| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those two schools were shafted long ago... by 2 spells...
Mind Blank and True Seeing...
(On a side note, the fact that those two spells single handedly decimate 2 whole schools of magic kinda annoys me... as if they didnt have.enough issues with the whole [mind-affecting] tag,...
My group adheres to the concept of specific>general pretty religiously...
So...
If we assume all spells have some visible aspect/auditory aspect to allow for detection, then the feats of Silent/Still spell (and Eschew Materials) remove each of these aspects one by one.
So.
In the case of Charm Person, if you have silenced and stilled it, we allow it to be used for it's intended purpose: to discreetly make a new friend and probably avoid having to kill people.
Specific>General.
Agreed, it isn't clearly written out, but neither does it say that all spell have some visible manifestation.
Sure, you still get AoO because the caster is focusing on something other than preventing AoO, but this doesn't mean you immediately recognize that a spell is being cast! You just see an opening to attack, and take it!
This allows for better roleplaying scenarios, in my experience, and helps with immersion into the game.
Arbitrarily stating that all spells have unwritten, but necessary, visual components is a modification of the existing rules, not something that is actually published.
Yes, my groups approach sometimes produces situations where counterspelling isn't possible, but if you are casting a first level spell by using a third level slot, maybe that's okay... :D
This is where it would be nice for magic to include the Display mechanics of Psionics, which tell you exactly what perceptible effects the power has. Personally, I'd like to see a "subtle" descriptor for certain spells, which would denote when the components could be disguised as something mundane (such as charm person). Presently, the rules just don't handle it too well. It should be very difficult to determine who in a crowd of people cast summon monster as a spell-like ability, but probably not who cast scorching ray.I would say charm person, especially under the seemingly popular 'enslave person' interpretation of it, should very specifically be one of the ones you cannot cast subtly.
If you use Charm Person as written, it doesn't allow for harmful actions. It isn't a powerful spell at all.
To cast it discreetly, it has to be stilled AND silenced, making it a third level spell slot.
So instead of taking out half the city guard with a fireball, you can charm one person to let you through without having the correct papers...
We allow uses like this.
Those two schools were shafted long ago... by 2 spells...
Mind Blank and True Seeing...
(On a side note, the fact that those two spells single handedly decimate 2 whole schools of magic kinda annoys me... as if they didnt have.enough issues with the whole [mind-affecting] tag,...
Mind Blank is an 8th level spell, and those should be powerful. True Seeing is very useful, but must be activated, so if you have on idea that you need it, it is of no use. The bigger issue with True Seeing is obviously the creatures that have it as an always-on ability. That's kind of lame, I agree.
I think the bigger issue is the blanket immunity of far too many creatures to the [mind-affecting] tag. It's easy enough for GMs who don't like it to fix, though. Simply tie mind-affecting immunity to not having an Int score, and be done with it.
...
...That's not how Specific>General works.
Specific>General means that the structure of the rules are designed such that there are rules statements that apply in the general case, and if another rules element that covers a narrower scope wants to provide an exception to the general rule it can do so by being written in a way such that it contradicts the general rule, and the rules element that is narrower AKA more specific takes precedence. Unless the specific rule either explicitly contradicts the general rule, or cannot be reasonably interpreted so that it does not contradict the general rule, then Specific>General is not a relevant rules interpretation tool. That's it.
Now, lets dissect what you just posted.
OK, that's not written anywhere, but given that most characters perceive mostly via sight and hearing, it's a reasonable deduction(you could argue for also smelling or feeling the spell, or just sensing it somehow - the rules are silent on the issue).
...
If we assume all spells have some visible aspect/auditory aspect to allow for detection,...
... then the feats of Silent/Still spell (and Eschew Materials) remove each of these aspects one by one.
Hold the **** on.
Where did that nonsense come from.
Nowhere does it say that aspect=component. Components are things that the spellcaster needs to fulfill in order to cast the spell. There is no basis in the written rules for saying that those metamagic feats and eschew components deny or affect visual/auditory aspects of the spell in any way. If you disagree, then actually stick up a rules citation that links them, please.
So.
In the case of Charm Person, if you have silenced and stilled it, we allow it to be used for it's intended purpose: to discreetly make a new friend and probably avoid having to kill people.
Specific>General.
Once again, Silence and Still metamagics remove components, not anything else. Unless you can provide rules that indicate otherwise, this is an incorrect interpretation (both RAW and RAI, see below).
Agreed, it isn't clearly written out, but neither does it say that all spell have some visible manifestation.
Nope, it doesn't say that. The rules do not say there are visible manifestations. The rules do say that you get a spellcraft check, with all the penalties associated with perception checks. It says this unconditionally. It makes no mention of components. Therefore by RAW components don't matter.
You can say that it's intended to be for components, since the rules don't say that anything else is perceivable, although they don't rule it out either - that's what "the rules are silent" means. This would amount to saying that by RAI components determine perceivability. However, since the Devs have said that you still get a perception check on a silent still spell, then you would be wrong from a RAI perspective. You could also argue that it's a stupid idea, but that's irrelevant from a rules point of view unless the rules lead to a clearly unintended absurdity (and the devs have said that, absurd or not, it's intended to work like that).
So that leaves us with all spells being perceivable, regardless of why. Or at least noticeable with a spellcraft check+perception penalties. You can explain that how you want. Visual and auditory aspects to the spell are the simplest and easiest justification. But regardless of how you fluff perceiving spells, they can be noticed, components be damned.
Sure, you still get AoO because the caster is focusing on something other than preventing AoO, but this doesn't mean you immediately recognize that a spell is being cast! You just see an opening to attack, and take it!This allows for better roleplaying scenarios, in my experience, and helps with immersion into the game.
AoOs can be argued to be due to leaving an opening. Rules are silent on it, so that's neither here nor there.
I have no idea why channeling mystical energies generally looking like some hand waving and chanting(and nothing else) makes for players better deciding actions to take in the shoes of their PCs. Could you possibly give a justification for that rather contentious statement?
Arbitrarily stating that all spells have unwritten, but necessary, visual components is a modification of the existing rules, not something that is actually published.
It's not a modification, merely filling in the rules where RAW is silent. It's not stated that you can see or hear the spell, but you can notice it by RAW if you make a spellcraft check with perception penalties. Spells making a light and sound show is the simplest way of explaining this mechanic in game terms. You can come up with another justification, but you can't deny the spellcraft check without deviating from RAW and RAI.
Snowblind, nowhere in the rules does even say that spells have detectable aspects, so the entire discussion is moot.
I recognized that deviating from allowing a spellcraft check violates RAW, but explained that we do so because we believe still spell/silent spell should allow for it (for spells that clearly don't have a visual clue, like Charm Person).
The assumption that the spells themselves have a visual clue is just that: an assumption. There is NO text to support this unless the spell itself says otherwise (such as fireball producing a big ball of flame).
It's fine that you don't agree with how we do things, but this isn't a rules thread, it's General Discussion.
"So that leaves us with all spells being perceivable, regardless of why. Or at least noticeable with a spellcraft check+perception penalties. You can explain that how you want. Visual and auditory aspects to the spell are the simplest and easiest justification. But regardless of how you fluff perceiving spells, they can be noticed, components be damned."
Another false assumption. SpellCASTING is perceivable, nothing states that the spell itself is...
So we are left with this situation:
A stilled, silenced Charm Person allows for a spellcraft check to be identified... by the rules.
I do not believe this should be the case, so I don't do it that way.
I respect that you don't agree with me, that's fine, but once again... this isn't a rules thread. In my game, I allow for use of spells in a more role-playing context than the rules would permit.
I always imagine the only thing to see, is the Wizard making some kind of "I"M POOPING" face, that gives away the fact they are casting a spell.
Exactly
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, I see a Wizard do this, and I figure he is casting a spell.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I suppose for the sake of the entire illusion school, identifying an illusion spell by it's undescribed manifestation wouldn't constitute "proof that an illusion isn't real".
Just because you know that an illusion was cast, doesn't mean you know what thing in your environment is an illusion (unless the caster is foolish and makes an obviously magical thing appear right after casting).
Also, to borrow a real world example, I can freeze something in liquid nitrogen and shatter it in front of you, then I can tell you that splashing some on your hand won't hurt you (it won't if it's a small amount btw), but most people won't really believe that until they see proof - i.e., someone do it. There's a psychological difference between intellectually knowing something and having it demonstrated as fact.
(In fact even after splashing some on my own hand, I've seen students flinch away from a few droplets. Teaching science lets me play with the best toys.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Snowblind, nowhere in the rules does even say that spells have detectable aspects, so the entire discussion is moot.Well some of them do, like burning hands obviously has a very visible and detectable cone of fire. Still and silent it all you like, there's still a giant cone of fire obviously coming out of you...
But no not BY DEFAULT there is no such rule. And other spells like fox's cunning have no such detectable manifestation.
The rules do say that you get a spellcraft check, with all the penalties associated with perception checks. It says this unconditionally.Yup, you unconditionally get a spellcraft check with all perception penalties. The perception penalty to see things that don't exist should of course be +infinite DC. Feel free to roll it if you like.
If you want to be absurd and claim that there is no listed +infinity modifier for non-existent things, then okay, at best nonexistent things are more visually subtle than a secret door +20, trying to see nonexistent things is certainly "terrible conditions" +5, and the sound of a nonexistent thing is certainly quieter than a drawing bowstring so at least +25 there, +50DC + distance modifier, on top of original spellcraft DC.
Alternatively, think of a non-existent thing as being infinitely "good at avoiding detection" and thus it has a +infinity bonus in stealth, to which you have to roll opposed perception.
(Maybe beating +70 or whatever DCs to perceive non existent things is how the gods crafted Golarion in the beginning of the universe! O.O)
I would use Invisibility as inspiration, +40 DC
|
|
Here's a shot at this:
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability is based on would be subject to spell resistance.
A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A constant spell-like ability or one that can be used at will has no use limit; unless otherwise stated, a creature can only use a constant spell-like ability on itself. Reactivating a constant spell-like ability is a swift action. Using all other spell-like abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity, just as when casting a spell. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
For creatures with spell-like abilities, a designated caster level defines how difficult it is to dispel their spell-like effects and to define any level-dependent variables (such as range and duration) the abilities might have. The creature's caster level never affects which spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name. If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature's Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a spell-like ability is 10 + the level of the spell the ability resembles or duplicates + the creature's Charisma modifier.
Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they have no focus or material components, they still have verbal and somatic components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability is based on would be subject to spell resistance.
[...] rest of wording the same [...]
1. Every spell can potentially be counterspelledAll that RAW actually says on this is "It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell."
This is not the same thing as your premise 1. There are a few reasons I think, but it is sufficient to list just one (not the most intuitive one, but a pretty tight one): the existence of the feat "Improved counterspell" which was published in the core rulebook right from the start.
This feat makes it so that logically, it is only required for ONE spell in each entire school to have visible manifestations during casting in order to satisfy the claim that "it is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell." And without bothering to check, I'm sure there is at least one such spell that explicitly lists visible manifestations in its text per school. While still allowing "fox's cunning" to be completely undetectable with the appropriate metamagics.
What you use to counterspell them is irrelevant to the fact that you CAN counterspell them. If you choose to use the normal Dispel Magic, Go for it. If you choose to use the exact same spell, go for it. If you have this feat and choose to use any spell from the same sub-school, go for it.
Which sub-school? Oh, yeah, the one you identified by making your Spellcraft check while the other guy is still casting. You know, the Spellcraft check you made because you can SEE the spell being cast.
The point is, whatever rule you use, with or without the Improved Countrespell feat, to do your counterspell, you've already SEEN the spell being cast and already made that Spellcraft check to identify the spell as it was being cast.
So the point about Improved Counterspell invalidating the fact that you can see the spell is about as relevant as saying that eating an apple means it was never a fruit. (hint: irrelevant nonsense).
1. Every spell can potentially be counterspelledAll that RAW actually says on this is "It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell."
This is not the same thing as your premise 1. There are a few reasons I think, but it is sufficient to list just one (not the most intuitive one, but a pretty tight one): the existence of the feat "Improved counterspell" which was published in the core rulebook right from the start.
This feat makes it so that logically, it is only required for ONE spell in each entire school to have visible manifestations during casting in order to satisfy the claim that "it is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell." And without bothering to check, I'm sure there is at least one such spell that explicitly lists visible manifestations in its text per school. While still allowing "fox's cunning" to be completely undetectable with the appropriate metamagics.
What you use to counterspell them is irrelevant to the fact that you CAN counterspell them. If you choose to use the normal Dispel Magic, Go for it. If you choose to use the exact same spell, go for it. If you have this feat and choose to use any spell from the same sub-school, go for it.
Which sub-school? Oh, yeah, the one you identified by making your Spellcraft check while the other guy is still casting. You know, the Spellcraft check you made because you can SEE the spell being cast.
The point is, whatever rule you use, with or without the Improved Countrespell feat, to do your counterspell, you've already SEEN the spell being cast and already made that Spellcraft check to identify the spell as it was being cast.
So the point about Improved Counterspell invalidating the fact that you can see the spell is about as relevant as saying that eating an apple means it was never a fruit. (hint: irrelevant nonsense).
You can see casting happening, it never says you see the spell itself.
Some spells have visible effects, like Burning Hands, Fireball, Magic Missile etc... some do not, like Charm Person, Dominate Person etc...
This is actually pretty simple:
1. Every spell can potentially be counterspelled. *
2. If you want to counterspell (which is a rule, even though we all hate it and never use it, but let's pretend the rule exists so that somebody somewhere might use it), you need to use Spellcraft to identify the spell being cast.
3. Spellcraft (to identify a spell as it is being cast) states that you must see the spell to identify it. It even says normal perception penalties can apply.
4. In order for points 1, 2, & 3 to be consistent, there must be something that CAN BE SEEN. This must be true for every spell. **
Yeah...the components.
Again, people trying to parse what is a clear oversight on the part of the developers as RAW. If there are no rules written to address a given issue, then there are no "rules-as-written" to which we might appeal. If your ruling requires a bloody seven point "interpretation" (your words), there clearly there is no rule-as-written, as much as you'd like to impose your interpretation on the rest of us as being somehow definitive.
I'll go right on not neutering the entire illusion and enchantment schools, k thanks bye.
I don't know what "yeah...the components" means. I mentioned those in point 6 which you didn't include in your quote of my post. So you're agreeing with me, then, on point six (that's why you said "yeah", I assume).
Definitely an oversight on the part of the Devs. I agree. I said so in my post but you didn't quote that, either. They really should have written this better, no doubt about it. They also should have written the stealth rules better, and the AoO rules better, etc. There are lots of rules subsystems in this game that require you to read and understand multiple parts of the book and then go through other multi-step mental processes to figure out how it really works. The one I just laid out for you is not alone in this.
Why do you say "interpretation" is "my words"? I never used that word at all. Even so, your point that we must look at what is written and jump through some logical hoops to figure out what it means so therefore it isn't written is logically inconsistent. You cannot logically say "Making an effort to understand what is written means it is not written."
And how does understanding the rules neuter two schools of spellcasting? Is it somehow preferable to make house-rules to make those schools overpowered.
I daresay your entire rebuttal is built on misquoting me and failing to understand the actual rules that are, indeed, written, and therefore not a meaningful rebuttal at all, k thanks bye.
This is actually pretty simple:
1. Every spell can potentially be counterspelled. *
2. If you want to counterspell (which is a rule, even though we all hate it and never use it, but let's pretend the rule exists so that somebody somewhere might use it), you need to use Spellcraft to identify the spell being cast.
3. Spellcraft (to identify a spell as it is being cast) states that you must see the spell to identify it. It even says normal perception penalties can apply.
4. In order for points 1, 2, & 3 to be consistent, there must be something that CAN BE SEEN. This must be true for every spell. **
Yeah...the components.
Again, people trying to parse what is a clear oversight on the part of the developers as RAW. If there are no rules written to address a given issue, then there are no "rules-as-written" to which we might appeal. If your ruling requires a bloody seven point "interpretation" (your words), there clearly there is no rule-as-written, as much as you'd like to impose your interpretation on the rest of us as being somehow definitive.
I'll go right on not neutering the entire illusion and enchantment schools, k thanks bye.
Why do you say "interpretation" is "my words"? I never used that word at all. Even so, your point that we must look at what is written and jump through some logical hoops to figure out what it means so therefore it isn't written is logically inconsistent. You cannot logically say "Making an effort to understand what is written means it is not written."
And how does understanding the rules neuter two schools of spellcasting? Is it somehow preferable to make house-rules to make those schools overpowered.
I daresay your entire rebuttal is built on misquoting me and failing to understand the actual rules that are, indeed, written, and therefore not a meaningful rebuttal at all, k thanks bye.
Sorry man, but you have to eat your own dog food.
By RAW, there is no other interpretation, no matter much any of us might want it to be otherwise.
You even bolded it in the post. You didn't leave room for much...interpretation.
Some spells have visible effects, like Burning Hands,...
Which is completely irrelevant to whether you can counterspell them or not. You do not wait until you're on fire and then say "Oh, yeah, Burning Hands, I think I'll counterspell that".
You MUST counterspell before the casting is finished. There is no fire (Burning Hands) DURING the casting. Unless your interpretation is that the casters hands are glowing/flaming throughout the entire time he's casting, even before he blasts that flame out into the cone?
That also isn't written anywhere, but it might make for a fun interpretation. If so, it might seem like such things should give bonuses to the Spellcraft check to identify the spell: "Hey, that guy seems to be casting, I'll identify the spell with Spellcraft. Now let's see here, his hands are on fire, so he's probably NOT casting Charm Person. Narrows it way down, what fire spell could it be...?"
It also seems like a house rule like this could make it impossible for your premise that Still/Silent/Eschewed spells can hide the spellcasting. "Hey, look at that dude in the robe over there. I can't tell if he's casting something because he sure is still and silent, but his hands are on fire. That's suspicious, all right, it surely is...!"
Or, the much simpler interpretation that the fire doesn't even come into existence until the caster FINISHES the spell, long after the point where Spellcraft checks and Counterspells were used on his casting effort.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry man, but you have to eat your own dog food....
You're right, but you're taking it out of context.
I did not lay out a logical "interpretation" nor did I mean to imply that I did.
I was referring to any "other" misinterpretation, hence the word "other" but I phrased it badly. To be clear, the entire 7-step process that I laid out doesn't require interpretation. It just requires understanding. If someone else comes up with any other misinterpretation, it would be inconsistent with a clear understanding of the rules as written.
I said that badly in the original post - this is what I should have said for better clarity.
Some spells have visible effects, like Burning Hands,...Which is completely irrelevant to whether you can counterspell them or not. You do not wait until you're on fire and then say "Oh, yeah, Burning Hands, I think I'll counterspell that".
You MUST counterspell before the casting is finished. There is no fire (Burning Hands) DURING the casting. Unless your interpretation is that the casters hands are glowing/flaming throughout the entire time he's casting, even before he blasts that flame out into the cone?
That also isn't written anywhere, but it might make for a fun interpretation. If so, it might seem like such things should give bonuses to the Spellcraft check to identify the spell: "Hey, that guy seems to be casting, I'll identify the spell with Spellcraft. Now let's see here, his hands are on fire, so he's probably NOT casting Charm Person. Narrows it way down, what fire spell could it be...?"
It also seems like a house rule like this could make it impossible for your premise that Still/Silent/Eschewed spells can hide the spellcasting. "Hey, look at that dude in the robe over there. I can't tell if he's casting something because he sure is still and silent, but his hands are on fire. That's suspicious, all right, it surely is...!"
Or, the much simpler interpretation that the fire doesn't even come into existence until the caster FINISHES the spell, long after the point where Spellcraft checks and Counterspells were used on his casting effort.
You and I see things the same way, at least in regards to this last post of yours.
I have found that making stilled/silenced spells undetectable (if they don't have a visual manifestation, such as Charm Person) has added to the enjoyment of the game, for myself and my players.
Under no circumstances though, have we added text to the books boldly stating that the spells themselves all have a visual manifestation that allows for countering... The act of casting itself is what allows for AoO/countering.
We just apply a houserule to certain spells to increase our enjoyment of the game.
Addressing the whole counterspell thing...
Maybe Burning Hands IS a gradual thing, who's to say? You get to roll Spellcraft and are allowed to counterspell if you are ready to do so...
HOW this happens basically is irrelevant. A lot of people state that spells (not the act of casting, but the actual spell itself) is a visible, if intangible, thing that can be seen by anyone.
I say that the act of casting itself is the visible thing.
Otherwise Invisibility is a very messed up spell. It's the OPPOSITE of visible, it's right there in the title. Same for Charm Person. Basically useless unless cast against a single person out of sight of others...
So... RAW do you get to roll Spellcraft on every spell you see being cast? Yes, absolutely.
Why? It never says.
RAW does Still/Silence modify this roll? It doesn't seem to, but we houserule to allow for it. My argument is that a silenced/stilled spell isn't something that can be witnessed in the first place, so no spellcraft rolls.
You do still get AoO, however, because SOMETHING is causing that caster to lose his focus/allow for an AoO.
Sorry man, but you have to eat your own dog food....You're right, but you're taking it out of context.
I did not lay out a logical "interpretation" nor did I mean to imply that I did.
I was referring to any "other" misinterpretation, hence the word "other" but I phrased it badly. To be clear, the entire 7-step process that I laid out doesn't require interpretation. It just requires understanding. If someone else comes up with any other misinterpretation, it would be inconsistent with a clear understanding of the rules as written.
I said that badly in the original post - this is what I should have said for better clarity.
This has gotten to be about as sensible as a theological debate on the one true meaning of [insert religious passage here]. Problem is that there are no true meanings to anything, only interpretations. Sometimes, we have broad consensus, and other times we do not. There's not a bit of sense in trying to manufacture consensus by bludgeoning the non-believers.
That's a great houserule (if you don't mind taking the most unbalanced classes in the game and making them even more unbalanced).
Note that the rules don't make Invisibility a "very messed up spell" by saying you can see the magic as it's being cast. It's not like that visible magic stuff (whatever it is) floats along for the duration of the entire spell, giving away the invisible guy's location. It's only there while the spell is being cast, then that visible magic stuff is somehow magically transformed into the power of the spell. Or whatever.
And it's not like rules make it impossible to cast other magic while invisible. The Invisibility spell clearly allows this (hence the written example, in the spell's text, about summoning monsters while not breaking invisibility). It's just pretty safe to assume that the visible magic stuff (whatever it is) is masked by the spell, too. Surely the rules don't say otherwise, though I suppose a GM might actually make a ruling the the spellcaster is invisible but the spell casting is not, so I guess this point could go either way - but either ruling is still consistent with the RAW.
Likewise, with Charm Person, maybe it was meant to be useless when cast against a victim while his friends and family stand around watching. You know, safety in numbers. It's also useless to cast Burning Hands on him while his friends and family stand around - sure, you'll probably kill him, but the spectators will run screaming for the guards and you've just become an evil murdering criminal - I hope you got what you wanted before you had to run away forever from that town.
It's already bad enough that EVERY FIRST LEVEL ARCANE CASTER IN ALL OF GOLARION can walk into any store, browse until there are no customers, then charm the pants (and profits) off of the store's proprietor in the name of "best friend discounts" - but making it so he can do it in a crowded store without waiting to catch the proprietor alone just makes this kind of thing all too easy. Frankly, either way, I don't see how any store ever stays profitable for very long. But at least with the RAW, that proprietor might have his wife and kids working in the store so that he's never alone and never easily susceptible to this kind of thing.
This has gotten to be about as sensible as a theological debate on the one true meaning of [insert religious passage here]. Problem is that there are no true meanings to anything, only interpretations. Sometimes, we have broad consensus, and other times we do not. There's not a bit of sense in trying to manufacture consensus by bludgeoning the non-believers.
Who is bludgeoning?
I simply laid out the rules in an orderly fashion to help people understand them.
Then I responded to some posts that disagreed, mainly to help clarify misunderstandings.
Play how you want, there's no bludgeoning here.
But, I just noticed that this isn't in the Rules Questions forum (I thought it was until I just now checked) so OK, fine, I'll stop explaining rules here.
Meh, I haven't had issues with my approach...
In regards to Charm Person and clearing out a store... I have been best friends with a store owner, and trust me, there is NO situation where that could have happened.
It would have been harmful to his business, and quality of life.
So, Charm Person wouldn't have worked anyway. People keep ignoring the complete text of the spell, it is self limiting already.
I suppose for the sake of the entire illusion school, identifying an illusion spell by it's undescribed manifestation wouldn't constitute "proof that an illusion isn't real".
Just because you know that an illusion was cast, doesn't mean you know what thing in your environment is an illusion (unless the caster is foolish and makes an obviously magical thing appear right after casting).
Also, to borrow a real world example, I can freeze something in liquid nitrogen and shatter it in front of you, then I can tell you that splashing some on your hand won't hurt you (it won't if it's a small amount btw), but most people won't really believe that until they see proof - i.e., someone do it. There's a psychological difference between intellectually knowing something and having it demonstrated as fact.
(In fact even after splashing some on my own hand, I've seen students flinch away from a few droplets. Teaching science lets me play with the best toys.)
I love illusion, but the problem is that it's supposed to be pretty great: either it fools people into wasting actions, or it's much more effective against those who don't know it's not real. Instead, it has relatively short durations for many effects (meaning that, unless you're prepared to drop lots of cash, or have amazing timing, you don't have a ton of things going in advance), and loses most of its power when it tries to do things like the other schools.
That makes sense: it's illusion, after all, so definitively not as powerful as the schools it imitates. The problem comes when many of the effects that it imitates are already less powerful than the effects you're using - this means that you're using higher level powers for lower level effects that are (typically) half as effective (if at all) compared to the thing you're imitating. Add that to the fact that illusion is flashy - it's meant to be displayed... which generally means it gets interacted with, quickly.
Something seems wrong with that.
That said, there are a lot of useful illusion spells, even if the display is obvious. Observe:
01 Blur: useful
02 Color Spray: useful until it's not (certain builds not withstanding)
03 Disguise Self: useful, but must be hidden, by default
04 Displacement: useful
05 Dream: irrelevant
06 False Vision: must be cast before hand
07 Ghost Sound: useless
08 Hallucinatory Terrain: useless
09 Hypnotic Pattern: useful
10 Illusory Script: useful
11 Illusory Wall: useless
12-15 Invisibility {also Great, Mass, Sphere}: useful
16 Magic Aura: useless
17 Magic Mouth: irrelevant
18 Major Image: useless
19 Minor Image: useless
20 Mirage Arcana: useless
21 Mirror Image: useful
22 Misdirection: dependent
23 Mislead: useful
24 Nightmare: irrelevant
25 Permanent Image: dependent
26 Persistent Image: useless
27 Phantasmal Killer: useful... ish
28 Phantom Trap: dependent
29 Programmed Image: dependent
30 Project Image: useful
31 Rainbow Pattern: useful
32 Scintillating Pattern: useful
33 Screen: useful (but save-heavy)
34 Seeming: useless
35 Shadow Conjuration: weak
36 Shades: weak
37 Shadow Conjuration, Greater: weak
38 Shadow Evocation: weak
39 Shadow Evocation, Greater: weak
40 Shadow Walk: useful
41 Silence: useful
42 Silent Image: useless
43 Simulacrum: useful (extremely potent!)
44 Veil: useless
45 Ventriloquism: useless
46 Weird: useful
47 Zone of Silence: useful
48 Dirge Of The Victorious Knights: useful
49 Twine Double: uh... it's... uh... um... "irrelevant"
50 Illusory Poison: weakened
51 Chameleon Stride: useful
52 Hide Campsite: irrelevant
53-54 Invigorate [and Mass]: useful
55 Mask Dweomer: irrelevant
56 Phantasmal Revenge: semi-irrelevant
57 Phantasmal Web: automatic "save heavy"?
58 Vanish: useful
59 Wandering Star Motes: useful
60 Vision of Lamashtu: irrelevant
61 Trail of the Rose: ... semi-irrelevant?
62 Cackling Skull: weak
63 Disguise Other: useless
64 Exquisite Accompaniment: useful
65 Ghostly Disguise: useless
66 Haunting Mists: useful
67 Loathsome Veil: useful
68 Lunar Veil: useful
69 Mad Hallucination: useful
70 Shadowbard: useful
71 Shadow Step: useful (but less powerful than other school's counterpart)
72 Shadow Weapon: weakened (already limited use with low BAB)
73 Simulacrum, Lesser: ... irrelevant (though it's use is very limited)
74 Symbol of Mirroring: useful
75 Vision of Hell: useful
76-77 Dazzling Blade [and Mass]: useful
78 Stolen Light: useful
79 Shadow Barbs: useful
80 Haunted Fey Aspect: useful
81 Illusion of Calm: useful
82 Mask Dweomer, Communal: useful
83 Negative Reaction: mixed; it's a "kamikazi" style action, if you've obvious cast a spell
84 Shocking Image: useful
85 Symbol of Striking: useful
86 Lose the Trail: useful
87 Blend: useful
88 Jitterbugs: useful
89 Major Phantom Object: useless
90 Minor Dream: irrelevant
91 Minor Phantom Object: useless
92 Fearsome Duplicate: useless
93 Village Veil: useless
94 Agonizing Rebuke: useful
95 Shadow Anchor: useful
96 Clarion Call: useful
97 Display Aversion: useless
98 Familiar Figment: useful
99 Shadow Dragon Aspect: weak
100 Illusory Hoard: useless
101 Inner Focus: useful (but naturally self-limiting)
... the problem is that many of the ones that retain their full functionality are either slight variants of the same effect ("I'm invisible!" or "I'm blurry!" come to mind) or aren't really iconic ("Hey, everyone, wake up! This is totally an illusion!").
The most iconic abilities: the various image-stuff spells, disguise spells, fake-stuff spells, and terrain-stuff spells are of extremely limited (if any) functionality (though the disguise spells are so, by default), while the shadow-stuff spells are substantially weakened by being obvious (by allowing for a more saves) and require you to be there in the first place (because, you know, they're battle spells with battlefield durations).
This is not to say that illusion isn't powerful. It has the single most powerful spell in the game, in fact: simulacrum! This spell is so powerful that it eclipses all other spells!
... but a single spell makes for a poorly-rounded spell school.
Quasi-Edit: well this post took waaaayyyy too long to make. Oh well.
Another false assumption. SpellCASTING is perceivable, nothing states that the spell itself is...I seem to remember reading somewhere that if a person is the subject of a hostile spell that has no obvious sensory effect and makes his/her save, he senses the attempt, possibly such as feeling a hostile force.
So, if my memory is correct, it seems that spells are, indeed, perceivable.
(I'm sure someone with better google-fu than me can find that citation faster than can I.)
(I said I'd stop but Saldiven asked)
The quote you're looking for is:
Succeeding on a Saving Throw
A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.
(and since we're on the subject and it's too late to stop...)
But I'm not sure this is germane to the question of whether we can sense a spell as it is being cast, since this "hostile force or tingle" happens AFTER the save (which succeeded), and the save happened AFTER the caster finished casting - the ability to identify a spell WHILE it is being cast must, by definition, happen before there is ever this "hostile force or tingle". However, it's possible that the "hostile force or tingle" manifests during the casting and could be detected then, but that is inconsistent with the possibility that the victim FAILS the save and senses nothing, and it's also inconsistent with other onlookers who are not affected and not even rolling saving throws who, by this rule, should feel no "hostile force or tingle" because they specifically did not "successfully save".
DM_Blake,
Your Google-fu is good/memory is good too, however...
perceivable and visible are not the same thing.
Knowing that you have had a spell cast on you is not the same thing as the spell having a visible/identifiable effect.
You simply know that a spell was cast ON YOU, not who cast it.
Other than spells with described, visual effects, I haven't seen anything to convince me that all spells produce visual effects allowing for identification.
Once again, I do recognize that the act of CASTING allows for identification of a spell, but I do not see anything saying that the SPELL ITSELF has detectable effects (unless explicitly stated).
So...
Charm Person doesn't produce a flash of light, or a popcorn sound or whatever... but if you see someone casting it, you can identify what it is... Presumably because you recognize the verbal and/or somatic components.
Following this line of reasoning, if the wiggly/talky bits of spellcasting are removed, all that remains the act of concentrating on the casting itself. You know the person is doing SOMETHING (and by RAW, for some reason, are still allowed to ID the spell), but it still doesn't say that the spell produces a visible/identifiable effect...
This is an assumption, a false one.
If you want to declare the actual spell to have visual/audible components that allow for identification, all the more power to you.
Please recognize that is a houserule, not RAW.
Imma throw this out there for the "magic has obvious effects" crowd....
Spellsong.
If magic is obvious, how would ypu ever get a perform check to hide it...
DM_Blake,
Your Google-fu is good/memory is good too, however...
perceivable and visible are not the same thing.
Knowing that you have had a spell cast on you is not the same thing as the spell having a visible/identifiable effect.
You simply know that a spell was cast ON YOU, not who cast it.
I didn't equate visible to perceivable. The poster to whom I responded did that, and I presented reasons why his point was not germane to the discussion of seeing a spell being cast.
Your point is a good one and adds another reason his point was inapplicable.
Other than spells with described, visual effects, I haven't seen anything to convince me that all spells produce visual effects allowing for identification.
You're still equating what the spell does AFTER you finish casting it with what might or might not be visible BEFORE you finish casting it.
I don't think the effects afterward are relevant.
I think you and I might agree that DURING the casting, all casters probably do the same things, regardless of which spell they're casting. They wiggle fingers, wave hands, speak incantations, and toss around odd bits of stuff from their spell component pouch. After casting, their enemies might burst into flames, fall asleep, get blasted by magic missiles, get crushed by swarms of meteors, fall over dead, become dominated slaves, etc., but those results don't fundamentally change what the caster did while he was casting it.
In other words, the details ("did he wiggle his finger like this, or like that?" or "did he throw a cricket at me or some bat guano?") might change, but the basic fundamentals do not change.
Even when the finished spell has no visible effect (Fox's Cunning), the basic fundamentals of casting it remain the same.
Where we disagree is that I read the rules and arrive at the conclusion that there is one more fundamental aspect of the casting: there is some visible magic stuff (whatever that is). You disagree on this point.
For me, the key fact is that Still Spell, Silent Spell, and Eschew Materials have no RAW to describe HOW they make it harder to identify spells during the casting. You can apply all three feats and your spells are EXACTLY as easy to identify as if you applied NONE.
More specifically, you can apply all three feats to a Burning Hands spell and cast it with a 4th level slot, or you can cast it normally from a 1st level slot, and an observer can still use his normal Spellcraft check against you and the DC is the same either way.
More tellingly, you can apply all three feats to a Fox's Cunning spell and cast it with a 5th level slot, or you can cast it normally from a 2nd level slot, and an observer can still use his normal Spellcraft check against you and the DC is the same either way.
This means, logically, that by RAW there MUST be something visible that the observer can use to identify all 4 of those example spells, and that using all of these feats doesn't affect the DC so they have no bearing on obscuring whatever that visible something is.
Once again, I do recognize that the act of CASTING allows for identification of a spell, but I do not see anything saying that the SPELL ITSELF has detectable effects (unless explicitly stated).
Nope, the spell itself, after you finish casting it, need not have any visible or otherwise detectable effects unless the description says so.
But that's not relevant to the discussion of what happens before you finish casting it.
And since, as you say, the act of casting allows for identification of all spells, and this identification is unaffected by Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials, then whatever is identifiable is outside of the scope of those feats. Whatever it is, it can be observed (seen) well enough to identify all spells before they are finished being cast.
So...
Charm Person doesn't produce a flash of light, or a popcorn sound or whatever... but if you see someone casting it, you can identify what it is... Presumably because you recognize the verbal and/or somatic components.
That presumption is inconsistent with the fact that there are ZERO rules explaining how to modify the identification process when those components are removed.
The only way this presumption would have been consistent with RAW is if RAW included penalties or other effects that applied to the Spellcraft check when such components are not present.
There are no such RAW, so this presumption is inaccurate.
Following this line of reasoning, if the wiggly/talky bits of spellcasting are removed, all that remains the act of concentrating on the casting itself. You know the person is doing SOMETHING (and by RAW, for some reason, are still allowed to ID the spell), but it still doesn't say that the spell produces a visible/identifiable effect...
This line of reasoning is predicated upon a presumption that is not consistent with RAW.
This is an assumption, a false one.
Yes, this statement is true - but you and I disagree as to whose assumption is false.
If you want to declare the actual spell to have visual/audible components that allow for identification, all the more power to you.
Please recognize that is a houserule, not RAW.
This is where I disagree for the stated reasons. Obviously, by RAW, there IS something there that can be identified with a Spellcraft check, even when there are NO verbal, symbolic, or material components - without even taking a penalty to the roll.
This is RAW. There is no question of that.
Making a ruling as to what that "something" might be, well, that's up to each GM because the rules don't stipulate what it is. But the rules do (in a poorly written way) make it certain that there really is something there that can be identified.
DM_Blake, I agree with pretty much everything you have said.
I will, however, continue to house rule things as I have done for years.
:D
In any case, to the OP, Still Spell isn't useless, it helps a LOT if you are grappled/restrained in some way!
Imma throw this out there for the "magic has obvious effects" crowd....
Spellsong.
If magic is obvious, how would ypu ever get a perform check to hide it...
As a voice of the "magic has obvious effects" crowd, I'm glad you found this. It actually supports the "magic has obvious effects" argument.
Why would they make a feat to hide magic if magic was already hidden?
To answer your question, this is a perfect example of Specific overriding General. We have a general rule (well, a mishmash of rules that can be parsed into a general rule, by RAW) that says "magic has some obvious effect that allows it to be (quite easily) identified even when the caster uses no components".
And here you've presented a specific exception that overrides that general rule. This means that bards with this feat can do something that nobody else can. Yay for them.
What it OBVIOUSLY does not mean is that everybody can hide their casting without this feat. That's obvious, right? If you need this feat to hide casting, then, obviously, not having the feat means not hiding your casting.
You'll also note that this feat has RAW that says exactly what the mechanical effects are. It tells you exactly how (mechanically) your observers are prevented from observing your casting and exactly what roll they need to make to overcome this feat and (per the "magic has obvious effects" general rule) observe the "obvious effects".
Thank you for finding the exception that literally proves the rule.
...And in summary, all of this is why I stick with the opinion I mentioned before - metamagic may help you hide that YOU'RE the one casting it, but the fact that a spell is being cast is still obvious. XD
...if you recognize that a spell IS being cast, that implicitly states that it MUST have a visual or auditory (perhaps olfactory) clue, something that has never been published...
So where is this unwritten phenomenon occurring? How is it not connected to the caster?
I have difficulty reconciling this interpretation of the rules...
Imma throw this out there for the "magic has obvious effects" crowd....
Spellsong.
If magic is obvious, how would ypu ever get a perform check to hide it...
Oh, and on a related note, if the next book Paizo releases has a feat in it for all casters that says "Benefit: you can hide your spellcasting so that anyone observing your spells takes a -20 penalty to their Spellcraft check - if they fail, they cannot even know that you are casting a spell" I would totally use that feat and love that feat. Seriously.
Or if they simply added Errata to the Still Spell, Silent Spell, and/or Eschew Materials feats that said something like "this feat makes it harder to identify your spell as it is being cast, imposing a -10 on any Spellcraft or Perception checks to identify the spell or see it being cast" I would totally love those changes.
Because, if the Devs did either of those things, then they would have finally, for the first time, given an actual mechanical rule that makes spellcasting unobservable.
As of now, they have not. Except for Spellsong.
Imma throw this out there for the "magic has obvious effects" crowd....
Spellsong.
If magic is obvious, how would ypu ever get a perform check to hide it...
Oh, and on a related note, if the next book Paizo releases has a feat in it for all casters that says "Benefit: you can hide your spellcasting so that anyone observing your spells takes a -20 penalty to their Spellcraft check - if they fail, they cannot even know that you are casting a spell" I would totally use that feat and love that feat. Seriously.
Or if they simply added Errata to the Still Spell, Silent Spell, and/or Eschew Materials feats that said something like "this feat makes it harder to identify your spell as it is being cast, imposing a -10 on any Spellcraft or Perception checks to identify the spell or see it being cast" I would totally love those changes.
Because, if the Devs did either of those things, then they would have finally, for the first time, given an actual mechanical rule that makes spellcasting unobservable.
As of now, they have not. Except for Spellsong.
There was, at one point, a comment from one of the developers talking about this...
Not RAW, but if I recall correctly, you essentially added 5 to the DC for every component missing (So Charm Person would be +5 DC to identify, having only V and S)-and he also suggested spells with NO components not being identifiable...
I quoted it before in some other thread... I'm too lazy to go find it.
But yeah, if they published something about this, that would make me very happy, because raising a first level spell up to the equivalent of a Fireball should have some benefit...
I mean, as written, how are those feats useful other than when magically silenced AND grappled? :)
Imma throw this out there for the "magic has obvious effects" crowd....
Spellsong.
If magic is obvious, how would ypu ever get a perform check to hide it...
Oh, and on a related note, if the next book Paizo releases has a feat in it for all casters that says "Benefit: you can hide your spellcasting so that anyone observing your spells takes a -20 penalty to their Spellcraft check - if they fail, they cannot even know that you are casting a spell" I would totally use that feat and love that feat. Seriously.
Or if they simply added Errata to the Still Spell, Silent Spell, and/or Eschew Materials feats that said something like "this feat makes it harder to identify your spell as it is being cast, imposing a -10 on any Spellcraft or Perception checks to identify the spell or see it being cast" I would totally love those changes.
Because, if the Devs did either of those things, then they would have finally, for the first time, given an actual mechanical rule that makes spellcasting unobservable.
As of now, they have not. Except for Spellsong.
There was, at one point, a comment from one of the developers talking about this...
Not RAW, but if I recall correctly, you essentially added 5 to the DC for every component missing (So Charm Person would be +5 DC to identify, having only V and S)-and he also suggested spells with NO components not being identifiable...
I quoted it before in some other thread... I'm too lazy to go find it.
But yeah, if they published something about this, that would make me very happy, because raising a first level spell up to the equivalent of a Fireball should have some benefit...
I mean, as written, how are those feats useful other than when magically silenced AND grappled? :)
Jason's post was quoted earlier in this thread, too.
And yeah, those feats are mostly useless. Maybe an off chance to cast a spell while you're bound and gagged, if you prepared in advance for the eventuality that you might be bound and gagged. Seems hardly worth the feats. Unless you're paranoid. Or a fetishist.
Imma throw this out there for the "magic has obvious effects" crowd....
Spellsong.
If magic is obvious, how would ypu ever get a perform check to hide it...
As a voice of the "magic has obvious effects" crowd, I'm glad you found this. It actually supports the "magic has obvious effects" argument.
Why would they make a feat to hide magic if magic was already hidden?
Magic isn't already hidden. There are Verbal and Somatic components. These can be concealed as part of your performance with this feat. Or by taking Still Spell and Silent Spell.
(I'm not arguing seriously here. The developers have indicated RAI. But I do feel you may be overestimating the strength of your arguments.)
...
See folks, no bludgeoning: just multiple, massive wall of text posts explaining why every other interpretation is false.
It can't be bludgeoning because:
1) bludgeoning is defined as "the act of beating someone repeatedly with a heavy object".
2) posts on an internet forum have no physical weight.
3) it would be impossible to "beat" someone with a post even if it had weight (technically, the medium used to store a post has weight, so it could be thought of as having some mass) because we have no way of reaching one another to deliver a blow.
Therefore calling it bludgeoning is a misinterpretation of the word. Am I doing it right?
...See folks, no bludgeoning: just multiple, massive wall of text posts explaining why every other interpretation is false.
It can't be bludgeoning because:
1) bludgeoning is defined as "the act of beating someone repeatedly with a heavy object".
2) posts on an internet forum have no physical weight.
3) it would be impossible to "beat" someone with a post even if it had weight (technically, the medium used to store a post has weight, so it could be thought of as having some mass) because we have no way of reaching one another to deliver a blow.
Therefore calling it bludgeoning is a misinterpretation of the word. Am I doing it right?
I would not want someone to throw a hard drive at me.
They have sharp corners, and enough mass to hurt a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...See folks, no bludgeoning: just multiple, massive wall of text posts explaining why every other interpretation is false.
It can't be bludgeoning because:
1) bludgeoning is defined as "the act of beating someone repeatedly with a heavy object".
2) posts on an internet forum have no physical weight.
3) it would be impossible to "beat" someone with a post even if it had weight (technically, the medium used to store a post has weight, so it could be thought of as having some mass) because we have no way of reaching one another to deliver a blow.
Therefore calling it bludgeoning is a misinterpretation of the word. Am I doing it right?
Exactly.
No bludgeoning.
Let's call it "discussing" instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...And in summary, all of this is why I stick with the opinion I mentioned before - metamagic may help you hide that YOU'RE the one casting it, but the fact that a spell is being cast is still obvious. XD...if you recognize that a spell IS being cast, that implicitly states that it MUST have a visual or auditory (perhaps olfactory) clue, something that has never been published...
So where is this unwritten phenomenon occurring? How is it not connected to the caster?
I have difficulty reconciling this interpretation of the rules...
I generally think of it as "perceivable magical energy". Spellcraft itself notes you must be able to "clearly see" the casting in order to identify it.
It is rules-legal that non-humanoid creatures can cast spells. Therefore, I generally assume that specific movements (and perhaps words) are more of a "trigger" for the spell than anything else, and can be done in many different ways. There is no rules penalty for recognizing spells cast by creatures that aren't humanoid, either. Or, to put it another way, it's not the act of recognizing the gestures and sounds that lets someone figure out what the spell is.
Thus, my assumption is that whatever it is that allows Spellcraft to identify spells is something that can be applied regardless of the source - and perceivable magical energy fits that quite nicely.
--------------
To see this in practice, let's say that Intellectus the Wizard is traveling with his party, and they're going up against a foe who's very good at ranged attacks and could easily fill him full of pointy arrows. After a bit of thought, Intellectus tells his party that he's going to cast Greater Invisibility before they enter, then cast silent spells using a metamagic rod - the enemy is already prevented from seeing his gestures due to invisibility, and the lack of sound helps further disguise his location.
Once combat begins, Intellectus starts casting. The enemy is still able to...
But as per Spellsong, you CAN hide spellcasting. You can hide it inside.of simply playing a violin.
Hey, Rednal! Sorry I suck at life/disappeared for a while!
(I wasn't on the forums at all for a bit, there.)
I've wanted to talk with you, but... I've mostly been ashamed/hiding. Soooooo... thread-jacking to give you an apology.
I'll hopefully talk later in the other game thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out that Spellcraft allows you to identify spells ONLY IF you can clearly see the spell being cast...
You have to meet a requirement to identify spells... it does NOT state that these requirements are automatically met.