded: Not what we were talking about.
I'd love to listen to everything the Developers say. Can you ask them to put all of these clarities in ONE nicely organized location where we can neatly look them up? Because that would be great! If not then sorry what they say, unless it makes it into an errata or FAQ, in the book is what the players and GMs should use. I try and keep up on what they say as CLARIFICATIONS for confusion on terribly worded rules and spells, but their INTENTIONS mean nothing. I'm sure they INTENDED to put together a clearly organized and neatly published book that didn't fall apart at the bindings on the first use...but they didn't.
Edit: And the characters can have fun, but everyone in my group wants a knowledge check every time we start combat and they get it...if they don't get that piece of info they are searching for in the first roll then every roll after is going to get harded to discourage EVERY ROUND from being a search for every detailed piece of info on a creature.
And most spells have a visual cue...like a wall of fire popping up or a ray of acid shooting out from your finger tip. But the ones that don't say they have a visual cue I can't justify putting them into play.
Oh and based on your quote they can be counter spelled. Quote everything or nothing.
A spell-like ability has
no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it
require a focus. The user activates
it mentally.
How do you ID a mental thought? A meer THOUGHT is all that is required to make an SLA happen...so unless you have a Thought Reading Spell...no idea how you'd even THINK you'd be able to ID the spell until the spell itself appears visually.
Ossian666: My book hasnt fallen apart after a year of hard use. Sorry to hear that your book has had problems. They have stated (to other people) that if you cannot get a replacement through the place you purchased the book then they will do so.
Anyhow, if you are going to argue RAW that straight out of the book that is fine.
RAW point 1: Spellcraft identifies spells as they are being cast.
RAW point 2: A spell that has eschew materials, silent (metamagic), and still (metamagic) applied has no bearing on spells being identified as they are cast.
RAW point 3: Spell-like ability section states that 'in all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell'.
Thus: SLAs can be identified with spellcraft just like a spell.
- Gauss
Edit: You allow your players knowledge rerolls? That is certainly not RAW.
Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place.
You cannot ID a mental thought. But that has nothing to do with RAW. RAW states 'in all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell'. Spellcraft identification is part of that 'all other ways'.
Now, if you want to change the area of debate to the section on: How do you identify a spell with no components then we can check that area. It is no different than a SLA with no components though. And since nothing in RAW states you cannot ID a spell with no components then you can. Thus, you can also ID a SLA..which has no components.
Obviously, this is a case where RAW conflicts with your view of magic. This is fine, houserule it. But, this is a rules forum not a houserules forum. As such the RAW is what is applied.
- Gauss
|
|
Ossian666: My book hasnt fallen apart after a year of hard use. Sorry to hear that your book has had problems. They have stated (to other people) that if you cannot get a replacement through the place you purchased the book then they will do so.
Anyhow, if you are going to argue RAW that straight out of the book that is fine.
RAW point 1: Spellcraft identifies spells as they are being cast.
RAW point 2: A spell that has eschew materials, silent (metamagic), and still (metamagic) applied has no bearing on spells being identified as they are cast.
RAW point 3: Spell-like ability section states that 'in all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell'.Thus: SLAs can be identified with spellcraft just like a spell.
- Gauss
Edit: You allow your players knowledge rerolls? That is certainly not RAW.
Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place.
Their Knowledge "rerolls" are more of a "you get to ask a question and if you roll high enough you may be able to remember more info regarding specific events that just happened".
Ex: Bonedevil is fighting the PCs and all of a sudden a Wall of Ice pops up. My PC asks, "Can I make a Knowledge roll to know if that is something the Bonedevil did or if its from an outside source?"
I will allow them as a Standard action to make an additional roll. Its not a reroll where if they roll over the DC they get more info. They will get just the info they asked for if they meet the DC.
stuff.
I'm uncertain what your point is? If you are simply stating that you only accept RAW and do not care about RAI, then you are welcome to do so.
RAW without intent is a fairly broken thing however. A common joked upon example is that you technically can still take actions when you are dead because the dead status does not say that you are prevented from taking actions.
Also, RAW does not address this issue, and therefore RAW does not back your stance up any more than it does ours (although technically Gauss is using that argument and his reasoning is not unfounded).
I agree that some of these clarifications should get into the FAQs, but the good people at Paizo not only limit their time spent on focusing on the FAQs, but each release usually has more priority items being addressed. Perhaps one day this item will become a FAQ candidate. Certainly it has been flagged multiple times for such in other threads.
If you personally do not accept a developer's clarification on a complex issue, that is certainly your right as I have stated. I will attest that not everybody wishes to ignore the developers and your stance does not undermine the validity of the points taken.
Finally, yes I brought up Knowledge: Arcana because identifying a spell after the effect was mentioned. You are right in that it was a bit off topic, but since it was mentioned I was adding some content to the conversation.
|
|
You cannot ID a mental thought. But that has nothing to do with RAW. RAW states 'in all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell'. Spellcraft identification is part of that 'all other ways'.
Now, if you want to change the area of debate to the section on: How do you identify a spell with no components then we can check that area. It is no different than a SLA with no components though. And since nothing in RAW states you cannot ID a spell with no components then you can. Thus, you can also ID a SLA..which has no components.
Obviously, this is a case where RAW conflicts with your view of magic. This is fine, houserule it. But, this is a rules forum not a houserules forum. As such the RAW is what is applied.
- Gauss
Nothing in the book says "When you cast invisibility a puff of smoke appears in front of you and you vanish from sight" it just says "you vanish from sight".
If you want to houserule that there are other cues like that puff of smoke then thats fine, but the book does not provide those details.
Ossian666: That would be a houserule then. Spellcraft would tell them whether or not the Bonedevil did it.
- Gauss
Fine, it has no puff of smoke. Ignore that. IT STILL gets a spellcraft check.
No components? Spellcraft check allowed.
- Gauss
Here:
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.
Nothing in there about no components. Just 'seeing the spell as it is being cast'.
You are clearly 'seeing the spell as it is being cast' even if the spell has no components. SLAs have no components too but due to the line I have already quoted about SLAs using all other rules on spells then it still gets a spellcraft check.
- Gauss
Has this post by Jason Bulmahn been linked to yet? It's highly similar.
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.
edit: guess so.
The puff of smoke is considered fluff in order to explain the rules. You are correct when you say the fluff is a house-rule. However the puff itself is not an argument to CHANGE the rules.
The rules still dictate that you can identify the spell and thus the SLA. If you don't add fluff, it's hard for it to make sense, but it's still the current ruling.
The fluff just makes it interesting and adds a realistic explanation.
Cheapy: Thanks for the quote. Although, Ossian666 stated he is ignoring such developer comments.
- Gauss
Personally, I would allow it as long as they first made a perception check with all of the appropriate penalties added on to confirm that they were in fact actually paying enough attention to actually see it, or I would roll all of the appropriate penalties into the spellcraft check. Distance, lack of common components, and distractions from other sources would all be perfectly legitimate concerns that would increase the required DC. Now, if they had already stated they were watching for something, then I would be willing to waive some or all of the penalties, but otherwise, even if there are other visual cues, if you aren't giving that individual your full attention when the cues first appear, you aren't going to be able to instantly snap your attention to the spell or SLA, and if they aren't using components, you aren't going to have any warning they are casting until they actually cast the spell, so no reason to draw your attention ahead of time. Doesn't mean you can't try to id it, but it does make the task harder.
Sunshadow21: A perception check is not required to make a spellcraft check unless the person casting is hidden. Perception penalties and bonuses DO apply to a spellcraft check though.
- Gauss
The point is, whether you incorporate the penalties and bonuses into the same roll, or require a separate roll for the initial detection, that actually seeing the thing being cast as it is being cast is still the crucial key. If you are looking in one direction, and someone in the corner of your eye casts an SLA or a spell with no components, or even if it's someone directly ahead of you, but there is a crowd of people between you and them, you are not going to have the same ease of recognizing what is happening than if you had a clear shot and were purposefully watching for it. Even if there are other visual cues once the casting starts, you still have to be paying attention to them when they start in order to really have a decent shot of succeeding in iding the effect; if you have to switch your attention to them as they are occurring, it's a much harder task. And if there are no components being used, and thus no warning of what is about to happen, that would constitute a definite penalty in my book, ranging from -2 to -6 based on the specific circumstances. I would also consider no ranks in Perception to be another -2 penalty as you are not used to switching your focus that quickly.
Spellcraft checks do impart the Perception penalties such as this by RAW, you are correct.
Also, if you house-rule a separate roll for Perception instead of imparting the penalties directly to Spellcraft, I agree with you that it is splitting hairs as far as game balance and intent are concerned. In fact, I house-rule separate Perception checks into my games for the same reasons that you quote, but mostly I like relying on the skill that the player invested points into, in this case: Perception.
I mostly wanted to add that Jason Buhlman mentioned the imparted penalties in his quote above, but his take on it was use up to a -4 circumstance penalty for lack of spell components. You may of course use your own GM discretion in this, but it's useful and convenient for all of the readers following this thread to know how a developer weighed in.
Sunshadow21:
There are no facing rules in PF. If you can draw a clear line of sight from the mini to the person casting the spell it does not matter if the person is 'behind' or 'in front'. No facing rules. Now, some people want the facing rules brought back but that would be a house rule.
Penalizing someone for not having ranks in perception is another house rule.
Please folks, keep house rules out of a rules forum. They confuse people. If you really must post your house rules in a rules forum then please state that they are house rules and/or put them in a spoiler.
- Gauss