Serious curiosity here:
Do people really think that being able to perceive a [stilled/silent] spell is being cast would neuter Enchantment and Illusion schools?* If your answer is yes: Do you often like to talk about how powerful Wizard is and how amazing Charm Person and Silent Image are, and how casters can completely rewrite narratives with these low level spells?
[full disclosure: I don't agree with this sentiment. I still think they would be incredibly useful schools.]
Serious curiosity here:
Do people really think that being able to perceive a [stilled/silent] spell is being cast would neuter Enchantment and Illusion schools?* If your answer is yes: Do you often like to talk about how powerful Wizard is and how amazing Charm Person and Silent Image are, and how casters can completely rewrite narratives with these low level spells?
[full disclosure: I don't agree with this sentiment. I still think they would be incredibly useful schools.]
Assuming the caster is visible, you can observe the casting...
Once again, I haven't seen any text stating that spells all have inherently visible manifestations.
Also, Charm Person isn't that great, unless your GM houserules it to allow for harmful actions (or interprets them in a forgiving fashion).
Spells do not have sections clarifying whether or not they can be perceived and identified by Spellcraft, and there is no rule or errata I know of declaring that components (or the lack thereof) are required for identification. Given that, my general assumption is that spells themselves can be identified by default unless some effect says otherwise.
Do you often like to talk about how powerful Wizard is and how amazing Charm Person and Silent Image are, and how casters can completely rewrite narratives with these low level spells?
No, because Charm Person has quite clear rules regarding its use, and they are not "lol, I win social" by any means. High level NPCs are going to have a reasonable chance to make their Will saves (or have someone who can use detect magic spot what is going on), and will almost certainly be murderously angry if they find out they're being charmed. Charm Person is not some sort of silver bullet spell.
Silent Image is still silent, and trying to falsify things with which the observer is reasonably familiar is going to get you into problems. Stealthy use of Silent Image can be quite useful, but there are meaningful limits to its utility.
I don't see either of these spells when stealthed as unbalancing on the same level as many other spells, including even staple stuff like Overland Flight.
Do people really think that being able to perceive a [stilled/silent] spell is being cast would neuter Enchantment and Illusion schools?
All illusions, not just Silent Image, are certainly of less utility if you have to be completely hidden in order to cast them convincingly.
The Charm spells are of very questionable value if purple runes swirl about every time you try to cast them. It's not going to affect the cost/benefit of a Confusion spell, but social power is a staple of Enchantment, which is already badly handicapped by being useless in combat against many kinds of monsters. Inhibiting the social power of the school does pretty much render it useless except for a few isolated spells like Confusion, yeah.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, what visible effect is created by Charm Person? Or Sleep?
Swirly eyes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, what visible effect is created by Charm Person? Or Sleep?Swirly eyes.
Hypnotoad style, obviously.
Spells do not have sections clarifying whether or not they can be perceived and identified by Spellcraft, and there is no rule or errata I know of declaring that components (or the lack thereof) are required for identification. Given that, my general assumption is that spells themselves can be identified by default unless some effect says otherwise.
Again, there is no text stating that all spells have visible manifestations.
SpellCASTING is observable, and provokes AoO, but no written text (that I have seen) states that all spells are visible.
People keep referring back to the text talking about using spellcraft to identify spells...
It lists a requirement (must be able to see the spell), it does not state anything about how spells work.
I'm gonna break that sentence down a bit, and give an example to show what it means...
"...you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast..."
This isn't stating that spells are visible, it is saying that you must meet the condition of being able to see it before the roll is allowed.
My example, demonstrating why this is so... Consider THIS sentence:
"...you must be able to fly to avoid falling to your death from this cliff..."
This sentence isn't stating that you are able to fly. It is stating that avoid death, flight must be something you posses to survive.
So to everyone who keeps quoting the text from Spellcraft, saying it is what shows spells to be visible, please stop...
It is clearly stating that before you are able to make a Spellcraft roll to identify a spell, you must fulfill the requirement of somehow being able to see the spell.
If the caster is behind a wall (out of sight), you can't identify the spell.
If the caster is 125 feet away from you in darkness, and you have 120ft darkvision, you can't identify the spell.
If the spell doesn't have a visual identifier, you can't identify the spell.
If you are blind, you can't identify the spell.
So really we come back to whether or not spells have a visual aspect that allows for identification.
Some list obvious effects, such as blasting spells, summons etc.
Some are CLEARLY intended for subterfuge (Charm, Dominate, Message etc).
Until I see rules stating that all spells have clearly identifiable visual aspects, I'm gonna stick to the rules. They don't.
I am gonna houserule things to allow for identifying spells if you can observe the caster though. Even though the printed rules don't work this way.
So, what visible effect is created by Charm Person? Or Sleep?
Swirly eyes.
Hypnotoad style, obviously.
No! How could yous possibly come to 'dat conclusion?! Clearly, as it's written in 'dat post by 'dat 'dere lion-guy, one can only come to 'de conclusion 'dat it's obviously Jungle Book-type eyes! I mean, obviously!
(Also, of course, 'dose Loony Toon beams from your hand. Clearly, 'dat happens, too, as made obvious by 'dat original post.)
People needs ta learn how ta reads! >:(
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...
This is as reasonable a post as I've seen in this thread. Kudos!
Ravingdork, thank you for that.
I especially like points 2 and 3 in your quote.
|
my understanding of counter spell, still spell, silent spell, and eschew materials are as follows. I am not quoting any rules or passages, this is just how i interpreted them after reading them and how we have been using it at my table, if i am wrong please correct me.
Counter Spell:
To be able to counter spell you must make a spell craft check vs the spell being cast. the spell must have a visual or sound effect to be able to identify it and your character must be within range to be able to clearly spot these. I take this to mean that the verbal component, the material component or the somatic component are what you are using to identify the spell. In all genres of fantasy different magic spells and effects have specific chants and hand gestures and materials needed to complete that spell.
Eschew materials takes the Material component away unless it is expensive. so now spells only have a verbal and somatic component that you can use to identify the spell by.
Still spell takes away the somatic component
and silent spell takes away the verbal component
if a character had all 3 components of the spell taken away by casting a silent stilled eschew material spell, then there is nothing you can use to identify the spell by, the spell goes off without anyone being able to figure out before hand.
my understanding of counter spell, still spell, silent spell, and eschew materials are as follows. I am not quoting any rules or passages, this is just how i interpreted them after reading them and how we have been using it at my table, if i am wrong please correct me.
Counter Spell:
To be able to counter spell you must make a spell craft check vs the spell being cast. the spell must have a visual or sound effect to be able to identify it and your character must be within range to be able to clearly spot these. I take this to mean that the verbal component, the material component or the somatic component are what you are using to identify the spell. In all genres of fantasy different magic spells and effects have specific chants and hand gestures and materials needed to complete that spell.Eschew materials takes the Material component away unless it is expensive. so now spells only have a verbal and somatic component that you can use to identify the spell by.
Still spell takes away the somatic component
and silent spell takes away the verbal component
if a character had all 3 components of the spell taken away by casting a silent stilled eschew material spell, then there is nothing you can use to identify the spell by, the spell goes off without anyone being able to figure out before hand.
Logical, sensible, and totally not by the rules at all.
I do it the same way as you.
|
|
my understanding of counter spell, still spell, silent spell, and eschew materials are as follows. I am not quoting any rules or passages, this is just how i interpreted them after reading them and how we have been using it at my table, if i am wrong please correct me.
Counter Spell:
To be able to counter spell you must make a spell craft check vs the spell being cast. the spell must have a visual or sound effect to be able to identify it and your character must be within range to be able to clearly spot these. I take this to mean that the verbal component, the material component or the somatic component are what you are using to identify the spell. In all genres of fantasy different magic spells and effects have specific chants and hand gestures and materials needed to complete that spell.Eschew materials takes the Material component away unless it is expensive. so now spells only have a verbal and somatic component that you can use to identify the spell by.
Still spell takes away the somatic component
and silent spell takes away the verbal component
if a character had all 3 components of the spell taken away by casting a silent stilled eschew material spell, then there is nothing you can use to identify the spell by, the spell goes off without anyone being able to figure out before hand.
Logical, sensible, and totally not by the rules at all.
I do it the same way as you.
ok, so then by the rules how should it work?
and i keep seeing people talking about magical visualizations of spells before the spells go off, other then in specific spell descriptions i have not read anywhere that spells generate a magical effect around them before they are cast. I do understand in allot of fantasy spells sparkle or runes appear floating about or magical energies follow hand gestures but i have not read that this happens in pathfinder anywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I've always imagined that even spells missing their V/S/M might still do things like cause the temperature to change, raise the hairs on the back of your neck, give you that "someone just stepped on my grave" sensation, and so on. Hence, you can still tell someone is casting, even if it's harder (the penalties given).
By the rules...
1)You must fulfill the requirement of being able to SEE the spell
That is all.
If you meet this singular requirement, Spellcraft may now be rolled to potentially identify what is being cast.
Whether or not the SPELL is visible isn't stated anywhere (exceptions exist, some spells describe visual effects).
Components are not mentioned, though Spellcraft does list 'other factors', which, being undefined, fall under the purview of the GM.
ok, so then by the rules how should it work?
and i keep seeing people talking about magical visualizations of spells before the spells go off, other then in specific spell descriptions i have not read anywhere that spells generate a magical effect around them before they are cast. I do understand in allot of fantasy spells sparkle or runes appear floating about or magical energies follow hand gestures but i have not read that this happens in pathfinder anywhere.
To identify a spell as it's being cast, you must be able to see the spell as it is being cast. This is unambiguous and clearly spelled out in the Spellcraft rules.
Furthermore, the text "to identify the spell as it is being cast" explains that you can identify it while it's being cast, not after the caster is done casting.
Next, the section on Counterspelling.
It is specifically noted that any spell can be used as a counterspell, in order to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. You can get ready to Counterspell as a Ready Action, and if your opponent tries to cast, you make a Spellcraft check (as a free action). If the check succeeds, you identify the spell and can counter it.
There are no exceptions here for "certain types" of spells. Any spell can be countered by the same spell, and any spell can be identified by Spellcraft when attempting to do so.
It's true that there is no explicit "magic visualization" I am aware of, but the fact that any spell can be identified to counter it, and that Spellcraft requires seeing the spell, suggests that whatever is identified is visual in nature. I think you could reasonably say that a visual effect of some kind is at least implied by the rules.
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.
This all might be true...
... if all you want to do is identify a spell after it's been cast.
But sometimes you want to identify a spell in time to use a counterspell, you know, before the guy finishes casting it because he is in the middle of casting it when you counter it with your interrupting readied action.
At those times, you NEVER have a visual effect because the guy is not done casting it. You don't have a fireball yet, or a cone of fire, or a swarm of meteors, or whatever, because those don't yet exist.
It's just a guy waving hands and wiggling fingers and babbling incantations and tossing a cricket at you.
Or not, if he use any of those oft-repeated feats.
In any case, at this time (during the casting rather than after it), it would ALWAYS fall under your clause B ("No-No identification attempt may be made") because at this time the spell is NEVER visible.
But wait - we CAN identify spells during the casting. There are whole sections of the rulebook about using readied actions to counter a spell while it is being cast, requiring a spellcraft check to "see the spellcasting".
Which means there is no spell (by your definition it fails the "Is the SPELL visible?" question because it doesn't even exist - yet) but RAW says we can still see something to identify and possibly counter with a counterspell.
THAT is what is in question here. What is that? Whatever it is, it's the same for a Fireball, Charm Person, illusion, Burning Hands, Fox's Cunning, etc. It's the same for all spell, regardless of whether they will eventually have or not have a visual effect when the casting is finished.
ok, so then by the rules how should it work?
and i keep seeing people talking about magical visualizations of spells before the spells go off, other then in specific spell descriptions i have not read anywhere that spells generate a magical effect around them before they are cast. I do understand in allot of fantasy spells sparkle or runes appear floating about or magical energies follow hand gestures but i have not read that this happens in pathfinder anywhere.
To identify a spell as it's being cast, you must be able to see the spell as it is being cast. This is unambiguous and clearly spelled out in the Spellcraft rules.
Furthermore, the text "to identify the spell as it is being cast" explains that you can identify it while it's being cast, not after the caster is done casting.
Next, the section on Counterspelling.
It is specifically noted that any spell can be used as a counterspell, in order to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. You can get ready to Counterspell as a Ready Action, and if your opponent tries to cast, you make a Spellcraft check (as a free action). If the check succeeds, you identify the spell and can counter it.
There are no exceptions here for "certain types" of spells. Any spell can be countered by the same spell, and any spell can be identified by Spellcraft when attempting to do so.
It's true that there is no explicit "magic visualization" I am aware of, but the fact that any spell can be identified to counter it, and that Spellcraft requires seeing the spell, suggests that whatever is identified is visual in nature. I think you could reasonably say that a visual effect of some kind is at least implied by the rules.
Once again, it never says that all spells have visual identifiers.
It DOES state that you are required to be able to see it before rolling to identify it. NOWHERE does it list spells as all being visually identifiable.
Sheesh.
"you must be able to fly to survive this fall"-You have NOT just been granted the ability to fly. You must possess this property in order to not die.
"you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast"-You have NOT just been granted the ability to see spells. You must already posses this property in order to roll Spellcraft.
It is a requirement that must be met, not a gift to you.
Any spell can be counterspelled. This is done, in part, by making a visual Spellcraft check. As written, you can see something for the casting of every single spell in the game in order to identify it for this purpose.
The rules are not as clear on what that something is, but it exists. I do not think that referring to this something as the "visual identifier" of the spell is inappropriate, because it is both visual and how you identify the spell.
|
|
Counterspells
It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing so, you are using the spell's energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.How Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing to ready an action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. You may still move at your normal speed, since ready is a standard action.
If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell's level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent's spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can't do either of these things.
To complete the action, you must then cast an appropriate spell. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (or have a slot of the appropriate level available), you cast it, creating a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.
Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered.
Specific Exceptions: Some spells can counter other specific spells, often those with diametrically opposed effects.
Dispel Magic as a Counterspell: You can usually use dispel magic to counterspell another spell being cast without needing to identify the spell being cast. Dispel magic doesn't always work as a counterspell (see the spell description).
Identify Spell Being Cast
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
Retry? You cannot retry checks made to identify a spell.
Edit: i just read thruough spellcraft skill and added it to the page. It says you must see the spell, i am leaving the rest of my post as written
Just read through the entire counter spell section again, nowhere does it state that you must see the spell just the spell caster. seeing the spell is an assumed variable. it states when the spell caster begins casting a spell you attempt to ID the spell.
Meta magic feats don't matter so still and silent spell are not taken into account.
This is were things get into how you want to run it or how you interpret the rules.
1) you ID the spell by the motions and gestures the spell caster makes. to counterspell you are looking at the spell caster and must be able to see the spellcaster casting the spell.
2) you ID the spell by magical energies the spell creates during its casting, silent spell and still spell do not matter in this case the energies are always present and visible.
3) neither of these cases matter we delve into meta and the mere Action, game term, of casting the spell triggers the ready action to ID the spell and counter spell it. Seeing the target, the spell caster, is the only requirement, you don't need to see the spell or the gestures.
there are probably more ways to interpret it.
Again, there is no text stating that all spells have visible manifestations.
SpellCASTING is observable, and provokes AoO, but no written text (that I have seen) states that all spells are visible.
People keep referring back to the text talking about using spellcraft to identify spells...
It lists a requirement (must be able to see the spell), it does not state anything about how spells work.
I'm gonna break that sentence down a bit, and give an example to show what it means...
"...you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast..."
This isn't stating that spells are visible, it is saying that you must meet the condition of being able to see it before the roll is allowed.
This logic falls apart when you think about.
First, remember that this line from Spellcraft is talking about what you do WHILE THE SPELL IS BEING CAST, specifically, before the caster is finished casting and before the spell exists (because the guy isn't done casting it).
Sure, Fireballs are VERY visible after the guy finishes casting them, and Charm Person is completely invisible after the guy finishes casting it. But both of them are fundamentally the same WHILE THE GUY IS CASTING THEM.
Spellcraft tells us we can "identify the spell" as it is being cast. The guy is standing there, wiggling fingers, speaking arcane words, and throwing a cricket at us, and we can "identify the spell".
Spellcraft does not say we identify the spellcasting, or we need to see the guy casting the spell. It says we need to see the spell as it is being cast. Before the ball of fire, before the lightning bolt, before any visible effect, we "identify the spell" by seeing it.
That is very clear to me. There is something of the spell that is visible and identifiable before the spell is cast.
But there are no bonuses or penalties associated with spells that have a visible effect, or with spells that have NO visible effect, or with Silent Spell, Still Spell, Eschew Materials, etc. The spellcraft check is always the same.
So no matter what you cast, no matter what feats you use to elimnate components, there is always a vision-based Spellcraft check to identify that spell LONG BEFORE the guy finises casting it, LONG BEFORE there is any visible effect caused by the completed spell.
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.
I really don't think this is something that should be codified. It should be up to table preference. The important mechanical rule is that it is in fact countered. How said counter is visualized should be left wholly up to the imaginations of the individual roleplayers or roleplayer groups.
Alex, you're getting hung up on "you must be able to see the spell as it is being cast" and assuming this means that you have to meet the condition.
You don't.
This sentence clearly implies that it is possible to see a spell as it is being cast. Consider, if it is NEVER possible to see a spell as it is being cast then the whole idea of counterspells is impossible and never needed to be written.
From that, we can infer that, at least sometimes, you CAN see a spell as it is being cast.
So when can you and when can't you?
Well, not in the dark, not behind a wall, not in a thick fog, etc. This stuff is obvious so let's just drop this from the discussion - if total concealment or total cover hides the spell caster, then you can't see the spell as it is being cast. Obvious.
What's left?
Assuming the spell is being cast within your line of sight, with no concealment options, then can you always see a spell as it is being cast?
Yes, in this case, you can always see it being cast. You no longer need to meet any conditions (those conditions are already met because there is no concealment or cover).
How do we know this?
Because there are no further rules anywhere in the rulebooks that give you any game mechanics about doing this. There are no penalties, no bonuses, no modifiers of any kind. There is just an unmodified Spellcraft roll to identify any spell. Period. All spells. All of them.
This is incontrovertible RAW.
Fluff it however you like. Floating runes, whatever. But RAW says you can do it with no conditional modifiers, so there are no conditions left to be met.
A great clarification for this FAQ would be that you don't need to see the spell itself (as it doesn't exist until cast), but the caster themselves. I think that would clear a lot of things up and bring everything into line with the counterspell rules.
Also, just because a person can see a spell being cast, doesn't necessarily mean that they recognize that a spell is being cast.
DM_Blake, inferences aside, you do have to recognize that the rules don't state that spells are visible (unless the spell describes itself otherwise).
Spellcraft lists a PREREQUISITE FOR USE.
You must SEE the spell.
It does NOT grant you the gift of suddenly making every spell ever to exist everywhere (personally researched or otherwise) arbitrarily reveal itself in a visual display.
Invisible casters suddenly have their squares revealed by your logic.
Poof.
The way I do spell idenfication in my game is probably identical to yours in most respects.
I do have to ask though, if you treat all spells as a visible energy, what happens when an invisible caster casts cure light wounds on themselves?
This isn't even a corner case. Someone with a ring of invisibility using a non-aggressive spell should remain invisible, but by your (and many others) logic, not only do they risk having their spell countered (even if they have silenced it) but they obviously must also reveal their location!!!
Please reconcile this for me.
DM_Blake, inferences aside, you do have to recognize that the rules don't state that spells are visible (unless the spell describes itself otherwise).
Spellcraft lists a PREREQUISITE FOR USE.
You must SEE the spell.
It does NOT grant you the gift of suddenly making every spell ever to exist everywhere (personally researched or otherwise) arbitrarily reveal itself in a visual display.
Invisible casters suddenly have their squares revealed by your logic.
Poof.
The way I do spell idenfication in my game is probably identical to yours in most respects.
I do have to ask though, if you treat all spells as a visible energy, what happens when an invisible caster casts cure light wounds on themselves?
This isn't even a corner case. Someone with a ring of invisibility using a non-aggressive spell should remain invisible, but by your (and many others) logic, not only do they risk having their spell countered (even if they have silenced it) but they obviously must also reveal their location!!!
Please reconcile this for me.
I already in my response to you said that if you have total concealment, observers won't meet your conditions for being able to see the spell as it is being cast.
Whatever the during-casting visible stuff is, the Invisibility spell handles it and makes that invisible too. Why? Because it says so - it specifically calls out being able to summon monsters without breaking invisibility.
While it's debatable whether "breaking invisibility" is the same thing as "giving away your location without breaking the spell", I'm perfectly happy to draw these conclusions from the rules:
1. Invisibility hides you from creatures that otherwise would SEE you with vision. If there is nobody to see you, you really don't need to be invisible to remain unseen.
2. Identifying a spell while it's being cast requires seeing the spell.
3. Invisible creatures can cast summon spells (and by extension other non-attack spells) while invisible.
4. Seeing those non-attack spells would invalidate invisibility.
5. Therefore, invisibility handles those visible cues and makes them invisible too.
In fact, I take it a little farther:
6. Casting an attack spell breaks invisibility.
7. But attacking while invisible grants you the benefits of being invisible until after you attack.
8. Therefore you remain invisible until the attack is finished.
9. Therefore you remain invisible until your attack spell is finished.
10. Which means invisibility also conceals the visible cues of attack spells and makes them invisible during the casting - of course, completing those spells will break the invisibility, but not during the time you're casting them.
|
|
Any interpretation of this is grasping at things that are not specified anywhere.
For a point of order:
"Seeing the spell" from spellcraft skill page
This could mean a couple things and you can assume other things aswell
1) the spell while being cast makes some magical visual cues IE floating runes, magical sparkles...ECT.
2) the spell while being cast starts to manifest itself into its complete form.
3) you notice the gestures and spell commands and material / physical components of the spell. But this would be seeing the spell casting and not the spell
none of these are specified as this is what happens when you cast a spell (Except for 3 which is part of spell casting in the rules.
I personally think the rules mean to use 3, as 1 and 2 are completely made up "rules" that do not appear in the books anywhere
But everyone seems to be hung up on "seeing the spell" and creating lines within that to mean that spells create a visual effect from the casting and not using whats already in the rules as visual ques for spell casting IE the V, S, and M components of a spell
So instead of making up stuff that does not have any reference to the rules in any form or fashion, we just add one word and then everything fits nice and neat "seeing the spell casting". in the counterspell description it already states needing to watch the spell caster.
Shadowlords,
I would agree with you IF...
... If we had some kind of rule anywhere in the book about how using Still Spell, Silent Spell, and/or Eschew Materials affects your ability to see a spell being cast. But we don't
... If we had some kind of rule anywhere in the book about how using those feats can prevent opponents from using Spellcraft to identify a spell being cast. But we don't.
So no, I cannot agree that adding just one word makes everything fit nicely. The instant we add that one word, players everywhere will be clamoring for FAQs about how those feats, or cover, or concealment (not "Total") applies modifiers to seeing the spellcaster.
Further, I submit that making it so a person can apply a couple feats, or simply find some total concealment or even just a distraction and then can cast freely on anyone in the world and not be detected seems to be ADDING power/versatility/effectiveness/awesomeness to the classes that are already on the highest tiers. That's the last thing we need.
As such, I prefer to read the rules that we do have, make sense of them, maybe apply fluff about glowing runes or sparkling energy or whatever (simply to support the actual rules, not to change them), and play with the magic system and the tiers being only as broken as it is rather than more broken.
As such, I prefer to read the rules that we do have, make sense of them, maybe apply fluff about glowing runes or sparkling energy or whatever (simply to support the actual rules, not to change them), and play with the magic system and the tiers being only as broken as it is rather than more broken.
Corniness should not be a balancing mechanic. If I wanted sparkly magic, I'd watch Twilight.
Shadowlords,
I would agree with you IF...
... If we had some kind of rule anywhere in the book about how using Still Spell, Silent Spell, and/or Eschew Materials affects your ability to see a spell being cast. But we don't
... If we had some kind of rule anywhere in the book about how using those feats can prevent opponents from using Spellcraft to identify a spell being cast. But we don't.
So no, I cannot agree that adding just one word makes everything fit nicely. The instant we add that one word, players everywhere will be clamoring for FAQs about how those feats, or cover, or concealment (not "Total") applies modifiers to seeing the spellcaster.
Further, I submit that making it so a person can apply a couple feats, or simply find some total concealment or even just a distraction and then can cast freely on anyone in the world and not be detected seems to be ADDING power/versatility/effectiveness/awesomeness to the classes that are already on the highest tiers. That's the last thing we need.
As such, I prefer to read the rules that we do have, make sense of them, maybe apply fluff about glowing runes or sparkling energy or whatever (simply to support the actual rules, not to change them), and play with the magic system and the tiers being only as broken as it is rather than more broken.
As much as I WANT to agree with you, Shadowlords is right.
If you really, actually want to stick with RAW, word for word, you just CAN'T identify spells at all, unless you can see the spell!
So the burden of proof lies on the person claiming they can see spells as they are being cast.
Some spells have described, visible effects.
Others do not.
I would be willing to say that this second group produces some visible effect during casting, despite nothing indicating this.
I would NOT, however, concede that a spell lacking text talking about a visual effect suddenly and without explanation has a visual effect, especially based off of THIS sentence:
"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."
As I have said before, the above sentence is a requirement that you need to meet, not a statement about the nature of all spells.
Trying to (repeatedly) base an argument that this phrase somehow states that all spells are clearly visible is... odd.
So... RAW, do spells produce visible effects AS they are being cast?
Nope.
Nowhere does it say that, or even anything close to it.
It does state that you need to be able to see this non-existent effect to identify them though.
counterspelling has specific text that contradicts this, allowing you to identify a spell before attempting to counter it...
"To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing to ready an action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. You may still move at your normal speed, since ready is a standard action."
So if you have a)identified someone as an opponent b)readied an action and c)can see them at the time of casting, THEN and only then, are you able to identify and potentially counter a spell.
These are the rules as written.
Do I think they make sense?
Nope.
Do I agree with them?
Nope.
Do I use them as written?
Nope.
But don't try to tell me I'm wrong. I'm not interpreting anything. I'm looking at the actual text.
I _do_ allow Stilled/Silenced Charm Person spells to be cast without having a glowing arrow pointing at the caster... They DO have to concentrate on casting it, but if they are in a crowd, that might go unnoticed.
So with Shadowlord adding one word, identifying spells suddenly makes sense. One word. "Casting".
DM_Blake, you are looking to add entire sentences to this book, suddenly stating that all spells have sparkly lights or some other arcane identifier.
There is a change you want to make to the rules, it is wide-reaching, absolute, not supported by printed text and frankly rather odd.
I like Shadowlords approach a lot more. It's what I use.
How metamagic feats affect spell identification isn't covered by the rules any more than your proposed introduction of spells as lightsources (or however you want to describe it).
But it makes sense that removing visual cues makes things harder to spot.
As for your appeal to our sensibilities ('the tiers being only as broken as it is rather than more broken')-You're preaching to the choir, trust me. But this isn't an emotional appeal we are going for here.
We are discussing how the game works.
So, what visible effect is created by Charm Person? Or Sleep?Swirly eyes.Hypnotoad style, obviously.No! How could yous possibly come to 'dat conclusion?! Clearly, as it's written in 'dat post by 'dat 'dere lion-guy, one can only come to 'de conclusion 'dat it's obviously Jungle Book-type eyes! I mean, obviously!
(Also, of course, 'dose Loony Toon beams from your hand. Clearly, 'dat happens, too, as made obvious by 'dat original post.)
People needs ta learn how ta reads! >:(
You know, re-reading this post seems really mean.
Just for general clarity, it's not meant to be, nor am I attempting to equate anyone's arguments as poor by way of comparing to Loony Toons, or Jungle Book. Instead, I meant this in fun and silliness, and as a light-hearted reminder that presupposing bad-faith or insulting others is unpleasant.
... and it comes off as me insulting others. For that, I have to apologize. It was not the intent.
Sorry!
(The thing is: I really like people.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As such, I prefer to read the rules that we do have, make sense of them, maybe apply fluff about glowing runes or sparkling energy or whatever (simply to support the actual rules, not to change them), and play with the magic system and the tiers being only as broken as it is rather than more broken.Corniness should not be a balancing mechanic. If I wanted sparkly magic, I'd watch Twilight.
Too true. In my defense, I didn't suggest that; the guy to whom I was replying did, so I used his idea in my reply.
But you do have to admit, sparkling magic goes way, way back before Twilight. I think it's because actors on stage in a play about magic had to portray magic somehow, using a method that could be seen in the very back row (wiggly fingers and poopy faces don't cut it for the back row) and could be understaood by every member of the audience (mysterious gestures or throwing crickets in the air might just be confusing), with zero tech (in past centuries, certainly) - and all for a super low cost because plays never made anybody rich. They accomplished this, usually, by tossing glitter in the air.
And thus glittery magic was born.
Hollywood and Stephenie Meyer haven't helped.
|
rom a GM's perpective I'm going to go with this, which I think will solve most problems:
1) Assume SLAs have V and S components and that a creature casting them clearly appears to do so.
2) If someone casts a *spell* (not SLA) that lacks a component (either because it doesn't have any or that it/they has/have been hidden via Still Spell, Silent Spell or Eschew Material), then the Spellcraft is at -2 per component missing. Yes, this gives an edge to sorcerers. I don't care. A perception check is still required to see that a spell is being cast, with same negative mods (-2 per missing component).
For example, a still, silent, and eschewed spell can be noticed by Perception check with a -6 penalty; if it's noticed, then Spellcraft to identify is also at -6.
Paizo has already said it doesn't involve components.
Not sure why that needs to be re-iterated again, any more than Standard Action/Vital Strike FAQ.
The RAW of spellcraft states "clearly see the spell as it is being cast",
which is before any spell effect (visual or not) has occurred because Casting is still in progress.
e.g. You don't force a Concentration Check on yourself by centering a Fireball on yourself,
which then disrupts the spell: the spell has already been cast before any effect occurs.
..."I'm making up my own rules"...
2) If someone casts a *spell* (not SLA) that lacks a component... then the Spellcraft is at -2 per component missing. Yes, this gives an edge to sorcerers.
FYI, there is a separate check to ID a spell based on material components used, which involves Knowledge (Arcana).
Which is arguably a more broadly useful skill, especially for non-Casters. (strangely it has flat DC 20, vs Spellcraft DC 15 + spell level)(while ID'ing a spell effect in place, i.e. after being cast, is Know(Arcana) DC 20 + spell level)
Obviously Sorcerers not using material components does bypass that route. (albeit one of the better Sorceror Archetypes does give up Eschew Components)
It also doesn't work for spells that "naturally" have zero material components.
(and yes, asking for a Know(Arcana) check every time you fail a Spellcraft check is a good way to annoy your GM)
I think using the "act of casting by the caster" would be easiest.
Okay... I mean it doesn't need to be Errata'd like that, but if they're going to make a FAQ entry for this, then it doesn't hurt to phrase it like that...
Although honestly I'm not sure how much real confusion there is on that topic,I mean now in this thread I see some dubious arguments against "spellcasting before spell effect"
(which totally alters how counterspelling and indeed spellcasting itself works),
but I never before have seen such an argument...
The confusion most commonly encountered is that spell components (material or somatic) are somehow involved...
Which is still` clearly part of spell casting process, not the spell effect which follows.
Paizo has already said it doesn't involve components.
Not sure why that needs to be re-iterated again, any more than Standard Action/Vital Strike FAQ.The RAW of spellcraft states "clearly see the spell as it is being cast",
which is before any spell effect (visual or not) has occurred because Casting is still in progress.
e.g. You don't force a Concentration Check on yourself by centering a Fireball on yourself,
which then disrupts the spell: the spell has already been cast before any effect occurs.
The RAW of spellcraft actually states "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast".
Once again, this is a requirement, not the granting of a gift to you, the person attempting identification. That sentence isn't saying that spells are obligated to be visible, it states that before you can identify them, you have find some way to see them!
IF, and only if, you are able to see the spell (not the caster, the actual spell, not the components, the SPELL), then, and ONLY THEN may you roll Spellcraft to identify it.
THAT is RAW, your quote was deliberately incomplete, and intentionally misleading.
@alexd1976: My character has working eyes and is looking at the enemy caster as they cast. There are no obstructions in the way. What else - as explicitly stated within the rules - are they required to be doing in order to see the spell and make that Spellcraft check?
@alexd1976: My character has working eyes and is looking at the enemy caster as they cast. There are no obstructions in the way. What else - as explicitly stated within the rules - are they required to be doing in order to see the spell and make that Spellcraft check?
Nothing, you nailed it. There is nothing else they can do.
Assuming the spell is visible, they may then roll Spellcraft.
Whether or not the spell is visible is not up to the players. It is up to the GM.
Making sweeping declarations like "all spells are inherently visible" is something people SHOULD disagree with, as no text states this.
SOME spells describe visual effects. Not all.
I'm trying to draw attention to this, and have been trying to all day, but apparently people keep missing it (or don't want to see it).
How still spell and silent spell tie into this is simple...
"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"
There is no need to claim that extra rules are being invented (by me, or anyone who agrees with my viewpoint) to allow for Still spell to modify the chance of identifying a spell, it's already right there in the Spellcraft skill.
This doesn't even use the often defaulted-to rule 0. It's all right there in Spellcraft.
@Crimeo: And how do the Counterspelling rules come into this, given that any spell can be used as a counterspell against the same spell?
(To elaborate, how is it possible to use any spell as a counterspell if some spells, by a supposed non-visual nature, could not be identified and countered?)
Counterspelling Rules Reference
EDIT: To Alexd below, I suppose one could argue that if a character cannot be targeted (because you don't know where they are), you can't counterspell. I don't think that would be an unrealistic interpretation.
My character has working eyes and is looking at the enemy caster as they cast. There are no obstructions in the way. What else - as explicitly stated within the rules - are they required to be doing in order to see the spell and make that Spellcraft check?The SPELL.
The caster =/= The spell. The caster = a creature. Outside of summons, spells =/= creatures.
If a spell is not described as having any visual manifestation, what, strictly by RAW are you able to see to tell you what spell is being cast?Nothing. So you can't.
There must be something visible, in order to be seen.No there musn't necessarily be anything visible.
It merely says that you need to see it in order to spellcraft. That tells you nothing about whether there is anything to see. If there isn't anything to see, then you obviously can't see it, and thus can't spellcraft it.
Thank you Crimeo. I was starting to think I was taking crazy pills.
I will re-iterate (for those that disagree) that I don't run my games using the rules as written, as clearly the INTENTION was to allow for identification of spells, but I base it on whether or not people can see the CASTER, as they cast they spell.
So invisibility and Still spell can prevent identification, as they seem like they should be able to.
I mean, if you (not you Crimeo) are gonna house rule it, house rule it and admit to it like I do, don't claim it's RAW.
If you are gonna preach RAW, I'm gonna keep beating people around the head and face with the text instead of making stuff up.
And how do the Counterspelling rules come into this, given that any spell can be used as a counterspell against the same spell?The rules say:
1) Any spell can be cast as a counterspell.
2) If you can identify a spell, then you can counterspell it with itself.
#1 is still true because people can take the feat "improved couterspell" and counter a spell with any other spell in the same school. So as long as there exists ONE spell at least in each school that does have listed visual manifestations (this is true), then it is true that "any spell can be cast as a counterspell [to counter that one other spell at least in its school that has visible effects, not necessarily itself]" For example, the fact that burning hands exists, and has a visual manifestation, means that now EVERY evocation spell has at least one situation where it "can be cast as a counterspell [against burning hands]" Thus no other evocation spell in the whole school is required logically anymore to have visual manifestations.
And then #2 simply won't apply to non-visible spells.
Oh, counterspell has it's own rules.
Totally different from Spellcraft on it's own. I know that.
It actually kinda contradicts what Spellcraft on its own can do.
I'm not sure I can agree with an interpretation saying "this general rule is true only if a different, optional ability is in use". The Counterspelling rules should be accurate and true on their own, and only modified by a feat to permit something they would not normally do.