I wouldn't care one bit if casters all started taking and using Still/Silence spell.
You can still detect magic/dispel magic.
Not knowing that someone has cast Charm isn't going to break the game.
If someone wants to go into combat casting all of their spells using slots TWO LEVELS HIGHER THAN NORMAL, fine.
Think of how often you actually see counterspelling happen.
Go ahead, hide your casting. What do I care? Unless you are hightening them as well, you are just limiting yourself.
Fireball as a fifth level slot? Fine. No problem.
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.
Exactly. And the feat Spellsong shows you can hide the casting in something rather mundane. Note how they need to make a Perception or Sense Motive to notice it.
|
Geez, am I missing something here?
Isn't the only reason for ever wondering if components were the visible part of this spell because SLAs have no components and that they are piggybacking unto the whole Spellcraft identification scheme?
Give V and S components to SLA and we don't have an issue! Still and Silent spell feat would regain their glory of old!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to add fuel to the fire...
Psychic spells can be identified as casting, as there's a phernic amplification called 'complex countermeasure' that adds two to the DC to identify the spell.
And psychic spells... "never have verbal or somatic components, and have only expensive material components. Psychic spells are purely mental actions, and they can be cast even while the caster is pinned or paralyzed."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget that it's also a balancing mechanic for monsterss.
Otherwise, you end up with the stupid scenario where a social monster like a succubus can waltz through a room charming, suggesting and dominating everyone using it's DClolno SLAs with no possibility of anyone even realizing it unless they roll a 20 and figure out what is going on before the Succubus hits them again with it's at will enchantments. That's a big part of why I am incredibly leary about making spells with no components unidentifiable. It makes a lot of SLAs ridiculous.
Is that not exactly the kind of thing a succubus is supposed to be able to do???
Spell-like abilities without any observable manifesting effects would and should be quite discreet. I don't think you have the right of this at all.
If you're witnessing the manifested effects of a spell, it is too late to use Spellcraft. Spellcraft can only be used as the spell is castIs this even clear? Is there anything in RAW unambiguously detailing that the manifestations of the spell do not occur at all during the standard action of casting at some point?
There is no rules ANYWHERE in the game that says spellcasting is accompanied by any stimuli other than the components themselves. The burden of proof to show otherwise is on those who say otherwise.
You can see casting happening, it never says you see the spell itself.
For spells without any components, I say simply this: Prove it. There is no such rule explicitly stated anywhere in the RAW.
Not to beat a dead horse while tooting my own horn, but giving SLAs V and S components, while keeping the F or M component out, would make SLA casters closer to sorcerers in the way they cast. Which is kinda the point of the sorcerer in the first place: a glorified, spontaneous master of SLAs...
I think this is silly. The ENTIRE POINT of spell-like abilities is to make their magic so innate that they merely have to will the effects into existence. No components or anything. Just a thought. Sorcerer's magic sort of meets them half way. If you ask me, it would make far more sense to make a sorcerer's spells into componentless spell-like abilities in their own right.
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?
That's simple. Many designers aren't aware of the game's rules. It is a big game after all. We get all kinds of feats and abilities that don't work well as written. This is likely just another case.
Geez, am I missing something here?
Isn't the only reason for ever wondering if components were the visible part of this spell because SLAs have no components and that they are piggybacking unto the whole Spellcraft identification scheme?
Give V and S components to SLA and we don't have an issue! Still and Silent spell feat would regain their glory of old!
The fact that spell-like abilities cannot be readily identified/counterspelled as they are activated kind of proves my point (at least as much as any of the opposing arguments have for theirs anyways). No components will limit an opponent's options.
Just to add fuel to the fire...
Psychic spells can be identified as casting, as there's a phernic amplification called 'complex countermeasure' that adds two to the DC to identify the spell.
And psychic spells... "never have verbal or somatic components, and have only expensive material components. Psychic spells are purely mental actions, and they can be cast even while the caster is pinned or paralyzed."
Poorly designed mechanics don't change the way previous mechanics work unless specifically stated. There are a lot of problems with psychic magic components as written. It will get ironed out eventually.
Just to add fuel to the fire...
Psychic spells can be identified as casting, as there's a phernic amplification called 'complex countermeasure' that adds two to the DC to identify the spell.
And psychic spells... "never have verbal or somatic components, and have only expensive material components. Psychic spells are purely mental actions, and they can be cast even while the caster is pinned or paralyzed."
No fire, no fuel.
That's consistent with the rest of the rules - psychic spells require the same level of verbal, somatic, and material components of a Still, Silent, and Eschewed spell, and grant the same penalties (none) to Spellcraft checks to identify them.
Like the Spellsong feat that demonstrates one way to overcome this, shall we say, obviousness of spellcasting, the Complex Countermeasure gives another way (though not as effective). Both of which prove that normal spellcasting is completely obvious.
The burden of proof to show otherwise is on those who say otherwise.
Done. Scroll up.
The burden of proof to show otherwise is on those who say otherwise.Done. Scroll up.
Perhaps I missed it? All I saw were a whole lot of false assertions, assumptions, and reaching.
Perhaps if you quoted it for me? You have made a lot of assertions recently and it's difficult to know which post you are referring to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't. I don't want to bludgeon anyone. You'll have to scroll. Pretty easy to find.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hmm, so taking Diehard means that you can keep acting in Ravingdork's reading of the rules? I mean, there's no rule ANYWHERE that says being dead means you can't take any actions... clearly if such a rule were pointed out in a later book, it's simply 'bad game design'.
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason made the ruling to which DM Blake is referring (about stimuli) back in the old days when it could be done without a FAQ and be official, and, as an official adjudication at the time, it has since then been used as the official ruling when writing Pathfinder RPG line books, which is why you see all those references mentioned in this thread.
However, that's not the end of the story; the other posters who say otherwise are also correct that it is true that a later policy change has made non-FAQ non-errata rulings (even from Jason) no longer an official source. So in different ways, everyone is right.
Would it solve the concern here if I worked with the PDT to have it made into a FAQ to once again instate it as official? As many of you know here, a tech glitch destroyed the FAQ queue, so until they can get it sorted, this could be a way to do a useful FAQ, if people here think it would be useful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think it would be helpful if we got an official FAQ clarifying how components, identifying spells, and so on all interact. ^^
Would it solve the concern here if I worked with the PDT to have it made into a FAQ to once again instate it as official? As many of you know here, a tech glitch destroyed the FAQ queue, so until they can get it sorted, this could be a way to do a useful FAQ, if people here think it would be useful.
I can't speak for those for whom Jason's posts are not good enough, because they're good enough for me (and RAW doesn't specifically indicate otherwise), but I would say that sounds like a good idea since his posts seem to fall in the black hole of pre-FAQ age.
I do think that people are wanting a bit more than just a rehash of his previous post, they ideally would like an official "visualization"/ narrative explanation for how spellcasting is working in-game-world (which is compatable with official rules/ruling), not just a rules mechanic. In other words, Paizo should officially endorse "swirling runes" (non-glowing?) if that is in fact the best visualization for how the rules work.
What you use to counterspell them is irrelevant to the fact that you CAN counterspell them.But it doesn't SAY that.
Again, it says "It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell" not the same thing as "any spell can be counterspelled"
I never said those were the same.
I simply said that every spell can be counterspelled. Not because of the quote you supplied, but because, heck, we SHOULD be able to counter every spell. Yes, it's an assumption, but I sure don't have any raw that says "Spells that start with a D cannot be countered" or "Spells cast on a Tuesday cannot be countered" or any other limitation on what can be countered. We have rules saying "here's how you counter spells" and NOTHING saying "except certain spells" so the assumption that all spells CAN be countered is well supported by raw.
Which has nothing to do with which spells you USE as counter-spells. That's a different and unrelated question.
You MUST counterspell before the casting is finished. There is no fire (Burning Hands) DURING the casting.Says who...?
Says, uh, logic. Common sense. The dictionary and game definitions of "counter". The rules for readying an action. Take your pick.
Choose your scenario:
GM: BBEG starts casting.
Wizard: wait for it...
GM: Didn't you want to counterspell
Wizard: yeah, I do. I'm waiting for the right time.
GM: Now?
Wizard: Still waiting.
GM: OK, he finishes casting. The lightning bolt hits you for... 32 HP damage. Roll your save.
Wizard: OK, I got a 13.
GM: You failed, take the full 32 damage.
Wizard: No problem, I have 15 HP left.
GM: OK, what do you do?
Wizard: NOW I counter that lightning bolt
GM: What?
Wizard: I was waiting for the right time. Now that my flesh is charred and my robes are smoldering and the air is full of ozone, I want to counter that spell.
Or
GM: BBEG starts casting.
Wizard: Before he finishes, I use my Readied action to identify his spell as it is being cast (per the RAW). I rolled a 27.
GM: He's casting a Lightning Bolt.
Wizard: Sweet, I use my own prepared Lightning Bolt as a counterspell before he finishes his spell and fries me. You know, per the RAW.
GM: OK, lets see if you succeed..
(Hint: number two is the right way, by RAW).
AFAIK, it never outlines the timeline or description of how a casting goes. For all you know, it could very easily be "1 second of chanting etc., then 1 second of any listed manifestations in the spell beginning to manifest but not being extensive enough to change the world yet, then 1 second of the actual cone of fire engulfing people etc."
Completely true. But if you wait until AFTER the cone of fire, it's too late for a counterspell, right? Now the best counterspell is a bucket of water and a few Cure Light Wounds...
All your counterspells MUST happen before the guy finishes casting, not after. That's RAW.
I'm not even sure how or why you're disputing this.
The alternative of saying that every manifestation happens only fully after the 3 seconds is frankly much more silly and strained of an interpretation than the one above, because that would imply that all spell manifestations happen in 0 seconds. Fireballs travel at the speed of light, people just *POP* into polymorphed shapes instantly, magic missiles don't visibly fly anywhere only wounds suddenly appear, entangled vines just suddenly appear longer and don't grow, etc. This would contradict the written descriptions of like half the spells in the game. It's a possible interpretation, but seems like a clunkier one.
Now this is just as silly as my first example above.
Makes more sense that any manifestation that exists starts to manifest gradually, which can then be what you use for counterspelling.
OK, I get your point. You suggest that part of the spell manifests before you finish casting it. Fine.
If I cast burning hands, then my hands might actually manifest some flames before I'm done casting the spell. Cool. Now, the Spellcraft rule regarding identifying the spell says you have to be able to see me. If I were casting Fox's Cunning, my hands would manifest, uh, whatever, but probably not fire. But Burning Hands, my hands are all about flame while I'm casting.
So where in the spellcraft rules does it say "When opponents are casting flaming spells, you get a +10 bonus to identify them in the dark", or any other similar thing?
Answer: Nowhere.
Where in the rules does it say "Casting elemental spells with obvious components of flame, water, ice, acid, electricity, stone, light, etc., makes it easier for enemies to identify your spells as you cast them"?
Answer: Nowhere.
The reason is that there is no difference. So you can suggest that magical stuff manifests while you're casting, or I can say that it doesn't but other magical energy of some kind is actually visible, or someone else can say an entirely different thing. The rules don't care.
What they do care about is that:
1. No matter what he is casting, any spell, EVERY spell, can be identified with Spellcraft at no bonus for certain types of spells and no penalties for other types of spells - they're all identical for this purpose, even when they have no components.
2. No matter what he is casting, any spell, EVERY spell, can be counterspelled.
3. You use a readied action to counterspell during the opponent's turn BEFORE he finishes casting. Once he's done, it's too late.
Jason made the ruling to which DM Blake is referring (about stimuli) back in the old days when it could be done without a FAQ and be official, and, as an official adjudication at the time, it has since then been used as the official ruling when writing Pathfinder RPG line books, which is why you see all those references mentioned in this thread.
However, that's not the end of the story; the other posters who say otherwise are also correct that it is true that a later policy change has made non-FAQ non-errata rulings (even from Jason) no longer an official source. So in different ways, everyone is right.
Would it solve the concern here if I worked with the PDT to have it made into a FAQ to once again instate it as official? As many of you know here, a tech glitch destroyed the FAQ queue, so until they can get it sorted, this could be a way to do a useful FAQ, if people here think it would be useful.
FAQs are, sometimes, better than bludgeons, so I'm all for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would it solve the concern here if I worked with the PDT to have it made into a FAQ to once again instate it as official? As many of you know here, a tech glitch destroyed the FAQ queue, so until they can get it sorted, this could be a way to do a useful FAQ, if people here think it would be useful.
That's fine with me, provided you all aim to expand people's options, rather than limit them.
For example, if you all used the FAQ to state in an official capacity that casting a spell (no matter what kind of spell) was accompanied by visual effects (such as floating runes or whatnot), that would likely have an adverse effect on a great many peoples' games. Many roleplayers just don't subscribe to "video game magic" and making such a thing the official stance would only serve to alienate a large group of customers.
As is, if people want magical floating runes in their games, they can describe it if they want--it's like the styles of whatever their characters happen to be wearing: pretty much all fluff. If they don't want it, then they won't describe it. However, the moment you issue a ruling saying that, that happens for everyone regardless of spell, then people have to follow suit, or else house rule (which won't help them anywhere except their own table). That would immediately take a LOT of character concepts right off the table, effectively limiting peoples' options. It would also create a lot of weird corner cases, such as enchanters and illusionists never being able to fulfill their primary roles effectively.
And let's face it, video game magic only really exists in one place: visual media, where you need something to show the audience to indicate that something is happening. The same is NOT true of storytelling or tabletop RPGs. As such, it should exist in the artwork, not in the rules.
Personally, I think a ruling that spell-like abilities and spells without components could not be identified, or else were significantly harder to identify (the penalties brought up be designers in the past are too insignificant to matter), would make far more sense. The rules already imply this is the case in several places, such as the Perception penalty to one's Spellcraft skill when attempting to identify a spell for example. It would be a small step and would have little effect on the balance of most games (negating all of the components takes at least three feats--nearly as many as you need for Spell Perfection, Whirlwind Attack, or other even more powerful options--AND raises the spell level by two; that's no small investment).
Since there are no abilities that exist as of yet that allow people to conceal their spellcasting*, the ripple effect of such a ruling would be quite minor, if not non-existent.
I still suggest POOPING FACE.
As do I. Spellcasting takes concentration. Even concealed spellcasting should be akin to a hard gaze at the target or something like that. This focus explains away the reason why concealed spellcasting would still provoke--because the caster has to take his attention away from defending himself. Even if it isn't obvious that he's casting a spell, it is still obvious that his guard is down.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't like the floaty runes stuff.
That is, filled with problems.
Basically, much like micro-aggressions, you can, if you really try, notice what's going on.
So, whilst the "POOP FACE" sounds silly, it is not problematic, thematically, or mechanically, and with mild reflavoring(strange eyebrow raise, etc.) it fits well with just about all existing concepts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's fine with me, provided you all aim to expand people's options, rather than limit them.
For example, if you all used the FAQ to state in an official capacity that casting a spell (no matter what kind of spell) was accompanied by visual effects (such as floating runes or whatnot), that would likely have an adverse effect on a great many peoples' games. Many roleplayers just don't subscribe to "video game magic" and making such a thing the official stance would only serve to alienate a large group of customers.
Did you just threaten Paizo to make the FAQ you want?
While simultaneously disparaging all the Pathfinder players who actually read the rules?
Very nice.
Frankly, I miss the old RavingDork who made weird builds and exploited funny loopholes in the rules. I fear you've grown bitter lately. Come back to the light side!
|
|
Would it solve the concern here if I worked with the PDT to have it made into a FAQ to once again instate it as official? As many of you know here, a tech glitch destroyed the FAQ queue, so until they can get it sorted, this could be a way to do a useful FAQ, if people here think it would be useful.That's fine with me, provided you all aim to expand people's options, rather than limit them.
No way! you should rein in SLAs! these bloody things are based on CHA, which means grandstanding and making sweeping gestures and elevATING YOUR VOIIIIIIIIIICE!!!! ...to impress the enemy. So I suggest a man give V and S components to SLA. And I suggest only arcane casters with Still Spell and Silent Spell allowed to cast spells without POOPY FACE (especially wizards, as they are awesomer-er, and base their casting on INT, not CHA)
At least, at the very leeeAAAST! ...please come up with a trait or feat that allows no POOPY FACE if your spell has no component or the components have been hidden via metamagic feats or items... please? (if feat, give more oomph to it if your spell has no component as a result of slapping Silent or Still Spell unto them... 'cause those damn psychics don't need no stinkin' boost! ;) )
So where in the spellcraft rules does it say "When opponents are casting flaming spells, you get a +10 bonus to identify them in the dark", or any other similar thing?What does this matter? This is not necessary for any of my logic. You can just see whatever you'd normally be able to see, apply the perception rules as you see fit. If you end up concluding that they don't apply in some situation, well then you can't see. If you end up concluding that they do, then you can. *Shrug*
Where in the rules does it say "Casting elemental spells with obvious components of flame, water, ice, acid, electricity, stone, light, etc., makes it easier for enemies to identify your spells as you cast them"?It says this by explicitly listing manifestations in the spell descriptions individually such as "Effect: cone of fire 15 foot radius." etc.
So you are seriously, SERIOUSLY, suggesting that you need to wait to see the "cone of fire 15 foot radius" and then, AFTER THAT, you counterspell it?
Seriously?
Would it solve the concern here if I worked with the PDT to have it made into a FAQ to once again instate it as official? As many of you know here, a tech glitch destroyed the FAQ queue, so until they can get it sorted, this could be a way to do a useful FAQ, if people here think it would be useful.
An FAQ would be nice but I'd like to also see something said as to why spells are detectible without components. That way it'd easier for DM's to adjudicate when rolls are possible. For instance, can you ID a spell cast from an arrow slit, behind a wall, invisible but location known, covered in an illusion, ect.
For instance, if spell casting itself creates some kind of audio/visual phenomenon it should be stated in the FAQ. And how do those change from spell to spell what allows others to ID them. Or is it some kind of esoteric eldritch magic sense that all caster get that allow them to 'sense' casting? There must be SOME reason others can detect the purely mental actions of spell casting.
|
|
I'm also in support of seeing the first few inches... otherwise it could just be a guy making a poopy face to make you lose your spell, you know...
(most ladies would also support this rule, I suppose... poopy face without the inches is just begging for disappointment.. ...... .........)
This idea of seeing the facial expression/"gaze" of the caster to discern/ID casting doesn't fly.
Because guys with eyebrows aren't the only ones casting spells.
Guys with EYES aren't the only ones casting spells
Guys with discernable anatomy aren't the only ones casting spells. (e.g. intelligent Ooze)
Guys with expressive/mobile bodies at all aren't the only ones casting spells (e.g. intelligent items)
Spellcraft needs to work to ID spells being cast by all of those, based on visual phenomenon.
It also isn't indicated by RAW that you need to see the caster themself, e.g. if they are invisible.
So this visual phenomenon of spellcasting seemingly must be external to the caster themself,
given there is no real common denominator of what the 'body'/manifestation of a spellcaster IS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fine with me, provided you all aim to expand people's options, rather than limit them.
For example, if you all used the FAQ to state in an official capacity that casting a spell (no matter what kind of spell) was accompanied by visual effects (such as floating runes or whatnot), that would likely have an adverse effect on a great many peoples' games. Many roleplayers just don't subscribe to "video game magic" and making such a thing the official stance would only serve to alienate a large group of customers.
Did you just threaten Paizo to make the FAQ you want?
While simultaneously disparaging all the Pathfinder players who actually read the rules?
Very nice.
Frankly, I miss the old RavingDork who made weird builds and exploited funny loopholes in the rules. I fear you've grown bitter lately. Come back to the light side!
+1
I just can't take seriously such a petulant attitude... This is different than Paizo defining Healing as Conjuration HOW?Have I liked every Paizo FAQ? No. Doesn't mean I throw a tantrum or dictate that their FAQs must make me happy.
I don't know what this has to do with video game magic, I don't play video games, so don't see tee he connection.
It is based 100% on existing RAW, which posits universal capacity to ID spells irrespective of caster/components, depending on visual contact.
If RD or anybody else has a BETTER mechanism than "floating runes" to do that, GREAT, but I don't see one.
(see above post re: necessity to work with casters who many not even have a body etc)
Details as I see it:
Glowing or not? i.e. does mundane darkness prevent you from seeing spellcasting?
'Part of caster' or not? i.e. If caster is invisible, is visual phenomenon of spellcasting still visible?
Per current RAW, I would say No, and No i.e. Invisibility on the Caster doesn't cloak it, the casting phenomenon is external to caster themself
but that is based on very minimal information, so if Paizo is clarifying this, then more power to them.
They very well may say "there is visual phenomenon -> floating runes which you can use to ID/notice spellcasting,
but you may also used somatic/verbal/material compenents to ID it even if visual pheonomenon isn't visible".
...Which per current RAW is not true... If you can't see where the spellcasting is happening (e.g. because of fog)
you can't use Spellcraft to ID it, even if you can hear the verbal components (even if it is a solely verbal spell, e.g. Power Word X).
Anyways, if a FAQ can clear up these "implementation" details, then people can be aware of the baseline
and know what they are changing if they choose to do so, and be aware of the repurcussions of that.
Currently the issue is that there isn't 100% clarity on what the implementation details are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to add fuel to the fire...
Psychic spells can be identified as casting, as there's a phernic amplification called 'complex countermeasure' that adds two to the DC to identify the spell.
That's why in movies, tv, and comics, psychics are always squinting or making gestures with their hands or fingers whenever they use their mental powers. :D
Did you just threaten Paizo to make the FAQ you want?
Not at all. I merely outlined the parameters in which I personally would find such a FAQ acceptable. That's not a threat, that's me answering Mark's question and sharing my own thoughts on the matter--including what I believe are the possible ramifications of their making your interpretation the official stance. Any hostility you're reading into it, is your own. It didn't come from me.
While simultaneously disparaging all the Pathfinder players who actually read the rules?
The RAW on the matter is in dispute. If it weren't, we wouldn't be discussing the possibility of a FAQ at all. The tone of your statement "who actually read the rules" comes off as a bit disparaging in its own right.
Frankly, I miss the old RavingDork who made weird builds and exploited funny loopholes in the rules. I fear you've grown bitter lately. Come back to the light side!
I still make weird builds and exploit funny loopholes in the rules. I do agree that I have become more cynical as of late though. Paizo has released a whole lot of FAQs and Erratas in the last year or two that I disagree with. It's wearing me thin.
I just can't take seriously such a petulant attitude...
I think you're reading into it wrong and placing emotions where none are present. I was merely stating my thoughts in this discussion.
This is different than Paizo defining Healing as Conjuration HOW? Have I liked every Paizo FAQ? No. Doesn't mean I throw a tantrum or dictate that their FAQs must make me happy.
I'm not dictating anything. As if I even could! I was merely stating what I think would be best, for a variety of reasons, which I outlined as clearly as I knew how. Nor were any of my discussion points part of a larger tantrum.
I don't know what this has to do with video game magic, I don't play video games, so don't see tee he connection.
In video games magic--and the mere act of casting--is often accompanied by flashy visual effects to let the game know that something is happening. Such effects are rare in literature and story telling, usually only occuring during incredibly powerful spells, or after the spell has been cast and the effect is in the process of taking place. That's what I meant when I said "video game magic."
It is based 100% on existing RAW, which posits universal capacity to ID spells irrespective of caster/components, depending on visual contact.
I've seen developers stating similar things, so it is clearly RAI, but I don't know where people keep getting this "100% RAW" attitude from. There is nothing in the RAW that supports either interpretation more than the other.
If RD or anybody else has a BETTER mechanism than "floating runes" to do that, GREAT, but I don't see one.
Perhaps that is something our community, and this possible FAQ, could resolve.
Details as I see it:
Glowing or not? i.e. does mundane darkness prevent you from seeing spellcasting?
'Part of caster' or not? i.e. If caster is invisible, is visual phenomenon of spellcasting still visible?
I think that adds unnecessary complexity to the game. A FAQ should clarify and simply things, not open the door for a dozen more much needed FAQs (that wouldn't have been needed otherwise).
Per current RAW, I would say No, and No i.e. Invisibility on the Caster doesn't cloak it, the casting phenomenon is external to caster themself
but that is based on very minimal information, so if Paizo is clarifying this, then more power to them.
Would you mind sharing with us this little sliver of RAW?
They very well may say "there is visual phenomenon -> floating runes which you can use to ID/notice spellcasting,
but you may also used somatic/verbal/material compenents to ID it even if visual pheonomenon isn't visible".
Adding a whole new layer of rules will only complicate matters I fear.
...Which per current RAW is not true... If you can't see where the spellcasting is happening (e.g. because of fog)
you can't use Spellcraft to ID it, even if you can hear the verbal components (even if it is a solely verbal spell, e.g. Power Word X).
By some peoples' interpretations, yes. By mine own, no. (I believe that you must be able to see the spell's components to have any hope at all.)
Anyways, if a FAQ can clear up these "implementation" details, then people can be aware of the baseline
and know what they are changing if they choose to do so, and be aware of the repurcussions of that.
Currently the issue is that there isn't 100% clarity on what the implementation details are.
We should probably figure out what we want to be clarified, rather than jumping to the conclusion that what needs clarification is the nature of the spellcasting's manifestation. Not everyone is even in agreement that there should be a manifestation during spellcasting.
But hey, those are just my thoughts and opinions. Take them for what you will. Just don't assume that I am hostile or petulant (that's what caps and exclamations are for). I'm merely participating in the discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if we can identify a spell as it is being cast only if we can clearly see the spell, why are we assuming we can see all spells instead of only allowing identification of spells with a stated visual effect?
Also, at what perception negative does something no longer qualify as something we can "clearly see".
So, if we can identify a spell as it is being cast only if we can clearly see the spell, why are we assuming we can see all spells instead of only allowing identification of spells with a stated visual effect?
Also, at what perception negative does something no longer qualify as something we can "clearly see".
This is similar to what I was thinking.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jason made the ruling to which DM Blake is referring (about stimuli) back in the old days when it could be done without a FAQ and be official, and, as an official adjudication at the time, it has since then been used as the official ruling when writing Pathfinder RPG line books, which is why you see all those references mentioned in this thread.
However, that's not the end of the story; the other posters who say otherwise are also correct that it is true that a later policy change has made non-FAQ non-errata rulings (even from Jason) no longer an official source. So in different ways, everyone is right.
Would it solve the concern here if I worked with the PDT to have it made into a FAQ to once again instate it as official? As many of you know here, a tech glitch destroyed the FAQ queue, so until they can get it sorted, this could be a way to do a useful FAQ, if people here think it would be useful.
I think it would be a good move to settle this officially, for the following reasons:
1)
Action: 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.
This suggests spells themselves are visible. It also strictly requires you to have line of sight; can you see/identify/counter a spell cast by an invisible caster, or one around a corner? Lately we run into a lot of those. "You hear spellcasting, but you can't identify it because you can't see it." Is that different from Still spell, a psychic spell, or an SLA?
2) If it's ruled spells themselves are visible (glowing runes) that means invisible spellcasters will give their position away if they cast. That has huge consequences.
3) If it's ruled spells are non-obvious, that makes tactics like illusion, charm and such much more viable because they're quickly ruined if people see you doing it. This could be interesting with Paizo's turn towards intrigue adventures lately. (Ultimate Intrigue, Dirty Tactics Toolbox, Heroes of the Streets, Hell's Rebels etc.)
4) If it's ruled spells are obvious, that firmly opens the door to new design for options to make your spells non-obvious. So far that's been kind of blocked by the vagueness of the rules. Again, interesting because Paizo's active on the intrigue front.
So, if we can identify a spell as it is being cast only if we can clearly see the spell, why are we assuming we can see all spells instead of only allowing identification of spells with a stated visual effect?
Once again, because I seem to not be making this very clear:
The "stated visual effect" happens AFTER THE GUY FINISHES CASTING. There is no fireball (or bead of fire) until the guy finishes casting his Fireball spell. There is no cone of fire until AFTER the guy finishes casting Burning Hands. Etc. Some here have argued that there might be, but that's just an assumption nowhere supported by RAW - in fact, it's contradicted by RAW.
By the time you see the "stated visual effect", it's too late to identify and counter that spell. All you can do is duck.
Which means you identify these spells BEFORE there is a "stated visual effect" to see. Which means that you don't NEED a "stated visual effect" to identify any spell because you're identifying them BEFORE there is a "stated visual effect". Which means that you can identify even those spells with no "stated visual effect".
Also, at what perception negative does something no longer qualify as something we can "clearly see".
A good question. Pathfinder has the ludicrous rule that you take a -1 on your Perception check for every 10'. This, of course, means you cannot sit in Yankee stadium and actually see the pitcher on the pitcher mound. You cannot sit in any sports stadium and actually see the people playing on the field. Too far away.
Nevertheless, that's the rule. In good lighting, a person not using Stealth is DC 0 to see. -1 per 10 feet. So if you're 120 feet away from a guy just standing there in the open in good light, you need a DC 12 to see him.
What if that person is casting a spell? No different because the spellcasting rules have ZERO rules for modifying this perception check. So if you're 120 feet away from a guy just standing there casting Fireball in the open in good light, you need a DC 12 to see him. And if you're 120 feet away from a guy just standing there casting Charm Person in the open in good light, you need a DC 12 to see him.
It's all the same.
Total Concealment (darkness, thick fog, etc.) makes it hard to see people. Put those same guys I just mentioned in Total Concealment and you cannot see them at all.
Total Cover (a fill-size wall between you, etc.) makes it hard to see people. Put those same guys I just mentioned in Total Cover and you cannot see them at all.
Without stuff like that, it's just a Perception check with distance penalties. Or, if you're identifying the spell, it's a Spellcraft check with the same distance penalties.
And to be clear, NOTHING in the spell rules applies extra bonuses or penalties for "stated visual effects" so it's very clear that "stated visual effects" do NOT play a part in seeing or identifying a spell as it is being cast.
And to be further clear, NOTHING in the spell rules applies extra penalties for using Still Spell, Silent Spell, or Eschew Materials so it's very clear that these feats do NOT play a part in seeing or identifying a spell as it is being cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's ruled spells themselves are visible (glowing runes) that means invisible spellcasters will give their position away if they cast. That has huge consequences.
A middle path is also possible. Maybe spells with no "obvious" physical effects (like, say, Charm Person) nevertheless create some sort of a distortion - a brief warping of space or whatnot between caster and target - which is difficult to perceive, but can be noticed by the very attentive. This would be consistent with the idea that removing components imposes penalties on Spellcraft checks (which seems to be Paizo's position) without simply rendering componentless spells with no physical manifestations de facto invisible. I would think that spells without components under this paradigm would first require an opposed Perception check to notice, rather than being automatically noticed and simply requiring a Spellcraft check to identify.
I think this would be an acceptable solution. If each component removed imposes a -5 penalty (I believe this was Jason's original mechanical suggestion) to the Perception roll, then a Sorcerer casting a Stilled, Silent spell could still have a reasonable expectation of stealth without it being simply a "lol you can't see it" scenario.
Whatever the case, this is an area of the game that clearly needs to be fleshed out more, not only as a matter of mechanics, but in terms of what the developers actual intent is regarding the baseline manifestation of magic in the world. I'm hoping this doesn't mean loltastic swirling cartoon runes, but if it does, I will simply ignore the ruling at my table and proceed as I see fit.
2) If it's ruled spells themselves are visible (glowing runes) that means invisible spellcasters will give their position away if they cast. That has huge consequences.
Well, not necessarily... I already brought up this point. If the "visible aspect of spellcasting" (floating runes etc) is considered a distinct object apart from the caster, then yes, it is visible even they are invisible. But if the "visible aspect of spellcasting" is considered part of their person (e.g. runes floating around/over their body, or I suppose defaulting to small sphere if they have no body) then it IS covered by the Invisibility effect and thus you can't see the "runes"/etc (without See Invisibility etc).
I didn't go into it because I wasn't trying to ADVOCATE any ruling, that is ultimately Paizo's design decision, and I was merely trying to clarify to Paizo the issues which could use clarifying... But IMHO the latter function seems like it would leave the most people happy. If we're going into IMHO, I would also think that other sensory means to ascertain the spell components (vocal, even olfactory of material components?) SHOULD be usable to make a Spellcraft check at least at a penalty when there is no line of sight to the "visual aspect of spellcasting" (runes etc).
3) If it's ruled spells are non-obvious... 4) If it's ruled spells are obvious
It already has been ruled spells are obvious. If you are begging to change that ruling, OK, although it seems rather unbecoming IMHO. But that is the current ruling, no question about it. Jason has spoken, and PDT has affirmed that ruling, offering to put it in official FAQ if people prefer. That isn't an offer to rescind the ruling, although if there is questions on the implications of that (e.g. implementing details) I assume Paizo would be happy to fill in those details. But asking them to change that ruling is a totally separate conversation, and not the one they asked people for feedback on. And as Mark Seifter wrote, they have already integrated that rule paradigm (general visibility and noticeability of spellcasting independent of ocmponents) into other rules material including Psychic spellcasting, so I would bet that it is not going to be removed irrespective of what people here might want.
A blind fighter still would get the opportunity attacks on a spell caster.
Nope, Blind = All opponents have Total Concealment from you, TC doesn't allow AoOs.
Imagine that :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People are focused on visual stuff because of it saying "You have to see the spell"
We should focus on this.
It is a condition that must be met, not a description of how spellcasting works.
You are required to be able to see the spell before you are allowed to attempt to roll Spellcraft to identify it.
Nothing in the description says that all spells HAVE visual components, this is an assumption that isn't supported by written text.
Is the SPELL visible?
a)Yes-You may now roll Spellcraft to identify it.
b)No-No identification attempt may be made.
What conditions create situation b) are irrelevant, what is relevant is the recognition that b) exists.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a fun question. What does it look like when a spell fails, or is countered?
looks like this?
Here's proof that SLAs should have V and S components...
Here's a fun question. What does it look like when a spell fails, or is countered?
Does nothing happen?
Is there a flash of light and noise, and the magic dissipates?
Does the fire from a Burning Hands spell fly out, and then break up harmlessly?
How, exactly, do we know when the counterspell occurs? At what point in the casting process does the counterspell stop the magic from happening? And, how can you prove it? I know you can say that it has to happen before the effects go off, but why can't it be a case of the spell effect going off, and being stopped partway to the target by the counter?
This is a question that deserves designer consideration.
Spells should have an additional entry in the stat block: visual aspect (y/n), would REALLY clear up a lot of stuff.
Here's a fun question. What does it look like when a spell fails, or is countered?looks like this?
Here's proof that SLAs should have V and S components...
Also that casters should all be martials!
EDIT: specifically monks!