That's kinda my point. There must be something for you to see, in order to see it. If there is nothing to see, you see nothing. Absent evidence to the contrary, I must assume that only spells which manifest visually can be identified by spellcraft. Amusingly, this would mean that you could identify the spell invisibility, as it has the visual manifestation of making you no longer visible. Not that it does you a ton of good, unless you're ready to counterspell it.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, because you "need to see it to spellcraft" but you can't, so you can't.
Nah, invisibility, plane shift, teleport and dimension door all produce the same visual effect.
*Raises hand* I'd just like to note that I strongly doubt the counterspelling rules were intended to cover esoteric things like people announcing what they're doing or using specific feats not mentioned in the text there, and more probably, were intended to work exactly as described. You ready an action to counterspell, try to identify the spell when it's being cast (and are generally assumed to be able to do this without jumping through hoops to see things you're looking at if you can target them for counterspelling at all), and then you try to do the actual countering.
This has been a great discussion folks, and I would like to mention once more that we all seem to agree on how to adjudicate spell identification (more or less).
Please recognize though, that the rules basically don't allow for it as they currently are written.
Thank you and good night.
Here is my summary of this thread:
Half of the players posting here play like this:
Mage: I have a readied action so I use Spellcraft to identify that spell in the hopes that I can counter it.
GM: You can't.
Mage: Can't what?
GM: You can't use Spellcraft to ID the spell.
Mage: Why not.
GM: Because I say so. That's fair you know; I'm the GM.
Mage: Care to cite a rule?
GM: Rule 0. That's all you need.
Mage: Uh, no, I'd like more than that. It says right here in the rulebook that I can use Spellcraft for this. Tells me the DC and everything. Oh, I'm 25 feet away so I'll take the -2 on the Spellcraft check.
GM: But you cannot see the spell, so you cannot identify it.
MageC: But you told me he's casting a spell.
GM: Yep.
Mage: If he's casting a spell, why can't I see it?
GM: The spell has no visible component. It can't be seen.
Mage: Then how do I know he's casting a spell?
GM: He made a poopy face.
Mage: A what?
GM: A poopy face.
Mage: What does that mean?
GM: Well, he looks like he's, you know, pooping. And making a face while he does it. But you can see he's not pooping, so he must be casting a spell.
Mage: OK, he's casting a spell. It says right here that I can identify it and counterspell it.
GM: Not this one.
Mage: Why not?
GM: Because some spells just can't.
Mage: Is that in the rulebook?
GM: No, but it doesn't say you can identify ALL of them, now does it?
Mage: Well, no, it doesn't say the word "all"...
GM: Aha! So you can't! If it doesn't say "all", then you can't identify all.
Mage: But, it doesn't say there are limitations. The rulebook is permissive. It says I can identify spells. No restrictions are provided. It doesn't say "some spells" or "certain spells" or "except the following spells" or "but not from this certain school" or, well, ANY restriction at all. It just says, permissively, that I can identify spells. That implies "all spells".
GM: Nuh uh. IT doesn't say "all" so now you're just trying to make stuff up.
Mage: I give up. I cast Magic Missile at him.
GM: Nope, you readied to identify his spell and counter it, you can't change your mind now.
Mage: So I lose my action and do nothing because he casts a special snowflake spell that, for no actual rule-based reason, I cannot identify? Because you say so?
GM: Yep. OK, fighter, the BBEG provoked an AoO from you when he cast this spell.
Mage: You mean the invisible spell that nobody can see, even though the rulebook says we can?
GM: Yep, that's the one.
Mage: How does the fighter know he's casting?
GM: Duh. The poopy face gave it away. OK, fighter, you can act now.
Fighter: I attack. Crud, I rolled a 3. That's a 15, does it hit?
GM: Not even close. The BBEG finishes casting Dominate Person. Fighter, roll your will save...
Mage: Dominate Person! I have that prepared. Twice. It's my favorite spell! Why couldn't I identify it?
GM: It's invisible. No visible effect. Nothing for you to see.
Mage: I couldn't even recognize the verbal and somatic components?
GM: Nope. He used Still Spell and Silent Spell so he didn't do that stuff.
Mage: But I still get to identify it! Those feats say NOTHING about preventing me from identifying spells while they are being cast. NOTHING!
GM: Well, duh, it's obvious that they meant to say that, so they prevent identification, well, just because. Oh, and you couldn't see any fire or lighting or stuff because Dominate Person has no visible effect.
Mage: Why does that matter? He's still casting it, who cares what it's going to look like later?
GM: well, somehow what it looks like after he finishes casting it can affect what it looks like while he's casting it too.
Mage: How?
GM: I don't know. Maybe the visible effects time warp from the future, after the spell is in existence, to come back in time and make some cool effects while he's casting. But since Dominate Person has no visible effects, you couldn't see this particular time warp.
Mage: That's. Not. What. The. Rules. Say.
Fighter: Did I save with a 9?
GM: Not even close. The BBEG commands you to go kill the mage.
Fighter: OK, boss!
While the other half play like this:
Mage: I have a readied action so I use Spellcraft to identify that spell in the hopes that I can counter it. Can I clearly see it?
GM: Of course. Although, he's not even making verbal and somatic components.
Mage: Why not?
GM: Well, you're an experienced spellcaster so you can easily assume that he probably used Still and Silent spell.
Mage: Does that matter?
GM: No. The RAW is pretty clear, you can identify it with or without those feats. There's not even a penalty.
Mage: So what CAN I see?
GM: Hmmmm. I guess he's mostly just gathering in the power. It probably looks like heat waves in the desert or something, but with mystical patterns in the waves. heck, I don't know, the book doesn't say, but let's go with that. And since you might have seen this kind of power before, or even learned of it in your studies, you might be able to identify it, so roll.
Mage: I rolled a 6. I add 17 so that's 23.
GM: Did you subtract 2 since you're 25 feet away?
Mage: Crud, I forgot. That's a 21. Did I identify it?
GM: Yep, but just barely. The DC was 20 so you got it. It's Dominate Person. You don't know the target, but that BBEG seems to be eyeballing the party's fighter.
Mage: Gah! I don't want him power attacking me. Luckily I have Dominate Person prepared. Twice, in fact. It's my favorite spell. I cast one of them to counter the BBEG.
GM: OK, done. The gathering power dissipates away and the BBEG looks really pissed off.
Fighter: Hey, do I still get an AoO?
GM: Yeah, he did cast so he provoked, so go for it...
I bet you can guess which half is the way I play it...
In any case, I've said my piece, some listened, some didn't. I don't think there's anything left to say, so I figured I'd end my time on this thread with a little humor. I hope you enjoyed it. And if you're in the first half, well, please don't get too mad - I love you guys and it was all just for the sake of jocularity.
So, can you tell me what, exactly, the spellcaster in your second example is seeing? Per RAW? Page and paragraph please. What visible spell element is there that he has observed with which to identify the spell?
Nope. I can't. Just like the GM in that example couldn't. He winged it.
But that GM recognized that the rules for counterspells don't care what the observer sees. It says he can see the spell and identify it. No penalties, no restrictions, not even with Still or Silent spell. He can simply see it. Period. It doesn't say how. It doesn't say what he sees. It just says he can.
That GM knew it because he read the rules. He made up the fluff, but played by the RAW.
You can too.
Or you can house rule. It's your call, not mine; I'm just here to help people understand the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM_Blake...
Trying to state that there are only two options (both of which don't fit my play style, or my GMing style) isn't really a good use of time, yours or anyone elses.
COUNTERSPELLING actually has it's own rules that aren't the same as just identifying spells using Spellcraft.
In any case, if we were to assume that everyone on here was either doing it wrong, or doing it wronger (as both your examples are not rules-compliant) then everyone would be playing by houserules.
Which, I think, we are.
In your above examples, you talk about counterspelling, this is how it actually works:
"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."
No mention of any requirements regarding sight. All my previous posts regarding Spellcraft and identification of spells was based on Spellcraft alone.
Since you have brought counterspelling into things, it is important that everyone know you have changed topics, and are no longer discussing how Spellcraft is used to identify spells.
This section of rules, as written, works. Sort of.
You still have to be able to target something, in this case, the caster.
If he is invisible, and casts, you are not able to counter, as you are unable to target him.
You must also have a readied action, and have identified the person who hasn't yet cast as an opponent.
SO.
GM: BBEG starts casting a spell.
Mage: I have a readied action so I use Spellcraft to identify that spell in the hopes that I can counter it. Can I clearly see him?
GM: Of course. Although, he's not even making verbal and somatic components.
Mage: Why not?
GM: Well, you're an experienced spellcaster so you can easily assume that he probably used Still and Silent spell.
Mage: Does that matter?
GM: No. The RAW is pretty clear, you can identify it with or without those feats. There's not even a penalty, but only if you have readied to counter him. He's stupid, because Still and Silent don't do anything in this case.
Mage: So what CAN I see?
GM: Hmmmm. I guess he's mostly just concentrating on something. heck, I don't know, the book doesn't say, it doesn't matter, so roll.
Mage: I rolled a 6. I add 17 so that's 23.
GM: Did you subtract 2 since you're 25 feet away?
Mage: Crud, I forgot. That's a 21. Did I identify it?
GM: Yep, but just barely. The DC was 20 so you got it. It's Dominate Person. You don't know the target, but that BBEG seems to be eyeballing the party's fighter.
Mage: Gah! I don't want him power attacking me. Luckily I have Dominate Person prepared. Twice, in fact. It's my favorite spell. I cast one of them to counter the BBEG.
GM: OK, done. The gathering power dissipates away and the BBEG looks really pissed off.
Fighter: Hey, do I still get an AoO?
GM: Yeah, he did cast so he provoked, so go for it...
The difference between you and I is that I don't arbitrarily assign visual cues to spells, they didn't publish any, so I don't make them up.
I do use houserules in this situation as well though. I would NOT allow a roll to identify the spell. If the BBEG used Still AND Silent, the opposing caster would have to rely on Dispel Magic.
I mean the BBEG bumped the spell up two entire levels after all, and it isn't like it PREVENTS countering, it just complicates it.
Actually, I should clarify, I allow rolls to identify if ANY ONE OR MORE COMPONENT is present during casting, and visible/perceivable in some way, but increase DC by 5 per missing component, and if no components are used... it can't be identified.
so a spell that normally has v/s/m, that has been Stilled and Silenced is +10 DC.
A spell that is normally just V, is +10 DC.
It creates a reason to have Still and Silenced spells, and fits nicely with how we imagine spellcasting to work.
Once again, I admit to using house rules. You should too. Spells don't have visual effects unless the book says so, that's something you added yourself.
So, can you tell me what, exactly, the spellcaster in your second example is seeing? Per RAW? Page and paragraph please. What visible spell element is there that he has observed with which to identify the spell?Nope. I can't. Just like the GM in that example couldn't. He winged it.
But that GM recognized that the rules for counterspells don't care what the observer sees. It says he can see the spell and identify it. No penalties, no restrictions, not even with Still or Silent spell. He can simply see it. Period. It doesn't say how. It doesn't say what he sees. It just says he can.
That GM knew it because he read the rules. He made up the fluff, but played by the RAW.
You can too.
Or you can house rule. It's your call, not mine; I'm just here to help people understand the rules.
Actually, what the rules for counterspelling say is that he makes a spellcraft check to identify the spell. The spellcraft check has the requirement "must be able to see the spell." If you fail to meet that requirement, you cannot meet the requirement "make a spellcraft check." If there is nothing to see, you are necessarily unable to see the spell, meaning that you cannot complete the action "make a spellcraft check."
It's not a complicated concept, and requires very little interpretation on the part of the GM. It also makes a whole hell of a lot more sense than assuming that the spell effects all take place in an infinitely small time period at the end of a standard action, rather than having them take place throughout the entire casting time.
Now this is interesting...
I don't agree with your assessment of how counterspelling works.
Though you roll Spellcraft, the limitations of identifying by using ONLY Spellcraft shouldn't apply here.
Counterspelling simply allows for the roll, regardless of sight.
At least, that's how I read it.
That being said, I agree with what you are saying, as my houserules listed above show.
Once again, I admit to using house rules. You should too. Spells don't have visual effects unless the book says so, that's something you added yourself.
You know, your final example and my final example are functionally identical. You knew that, so I'm just calling it out for the TL;DR crowd.
The only difference is the GM in my example made an effort to add some fluff. In that example he admitted that the rulebook doesn't have the answer so his fluff is made up on the spot. Call it a house rule if you want, but I don't see "fluff" (a RP description of what might be seen in-game) as a house rule. Just like when I say "The orc roars and spittle flies from its hideous yellow teeth as it attacks", I'm not making up a spittle house rule; I'm just adding some fluff to the game.
That's all the GM in my example did. He added fluff. And he admitted that he made it up. And since he's a caricature of me, that means I have already admitted it, so you don't need to ask.
I submit that everything except the fluff in my version of that example was strictly RAW and/or conclusions drawn by evaluating and parsing the RAW. Then I added a little fluff for the sake of RP. No house rules, unless your definition includes fluff, in which case, yeah, that fluff would be a house rule by that definition.
It says he can see the spell and identify it. No penalties, no restrictions, not even with Still or Silent spell. He can simply see it. Period. It doesn't say how. It doesn't say what he sees. It just says he can.It says:
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.You have to make a check which has to suceed. Which by spellcraft rules, can't happen if you cannot "see the spell as it is being cast"
Nothing here allows you to avoid this clause any more than normal.
I understand how it could be read that way.
Regardless, I like my method.
1-Gotta see caster
2-Gotta see/hear/perceive at least one component
3-Missing components raise difficulty by 5 each, if no components-no roll.
Still able to identify spellcasting as happening, but forces you to use dispel instead of specific spell.
Has worked great for my group for years.
Alex,
Where we seem to differ is that your GM explicitly said "it doesn't matter" while my GM made up some cutesy stuff on the spot. To my GM, it does matter (because the player asked), so he accommodated by describing some SFX. Clearly not in the book and he said so, but IMO doing that makes the game more fun for everyone.
I've never had any complaints about spittle or about power waves or about any other fluff.
I did have one complaint once.
A player in a game had befriended a medium-sized silver dragon. They shared a telepathic link, almost like a familiar. Not telepathy though, just telempathy - they shared feelings, not thoughts.
She sent that dragon out into the woods to feed itself. It found spider the size of a cat and proceeded to eat it whole.
I got fluffy. Very fluffy. I described in detail how the spider wiggled and crunched in the dragons mouth, and how the player could feel it in her own mouth, feel the squishy juices and crunchy legs between her teeth. Then the dragon swallowed and I described how the still living spider clung to her back molars, scrambling with all its legs, wiggling and tickling her throat. Etc.
(Way more detail than I put here).
As I did this, the player's face got paler and paler, her eyes got big and horrified looking. Her reaction was priceless and it spurred me to new heights of literary verbosity that I've rarely ever achieved. She got up and ran to the bathroom. Several players actually applauded, including her boyfriend.
When she came back, we were all laughing, especially her boyfriend. She glared at me and said "Don't ever do that again".
As she sat down, her boyfriend asked, "Did you barf?"
She replied, "Anybody have a mint?"
That's a true story.
(And I admit that spiders wiggling in a dragon's throat was purely a fluff "house rule" that I made up on the spot; I've never seen that rule in any books).
The only part of that that's a house rule is the penalty for missing components. Everything else is strictly RAW.
My second point is a houserule as well, not RAW.
In any case, I've beaten this dead horse into a fine red mist, I'm gonna go play video games or sleep or something.
Nighty night folks, may your dice roll true and your games be epic.
In any case, I've beaten this dead horse into a fine red mist, I'm gonna go play video games or sleep or something.
Aha!
I wondered where my bludgeon went; you took it!
Poor horse.
("fine red mist" is a house rule, you know)
(You should read my book - I have a monster in it that actually did turn several people into red mist. That book has lots of fluff in it. Lots. Hundreds of pages. All fluff. No RAW. Zero.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imma throw this out there for the counterspell peeps...
Using the same logic, if you targeted an enemy wizard and he moved behind a wall to cast his spell, you are still allowed to make a spellcraft check...
After all, as you said, the counterspell says you get a spellcraft whenever they cast, regardless if you can see the spell....unless you follow the rules of spellcraft checks...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh my. Apparently casters can only not do things if skills are involved.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM_Blake, at this point you are just being cynical and rude to the other people in this forum.
We all agree that the spellcraft rules and counterspell rules do not really work as written with "must see the spell" so we all add fluff or change it for our games. in your second example you add a type of visible energy that can be used to identify it. Alexd does something else for it, i personally use the "visual" compenents of the spell itself for identification. so in my example a wizard who went through the trouble of getting a still and silent spell with eschew materials (that's a spell 2 levels higher then normal) then he deserves to be able to cast that spell without anyone being able to ID it (again i am changing the part in counterspell as well to accommodate this house rule. I am not saying this is how the rules should work or do work, but that with the rules as written it does not make sense. so i made it work for me and my group in the most logical and easiest way.
in your first example of how you think "half of us run it" you are calling us all ...keeping this PG, a donkey's rear, as your example DM is rude and mean towards his players.
Mage: Why not.
GM: Because I say so. That's fair you know; I'm the GM.
Mage: Care to cite a rule?
GM: Rule 0. That's all you need.
Really??! that is extremely a GM on a power trip and a different issue on it own.
in my game the players all know the changes to the rules and why, there's no surprise, oh you cant do that because i say so or the rules are inconsistent or incomplete
GM: you can tell hes casting a spell, he dropped his guard and looks like hes concentrating, but you are unable to ID it because he is not making movements or chanting, you may cast a dispel magic to try to disrupt or counterspell his spell.
By RAW counterspell and spellcraft ID does not work except on spells that specifically say they generate some visual effect before the spell goes off
By RAI
maybe they meant the V, S, and M components of the spell
Maybe all spells visually have some effect they create before the spell goes off
Maybe a thousand other things who knows
Again, everything at this point is in house rule territory.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW counterspell and spellcraft ID does not work except on spells that specifically say they generate some visual effect before the spell goes off
Can you cite that rule? Spellcraft says "Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors. "
Nothing about 'visual effect before the spell goes off' In fact psychic magic clearly shows this isn't the case, or psychics couldn't boost the DC to identify the spell.
I don't know why I keep trying, but oh well, here's one more:
Baby steps:
1. Can we all agree that the RAW says:
It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell.
(Emphasis mine).
I sure hope we can; it's the first sentence in the Counterspells rule section.
2. Based on that (and the rest of the counterspell section), it means we can use Fireball to counter Fireball, Magic Missile to counter Magic Missile, Detect Magic to counter Detect Magic, Charm Person to counter Charm Person, Fox's Cunning to counter Fox's Cunning, etc. Any spell can be used to counter itself, which means every spell can be used as a counterspell for someone casting the same spell.
This is RAW.
3. But in order to do that, we must identify the spell as it is being cast. By RAW. So extrapolating from above, it must be possible to to identify every spell as it is being cast. By RAW.
4. But we must be able to see "the spell" to identify it. Is it possible to see a Charm Person spell as it is being cast? Yes. See above. You can use Charm Person as a countespell against someone casting Charm Person. To do so means you must identify that Charm Person as it is being cast. By RAW.
Anyone saying you cannot see/identify Charm Person as it is being cast is violating RAW - if you cannot see this spell as it is being cast, then you cannot, EVER, use Charm Person as a counterspell, and that violates the first sentence of the Counterspells chapter. By RAW.
This is true for every spell, because "It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell."
5. Still Spell, Silent Spell, and Eschew Materials feats do not alter the above. They have no rules that say they do. Logically, they should. Adding such rules would be a great house rule, but it would not be RAW. By RAW, these feats do absolutely nothing to make it harder or impossible to identify a spell as it is being cast.
Anyone saying they do is making a house rule. Anyone claiming that the RAW says they do affect identifying spells as they are cast must supply a rules citation. They can't. It's not there.
Without rules telling us how these feats affect spell identification, they don't. By RAW.
6. Don't bring Improved Counterspell into this. General rules NEVER describe the rule with an assumption that everybody has any specific feat. Never.
If your contention is that the first sentence of the Counterspell rule "It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell" is true only because of the Improved Counterspell feat, then your claim might be relevant if...
... The combat section said "You calculate your attack roll as BAB + STR + 1" (because everybody has Weapon Focus).
... The Trip rule says "Tripping never provokes an AoO" (because everyone has Improved Trip).
... There is a rule that says "Your HP at each level is whatever you roll on your Hit Die + your CON Modifier +1" (because everybody has the Toughness Feat).
I could go on and on. Nowhere, NOWHERE, in the rulebook does it ever, EVER, present a general rule that expects everybody to have a certain feat for the rule to work. It never happens.
So the sentence that says "It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell" is absolutely true WITHOUT the Improved Counterspell feat. By RAW.
In summary, it really is that simple. You can use any non-visual spell as a counterspell against somebody who is casting that same spell, without any specific feat being required to do it, by identifying that spell as it is being cast and then casting your spell to counter it. Period. This works no matter what spell they are casting, no matter how visible or invisible that spell's effects might be, because you can do this with ANY spell.
By RAW
|
|
By RAW counterspell and spellcraft ID does not work except on spells that specifically say they generate some visual effect before the spell goes offCan you cite that rule? Spellcraft says "Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors. "
Nothing about 'visual effect before the spell goes off' In fact psychic magic clearly shows this isn't the case, or psychics couldn't boost the DC to identify the spell.
"See the Spell" that is all i am talking about.
You must see the spell in order to ID it.
You must see the spell while the spell is being cast. (before the spell is finished casting, before the effect of the spell happens)
there are no rules stating what it is you are seeing in order to ID the spell.
What is it that you are seeing in order to ID the spell is my entire point. What are you seeing during the casting of the spell.
By RAW you are not looking at the verbal, somatic or material components of the spell, you have to see The Spell.
I don't know what that is that we are seeing, it is not specified anywhere in the rules. but we must be able to see IT before we can ID the spell.
|
|
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.
I agree with this. You must be able to see (or let's agree: to perceive) the spell in order to Spellcraft/ID it.
It *does* present a problem for spells without components. Hence the FAQ requirement here. (In the interim I'll be using a penalty to Perception or Spellcraft for each missing component, as I explained above, but I'm aware that this is a houserule and I'm hoping something better comes along the way...)
|
|
4. But we must be able to see "the spell" to identify it. [b]Is it possible to see a Charm Person spell as it is being cast? Yes. See above.[\b] You can use Charm Person as a countespell against someone casting Charm Person. To do so means you must identify that Charm Person as it is being cast. By RAW.
Anyone saying you cannot see/identify Charm Person as it is being cast is violating RAW - if you cannot see this spell as it is being cast, then you cannot, EVER, use Charm Person as a counterspell, and that violates the first sentence of the Counterspells chapter. By RAW.
you are inferring from the rules, means you are adding in your own rules to add something not written, that something visual must happen because in order to ID we must be able to "see the spell". There is nothing written in the rules that say when casting a spell, magical energies float around you, or gathering into the person, or any number of things.
I don't have any issue with that interpretation, but it is not Written anywhere so it is not RAW. that is my only point.
i agree any spell can be used as a counterspell
Based on that (and the rest of the counterspell section), it means we can use Fireball to counter Fireball, Magic Missile to counter Magic Missile, Detect Magic to counter Detect Magic, Charm Person to counter Charm Person, Fox's Cunning to counter Fox's Cunning, etc. Any spell can be used to counter itself, which means every spell can be used as a counterspell for someone casting the same spell.
I am not arguing this point, i agree. so no need to mention it.
everything about my argument is based on the visuals during the casting of the spell. Other then the line you must "see the spell to ID" is there any mention of the spell casting generating a visual effect. and that's not even mentioning it really or saying that spells generate an effect during the casting. you assume it does, but assumptions are not RAW.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
By RAW counterspell and spellcraft ID does not work except on spells that specifically say they generate some visual effect before the spell goes offCan you cite that rule? Spellcraft says "Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors. "
Nothing about 'visual effect before the spell goes off' In fact psychic magic clearly shows this isn't the case, or psychics couldn't boost the DC to identify the spell.
"See the Spell" that is all i am talking about.
You must see the spell in order to ID it.
You must see the spell while the spell is being cast. (before the spell is finished casting, before the effect of the spell happens)there are no rules stating what it is you are seeing in order to ID the spell.
What is it that you are seeing in order to ID the spell is my entire point. What are you seeing during the casting of the spell.
By RAW you are not looking at the verbal, somatic or material components of the spell, you have to see The Spell.
I don't know what that is that we are seeing, it is not specified anywhere in the rules. but we must be able to see IT before we can ID the spell.
Shorter answer is 'no'. Thank you.
|
|
Shorter answer is 'no'. Thank you.By RAW counterspell and spellcraft ID does not work except on spells that specifically say they generate some visual effect before the spell goes offCan you cite that rule? Spellcraft says "Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors. "
Nothing about 'visual effect before the spell goes off' In fact psychic magic clearly shows this isn't the case, or psychics couldn't boost the DC to identify the spell.
"See the Spell" that is all i am talking about.
You must see the spell in order to ID it.
You must see the spell while the spell is being cast. (before the spell is finished casting, before the effect of the spell happens)there are no rules stating what it is you are seeing in order to ID the spell.
What is it that you are seeing in order to ID the spell is my entire point. What are you seeing during the casting of the spell.
By RAW you are not looking at the verbal, somatic or material components of the spell, you have to see The Spell.
I don't know what that is that we are seeing, it is not specified anywhere in the rules. but we must be able to see IT before we can ID the spell.
Can you cite a rule to tell us what we are seeing in order to "see the spell to ID it"
short answer 'no'... thanks for adding to the discussion.
4. But we must be able to see "the spell" to identify it. [b]Is it possible to see a Charm Person spell as it is being cast? Yes. See above.[\b] You can use Charm Person as a countespell against someone casting Charm Person. To do so means you must identify that Charm Person as it is being cast. By RAW.
Anyone saying you cannot see/identify Charm Person as it is being cast is violating RAW - if you cannot see this spell as it is being cast, then you cannot, EVER, use Charm Person as a counterspell, and that violates the first sentence of the Counterspells chapter. By RAW.
you are inferring from the rules, means you are adding in your own rules to add something not written, that something visual must happen because in order to ID we must be able to "see the spell". There is nothing written in the rules that say when casting a spell, magical energies float around you, or gathering into the person, or any number of things.
I don't have any issue with that interpretation, but it is not Written anywhere so it is not RAW. that is my only point.
i agree any spell can be used as a counterspell
So please tell me, how can my wizard use Charm Person to counter your wizard who is casting it. Assume I have a readied action that I readied specifically for this purpose and I have Charm Person prepared. Further, assume we're 10' apart and in normal lighting conditions with no other concealment so that both of us can clearly see each other with no distance penalties.
Let's also assume neither of us are using any feats at this time.
In other words, a very basic, baseline use of the counterspell rules.
How does it work?
Here's my take:
1. You start casting Charm Person.
2. I use my readied action to try to counterspell your spell.
3. I use spellcraft to identify your spell. Let's assume I succeed (DC 16 isn't very hard even for a level 1 wizard).
4. I cast my Charm Person to counter your Charm Person. My readied action ends.
Note that I didn't interpret anything, infer anything, or add any house rules.
Does this process work the same way for you, too?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Shorter answer is 'no'. Thank you.By RAW counterspell and spellcraft ID does not work except on spells that specifically say they generate some visual effect before the spell goes offCan you cite that rule? Spellcraft says "Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors. "
Nothing about 'visual effect before the spell goes off' In fact psychic magic clearly shows this isn't the case, or psychics couldn't boost the DC to identify the spell.
"See the Spell" that is all i am talking about.
You must see the spell in order to ID it.
You must see the spell while the spell is being cast. (before the spell is finished casting, before the effect of the spell happens)there are no rules stating what it is you are seeing in order to ID the spell.
What is it that you are seeing in order to ID the spell is my entire point. What are you seeing during the casting of the spell.
By RAW you are not looking at the verbal, somatic or material components of the spell, you have to see The Spell.
I don't know what that is that we are seeing, it is not specified anywhere in the rules. but we must be able to see IT before we can ID the spell.
Can you cite a rule to tell us what we are seeing in order to "see the spell to ID it"
short answer 'no'... thanks for adding to the discussion.
You're welcome. I am glad to see you admit that you aren't citing "RAW".
Since the rules say "Must be able to see the spell as it is being cast and nothing about 'spells that specifically say they generate some visual effect before the spell goes off' RAW, you see the spell being cast. You can identify it. It doesn't say "you see sparkly lights" "You see the stink eye" or any thing. RAW, if you see it being cast, you can ID it. Stilled/Silent/Eschewed, Psychic or whatever you get the role. That's what RAW says.
|
|
So please tell me, how can my wizard use Charm Person to counter your wizard who is casting it. Assume I have a readied action that I readied specifically for this purpose and I have Charm Person prepared. Further, assume we're 10' apart and in normal lighting conditions with no other concealment so that both of us can clearly see each other with no distance penalties.
Let's also assume neither of us are using any feats at this time.
In other words, a very basic, baseline use of the counterspell rules.
How does it work?
Here's my take:
1. You start casting Charm Person.
2. I use my readied action to try to counterspell your spell.
3. I use spellcraft to identify your spell. Let's assume I succeed (DC 16 isn't very hard even for a level 1 wizard).
4. I cast my Charm Person to counter your Charm Person. My readied[/b]...
That is how it should work, But it can't because we must be able to "see the spell to ID it" what are we seeing????
we are seeing the person casting the spell
we are seeing the person concentrating on something
we have seen that he dropped his guard to focus on another task
but there is nothing about being able to see the spell during the casting. or what spells look like before the spell effect happens.
I want to know. there is nothing written anywhere that tells us what is seen.
the rules are incomplete and missing details.
So... if I understand you correctly, Shadowlords, you are saying that Counterspelling (except maybe via Dispel Magic, which does not require an identification check) is impossible because nobody can ever see a spell being cast. Is that right?
|
|
So... if I understand you correctly, Shadowlords, you are saying that Counterspelling (except maybe via Dispel Magic, which does not require an identification check) is impossible because nobody can ever see a spell being cast. Is that right?
yes, the rules are incomplete as written and we make due by adding in our own interpretations.
but anyone saying their interpretation of how they think it should work or because x says y than z must equal j is a "house rule" and not RAW.
|
|
Shorter answer is 'no'. Thank you.By RAW counterspell and spellcraft ID does not work except on spells that specifically say they generate some visual effect before the spell goes offCan you cite that rule? Spellcraft says "Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors. "
Nothing about 'visual effect before the spell goes off' In fact psychic magic clearly shows this isn't the case, or psychics couldn't boost the DC to identify the spell.
"See the Spell" that is all i am talking about.
You must see the spell in order to ID it.
You must see the spell while the spell is being cast. (before the spell is finished casting, before the effect of the spell happens)there are no rules stating what it is you are seeing in order to ID the spell.
What is it that you are seeing in order to ID the spell is my entire point. What are you seeing during the casting of the spell.
By RAW you are not looking at the verbal, somatic or material components of the spell, you have to see The Spell.
I don't know what that is that we are seeing, it is not specified anywhere in the rules. but we must be able to see IT before we can ID the spell.
Can you cite a rule to tell us what we are seeing in order to "see the spell to ID it"
short answer 'no'... thanks for adding to the discussion.
You're welcome. I am glad to see you admit that you aren't citing "RAW".
Since the rules say "Must be able to see the spell as it is being cast and nothing about 'spells that specifically say they generate some visual effect before the spell goes off' RAW, you see the spell being cast. You can identify it. It doesn't say "you see sparkly lights" "You...
you said it "you must see the spell being cast" RAW
where in the rules does it say spells generate a visual effect during their casting. please tell me, cite that rule for me.
spell craft does not say "you can see spells being cast" it says "you must be able to see the spell being cast"
what is it that you see, where does it say anywhere that spells generate something visual, so you can see them while they are being cast. you are not citing RAW on the ability to see spells while they are being cast.
That is how it should work, But it can't because we must be able to "see the spell to ID it"So please tell me, how can my wizard use Charm Person to counter your wizard who is casting it. Assume I have a readied action that I readied specifically for this purpose and I have Charm Person prepared. Further, assume we're 10' apart and in normal lighting conditions with no other concealment so that both of us can clearly see each other with no distance penalties.
Let's also assume neither of us are using any feats at this time.
In other words, a very basic, baseline use of the counterspell rules.
How does it work?
Here's my take:
1. You start casting Charm Person.
2. I use my readied action to try to counterspell your spell.
3. I use spellcraft to identify your spell. Let's assume I succeed (DC 16 isn't very hard even for a level 1 wizard).
4. I cast my Charm Person to counter your Charm Person. My readied[/b]...
Why not? Why can't it work exactly as I wrote it?
what are we seeing????
Who cares? The rulebook doesn't say WHAT we're seeing. It simply says we're seeing the spell. That's all the rules need to say to play it as I wrote it. Each table can create their own fluff descriptions: runes, sparkles, shimmering air, flying ghost unicorns shooting purple beams of power into the caster's ears, whatever they want.
The fluff is irrelevant. The rules are not.
we are seeing the person casting the spell
Not according to RAW. We're seeing the spell.
we are seeing the person concentrating on something
Not according to RAW. We're seeing the spell.
we have seen that he dropped his guard to focus on another task
Not according to RAW. We're seeing the spell.
but there is nothing about being able to see the spell during the casting.
Except, you know, the RAW that says we see the spell during the casting. See my post above where I laid it all out to demonstrate exactly how the RAW stipulates this.
or what spells look like before the spell effect happens.
True. The RAW doesn't stipulate this. But it does stipulate that you can see the spell during casting. The rest is up to the GM to describe it however he wants to.
I want to know. there is nothing written anywhere that tells us what is seen.
Agreed. I'd like to know too. Until then, I play it the way it's written and make up what the players actually see.
the rules are incomplete and missing details.
The only missing detail is the fluff description of what the spell looks like during the casting. So, like any good GM, we just add fluff as we need to, in whatever fashion suits our style and entertains our gaming group.
Adding fluff does not require making house rules or ignoring the RAW; it just flavors it with fun descriptions.
What you're requesting here is just like someone saying "Fireball is incomplete. It's missing details. Is the fire red? Is it yellow? Is it orange? Is it some other weird color like purple? Do the colors swirl? Does the fire crackle? Sizzle? Roar? When it bursts, is the explosion noisy? Silent? How far away can it be heard? Does it smell like sulfur? Does it smell like something else? Etc."
Yeah, those details are missing. If some GM comes along and says "You cast a bright orange bead of fire that sizzles as it flies to its destination, expanding into a swirling ball of orange and red flame and finally exploding with a loud BOOM!" would you accuse him of creating houserules?
Would you actually complain that the fireball spell is incomplete?
What you're doing here is the same thing, but instead of wanting more details for a fireball, you want more details for effects during the casting of spell.
|
|
DM_Blake, Spell craft does not say "we see the spell being cast"
It says we "must be able to see the spell being cast".
My examples of what we do see are not what we use to ID the spell it was a fully visual aspect of what happens when a character does cast a spell and what we see as a whole
Person casting a spell:
we are seeing the person casting the spell (Verbal, somatic and/or material Components)
we are seeing the person concentrating on something (Standard action)
we have seen that he dropped his guard to focus on another task (AoO)
but there is nothing about being able to see the spell during the casting. or what spells look like before the spell effect happens. (I don't care what it looks like, i agree that is fluff for the DM to make up.)
But the pure visual aspect of a spell while being cast is not mentioned as a thing anywhere except the line "you must see the spell to ID it"
But that line does not automatically generate RAW that says all spells generate some visual effect while they are being cast.
What i want is one line "Spells generate some sort of visual effect during the casting" nothing more.
I dont want details on every spell on what exactly happens, that is up to the DM, but a single line that says "spells have a visual aspect during the casting process"
but that line is not in the book.
Alternatively, that could simply mean "there must be nothing obstructing the character's view of the casting". You cannot, for example, counterspell something on the other side of a wall, through a Darkness spell, when you're blind, or in any other circumstance where line of sight is broken and you cannot actually see the casting occur.
In other words, the emphasis is not "must be able to see the spell being cast", but "must be able to see the spell being cast".
|
|
Alternatively, that could simply mean "there must be nothing obstructing the character's view of the casting". You cannot, for example, counterspell something on the other side of a wall, through a Darkness spell, when you're blind, or in any other circumstance where line of sight is broken and you cannot actually see the casting occur.
In other words, the emphasis is not "must be able to see the spell being cast", but "must be able to see the spell being cast".
that is personally how i run it, I know stickily speaking it is not RAW but logically a spell caster should be able to ID a spell through the chanting, the hand gestures, and or materials that are used in the spell casting process. so i go with that. NOT RAW, but a house rule.
DM_Blake, Spell craft does not say "we see the spell being cast"
It says we "must be able to see the spell being cast".
So take it back to counterspell, which references the spellcraft rule.
Counterspell says we can use any spell as a counterspell. ANY spell. So we can use Charm Person to counter a Charm Person.
Spellcraft says we must be able to see the spell being cast. Assuming no concealment, no fog, no wall between us, no darkness, no blindness, none of the things that would make it impossible for us to see each other, then we can see "the spell" being cast.
Right?
That means I can see Charm Person being cast.
That does not mean I can see your fingers wiggling or your eyes crossing. It means I can see Charm Person. As it is being cast.
By RAW.
When can I not see Charm Person as it is being cast? Exactly the same times that I would not see Fireball as it is being cast. Maybe I'm blind. Maybe it's dark and I'm human. Maybe there is a thick fog. Maybe you're 500 feet away and I can't beat that -50 on my Spellcraft check to identify your spell.
But assuming my eyes work normally, and we're in an environment that doesn't preclude using them while you're casting, I can see Charm Person while it is being cast.
By RAW.
I dont want details on every spell on what exactly happens, that is up to the DM, but a single line that says "spells have a visual aspect during the casting process"
You already have that. I've shown you why. Using only RAW. No, sadly, they did not spell it out in plain English the way you wrote it. I wish they had. Instead, they leave us to parse rules in two sections of the book and apply deductive logic to arrive at that conclusion.
Nevertheless, the rule you want is there if you look for it. I made that easier for you and laid it all out, step by step, just a few posts ago.
@Mark
I'd love a FAQ about this making Jason's old post a "official" again. And if the FAQ queue is down for long I'd love to see more FAQs that go an make the old semi-official statements FAQ official sounds like a great idea.