I still don't particularly think James Jacobs opinion quite counts as RAI considering that he has disagreed with Jason Buhlman (in other instances. JB has not weighed in specifically for spell-like abilities though the rules clearly state that spell-like abilities function as per the spell in all cases that were not described). They are on opposite sides of the Paizo spectrum. I do very much respect James Jacobs though, and would love to hear his stance if anybody actually has that link..
In my mind, James Jacobs is the RAI guy and Jason Buhlman is the RAW guy. I respect them both, but it's pretty easy to get a answer from JJ. I am also more of a RAI guy myself, so there's that....
I quoted him in full, but here's a link to the thread.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=579?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here
In my mind, James Jacobs is the RAI guy and Jason Buhlman is the RAW guy. I respect them both, but it's pretty easy to get a answer from JJ. I am also more of a RAI guy myself, so there's that....
I quoted him in full, but here's a link to the thread.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=579?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here
I must have missed the full quote earlier, but thanks for the link!
Also, yeah JJ is very much easier to get a response from, and they're often insightful.
People keep comparing the ability Detect Evil to casting the spell Detect Evil...
What about OTHER Spell Like Abilities? Do you allow a spellcraft to realize the disguised Medusa is trying to petrify you? Or the Vampire is using Dominate/Charm games?
Personally, I can't see any logic behind it. If person A uses componet, hand movements, and arcanic language to activate a spell... and Person B looks at you and it happens...
Why would Person C be able to use his knowledge of A to figure out what B is doing?
Are there any other creatures that use detection spells as spell like ability? Darkvision maybe?? they wouldn't be spellcraftable... What else is out there that gets us away from person using spell vs person casting spell.
In my mind, Spell like Ability is just short hand for saying "I don't want to type out the same stinking effect that we already have in the book. Binding is hard enough as it is."
I don't see anything in the rules about shining motes of light or glowing eyes or anything that would give a paladin away. He doesn't even need to drop his sword and shield. Just use a move action to analyse each item on his enemy to figure out what is and isn't evil ;)
Something is giving him away. the same way a still silent no materialcomp spell is given away, and can still be spellcraft'd, and ID'd.
it's just the way the rules work, and it's a good rule. Casting a spell should be no more subtle then drawing a weapon and waving it around. It should take real skill, Stealth or Bluff ranks, to disguise the fact you are spellcasting. Every other time, it's just obvious.
==Aelryinth
Personally, I can't see any logic behind it.
I don't see anything in the rules about shining motes of light or glowing eyes or anything that would give a paladin away.
It sounds to me like you can indeed see the logic behind it considering you answered your own question with the available option, you simply disagree.
This is fine. You have every right to have your own interpretation of an ambiguous rule.
However, I will restate that you are correct that you don't see anything in the rules about it. You also don't see anything in the rules that are against it. You also probably can't find anything in the rules that say that dead characters don't take actions.
However I pose the simple question to you that I ask of everybody and have yet to have somebody attempt to answer (although I assume Malachi may have one when he returns).
Ignoring the differences in spell-like abilities and spells; not dealing with Paladins at all; A mage casting Stilled Silenced Eschewed (what, no butter?) Grease as our example.
Why can this be identified as it is being cast in order to counter-spell it? The spell is not yet cast, so the Grease is not having an effect. Certainly if it is counter-spelled you cannot say that there was grease since the effect never occured. What precisely are you observing or doing with your Spellcraft check when there are no components and the spell isn't finished yet?
If you can answer this question without saying that magic is observable (as in mine, James Jacobs, Jason Buhlman, and Aelryinth's interpretations), then you have a very good reasonable answer for how it works with spell-like abilities as well.
Do you allow a spellcraft to realize the disguised Medusa is trying to petrify you? Or the Vampire is using Dominate/Charm games?
No I do not allow a Spellcraft check for a Medusa's Petrifying Gaze attack. It is a supernatural ability and not spell-like. The rules are different. A Vampire's Dominate ability is also supernatural. Also, so is Darkvision.
it's just the way the rules work
==Aelryinth
You keep saying this over and over again as if your own authority means something, yet you still have not cited the rule. If "them's the rules", please link/cite to it. Give SOMETHING for the claim you keep making...
Something is giving him away. the same way a still silent no materialcomp spell is given away, and can still be spellcraft'd, and ID'd.
it's just the way the rules work, and it's a good rule. Casting a spell should be no more subtle then drawing a weapon and waving it around. It should take real skill, Stealth or Bluff ranks, to disguise the fact you are spellcasting. Every other time, it's just obvious.
Absolutely, but a Spell LIKE ability is not a spell. And the Creative Director has said he does;t play it like that.
Mind you, the RAW is imprecise, so if you play it that a SLA is most "like' a spell, then I am sure no one would have a problem.
So, the RAW is not clear. The RAI is now clear. I will then defer to RAI.
As I said repeatedly...they don't have to ID the spell. They only have to know he's using magic, and it IS obvious he's using magic. Then follows ID'ing as it takes effect.
Paladinguy, go look at spellcraft. Anytime anyone in line of sight uses magic, you get a check to see it. The only way around this is a Bluff check to disguise it if you have the feat, or a Stealth check to not be observed.
Literally, you can pick the wildshaped Druid using a still silent natural spell out of a flock of a hundred other pigeons, because using magic makes them stand out.
I find it very strange that people have a hard time comprehending the fact that using magic is OBVIOUS, and just because it's a SLA doesn't make it less OBVIOUS. People keep trying to argue that SLA's are subtle, when there's nothing in the rules that says so. Just because you don't have to wiggle your hands, wave the peacock feather, and mouth polysyllables doesn't mean casting isn't obvious! They are treated just like spells, and spells are not SUBTLE.
Bleach has several good examples. They can use magic there with full incantations, which most people have to do, or the really adept ones can just point and shoot...an SLA. It's still freaking obvious what is going on.
===Aelryinth
Personally, I can't see any logic behind it.I don't see anything in the rules about shining motes of light or glowing eyes or anything that would give a paladin away.It sounds to me like you can indeed see the logic behind it considering you answered your own question with the available option, you simply disagree.
This is fine. You have every right to have your own interpretation of an ambiguous rule.
However, I will restate that you are correct that you don't see anything in the rules about it. You also don't see anything in the rules that are against it. You also probably can't find anything in the rules that say that dead characters don't take actions.
However I pose the simple question to you that I ask of everybody and have yet to have somebody attempt to answer (although I assume Malachi may have one when he returns).
Ignoring the differences in spell-like abilities and spells; not dealing with Paladins at all; A mage casting Stilled Silenced Eschewed (what, no butter?) Grease as our example.
Why can this be identified as it is being cast in order to counter-spell it? The spell is not yet cast, so the Grease is not having an effect. Certainly if it is counter-spelled you cannot say that there was grease since the effect never occured. What precisely are you observing or doing with your Spellcraft check when there are no components and the spell isn't finished yet?
If you can answer this question without saying that magic is observable (as in mine, James Jacobs, Jason Buhlman, and Aelryinth's interpretations), then you have a very good reasonable answer for how it works with spell-like abilities as well.
Do you allow a spellcraft to realize the disguised Medusa is trying to petrify you? Or the Vampire is using Dominate/Charm games?No I do not allow a Spellcraft check for a Medusa's Petrifying Gaze attack. It is a supernatural ability and not spell-like. The rules are different. A...
My apologies, but I do not interpret the rules to include things they do not expressly state that they do not. Hence, if an effect does not expressly state that it has a visual effect, I do not feel it reasonable to presume that it has one. It's the same concept as not having to prove a negative.
My apologies, but I do not interpret the rules to include things they do not expressly state that they do not.
I can understand this standard and respect the ideals behind it, but in truth there are more assumptions being made to include into the game than there are actual rules. I will defer once again to the fact that there are no rules that state that dead character do not take actions.
However, this is taking your point to an extreme. I will say that under most circumstances I agree with you. The reasons why I feel like there are quantifiable and reasonable arguments for this case I have outlined, but will say again.
I do not feel it reasonable to presume that it has one.
Fair enough, however I would think that there are two reasons for a presumption. Like all things, you reserve the right to take them with a grain of salt.
The first is simply that the two biggest developer names at Paizo have specifically stated that they believe it to work this way. By this I mean that a Stilled, Silent, Eschewed spell is observable for Spellcraft. The connection to spell-like abilities is a different ambiguity that could easily be argued either way and I have not seen a clear interpretation from the developers. I can only imagine that James Jacobs would immediately then say that the GM has the right to come up with his own indications as to why, or simply change the rules. JJ seems to advocate rule 0 often.
The second is that I am unable to get a viable explanation to how people imagine magic to work that fall within the limits of these rules. If magic is not observable, I would love to hear the alternative to how a spell is identified before it is finished being cast when there are no components. This is the third time I have stated this challenge and am awaiting some interesting answers (though I hope some pick up when it's not the weekend).
|
Okay, so you are saying that activation and casting are mutually exclusive things because they are itemized separately on the Actions in Combat tables? Fair enough. There's logic there, not proof, but reasonably debatable logic (See, this is how you talk to people without insulting them directly).
It seems my wit got a little bit too acerbic there. It tends to do that just before I go to sleep after being awake so long during a double shift at work. I apologise for any hurt feelings. You've asked some legitimate questions and I'll do my best to answer them, while keeping my 'wit' to a minimum. : )
I was using that point mostly to deflate the concept, but I am willing to work under your assertion. I will now consent to say that activation and casting are two separate items. I'm still curious how this idea changes the concept of how magic works to such a degree that you can no longer remotely identify what is happening.
It doesn't 'change' anything; this is how it always worked.
More to the point: How do you normally identify a Stilled, Silent, Eschewed spell? If you have an answer to this that does not include visible magic, then we can pass this logic onward to the inclusion or exclusion of spell-like abilities. Otherwise I'm not seeing a relative explanation or final conclusion to your point, meaning it is irrelevant if casting and activation are different if there is no reasonable explanation for casting itself.
Also, it is the casting of magic that is detectable and identifiable using Spellcraft, not the ongoing effect. Once the effect is fully in place, the magic may do whatever it feels like, such as turn somebody invisible. For the sake of the Invisibility spell, there can quite easily and realistically be a puff of blue smoke (I usually like to use blue for the Illusion school), then you are gone.
The confusion lies in the fact that we are actually talking about two different things: the initiation of a magical effect (by 'spellcasting', or by 'activation'), and the result (the spell itself, or SLA itself)!
When a magical effect exists, how it got there is no longer relevant. Spellcraft can be used to identify the magic effect, so long as the effect can be seen (or sensed somehow).
But what magical effects can be seen, and which effects are not obvious? I'm sure we agree that fireball can be seen and invisibility can't! But what about Mage armour? It's invisible, but can the force fields be seen to deform your clothes? Does bull's strength make your muscles bulge so much that they can be seen through your clothes, does bear's endurance make you hairy?
The various detect spells allow the user to detect things in a cone-shaped area and the user may move and/or rotate to scan a new area each turn. Note that the caster doesn't re-cast it every round, he just needs to concentrate; a standard action with no visible effect. What do observers see, apart from some bloke in a dress and pointy hat? Does he project light like a lighthouse? Unlikely, or the spell would affect the illumination in the area. Do the things he detect glow? Definately not, or what he's detecting would 'ping' to all observers, but the magic just allows the caster to detect whatever 'pings'. So, do his eyes glow while he detects? Why?
If you, as DM, rule that his eyes glow, that he becomes obviously bear-like and he looks like he's wearing invisible armour over his clothes, then you are doing two things. First, you are inventing a house rule. The excuse that the rules don't say that the spells don't do that is horrible logic. The OP, who wants to know the rules, isn't helped by anyone's house rule.
Second, you are choosing to invent a nerf. You are choosing to make certain spells hard or impossible to use in social and stealth situations. The reason you're doing this? Maybe you think it's a cool way to visualise spells, but your players are getting punished. More likely, and certainly in the OP's case, the DM is choosing to do this just to nerf the paladin.
If you choose to nerf magical abilities (spells or SLAs) in this way, you affect the character building and game-play decisions of your players. They are likely to be put off certain classes (bards spring to mind--if all spells are obvious the bard's spell selection is massively nerfed) and builds, and emphasise combat builds and classes. In play, they're less likely to bother with social or stealth solutions, and just kill, kill, kill. All because you chose to introduce a nerf to magic.
That's one subject: the spell/SLA effect. the other subject is how these effects are initiated.
Spells are initiated by, well, spellcasting. There are rules for spellcasting. One of those rules is that Spellcraft can be used to identify what spell a caster is about to cast.
Spellcraft does not enable the observer to see the future! It relies on the fact that, in order to cast a spell, the caster must do certain things. These include, but are not limited to, V,S,M,DF/F components. Furthermore, the actions needed to cast each spell remains consistent enough that if you are familiar with the pattern required to cast, say, fireball, then you can predict that a caster doing those actions is about to cast fireball! Note that none of these actions are themselves magical in any way; they are the mundane actions a caster uses to cause the spell to be cast; to enable the magic to take effect.
But SLAs are not activated in the same way. They are enabled by mere thought. There is nothing for a Spellcraft-savvy observer to see, therefore no way to predict what might happen, or even that any magic is going to happen. When the SLA finally comes into effect, then there is some in-place magic to try to fathom using Spellcraft, assuming the spell has visible effects.
Anyway, I hope I've explained it in enough detail. I've been composing this post in ten-minute chunks on my breaks at work, and I haven't seen any more posts since the one I'm replying to. I apologise in advance if the points I've raised were raised by someone else in the intervening time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said repeatedly...they don't have to ID the spell. They only have to know he's using magic, and it IS obvious he's using magic. Then follows ID'ing as it takes effect.
The paladin is not casting a spell, therefore there is no spell to ID.
Paladinguy, go look at spellcraft. Anytime anyone in line of sight uses magic, you get a check to see it.
I hope he does. When he does he will see that Spellcreaft allows you to 'Identify a spell as it is being cast'. He will also note that there is nothing in the description that allows Spellcraft to 'Identify a spell-like ability as it is being activated', and it would be cheating to just give yourself an extra ability to do that!
I find it very strange that people have a hard time comprehending the fact that using magic is OBVIOUS, and just because it's a SLA doesn't make it less OBVIOUS.
That's a terrible leap of logic! Spells and SLAs are different! They have many similarities (their effects/functions) and many differences. The differences include the lack of any spell-casting, and therefore the lack of any clues for Spellcraft to decipher. The effects of both spells and SLAs may very well be obvious, but may also be subtle. But the act of will that is required to initiate an SLA has no visible magical or mundane special effects.
People keep trying to argue that SLA's are subtle, when there's nothing in the rules that says so.
Just as there is nothing to say they're not. Seriously, as if the writers would waste space and ink to write, 'BTW, there is nothing to tell you about what initiating an SLA looks like, because nothing happens except the magical effect of the SLA.' Who would write that? It's absurd to say that the lack of such a line must mean that activating an SLA is flashy!
Just because you don't have to wiggle your hands, wave the peacock feather, and mouth polysyllables doesn't mean casting isn't obvious!
Er...it sounds like it to me!
They are treated just like spells, and spells are not SUBTLE.
The actual magic effect is adjudicated like the spell. The cause of the magical effect (spell or SLA) is very different.
The way JJ adjudicates wether or not observers can tell if a paladin is using detect evil does not rely on Spellcraft at all! He suggests that Sense Motive is the skill that may help you. Using Sense Motive won't tell you outright, but it may give you a clue that, along with other information you may have (like 'he's a paladin' and 'paladins can detect evil') may lead you to a conclusion. But using Sense Motive in this way just relies on body language and such mundane phenomena, not magical light shows.
|
Second, you are choosing to invent a nerf. You are choosing to make certain spells hard or impossible to use in social and stealth situations. The reason you're doing this? Maybe you think it's a cool way to visualise spells, but your players are getting punished. More likely, and certainly in the OP's case, the DM is choosing to do this just to nerf the paladin.
Sorry I'm coming to this discussion late. I picked out the section that I feel is most relevant to the original post. I'm not going to get into RAW, since that's been beaten to death and is still debated.
You view giving the opportunity to detect a paladin detecting magic as wrong, and that it is a nerf.
I disagree. When I've seen Detect evil used, or Detect alignment, people use it as a blunt hammer. They say, oh that guy is evil, and make assumptions. I believe there are time's and places for these effects, and these restrictions allow real roleplay moments to shine, when they need to.
Especially in PFS, the evil guy is usually a guy you need to kill. The question for me, the GM, then became this: Do I let the use of alignment magic ruin a perfectly good roleplay situation, or is there some way to interact, and limit it from being used as a giant hammer scanning everyone.
In this case, I know I could've handled it better. I gave him the option of a stealth check, and the naga made it. I overreacted, starting the combat right there. In my mind, I rationalized that this person was an intruder, coming here, violating the privacy, and possibly coming for the relic. I'm sure there could've been a better way to handle it, but in hindsight I wish I could've simply taken the player aside and discussed a better solution than beating the roleplay element of this sandbox scenario with a tetsubo.
Too many assumptions can be made by blatantly using alignment magic, and in many hands it's the perfect destroyer of roleplay. I view the use of the detects to be appropriate in a scouting situation.
For the arguments that alignment magic is not a violation of privacy, I wholly disagree. It is. Something that is generally hidden is revealed. You are prying the secret of their alignment (a system, that, in general, can be objectionable due to its rote generalizations) without their consent. It is far different from stench/scent, which is a physically noticeable thing, and in some cases even a means of communication.
I should look this back over and make sure it's coherent.
|
|
You view giving the opportunity to detect a paladin detecting magic as wrong, and that it is a nerf.
(I suspect you mean 'evil', not 'magic'.) Not quite. Just because the paladin's use of detect evil is not obvious or accompanied by special effects of any sort, does not mean that the paladin can't be caught with his hand in the mataphorical cookie-jar! Sense Motive can certainly be used to get clues, and detect magic will detect his detect evil. Spellcraft won't help you, though.
What I'm clarifying is that the use of an SLA is not accompanied by any magical lightshow, beyond whatever magic that is part of the SLA itself. The magic may very well be obvious, but the initiation of it, or the concentration on it, is not.
When I've seen Detect evil used, or Detect alignment, people use it as a blunt hammer. They say, oh that guy is evil, and make assumptions.
Oh, I agree that the assumptions made by some players in response to the information given by detect evil are foolish. But that doesn't change how they work.
I think that players can go a long way to avoid upsetting their DM, just by agreeing before play that the DM will tell the player when something would register as evil, assuming the paladin had an opportunity to scan. This will stop constant interruptions of the game by the player asking, 'Is it evil? Is it evil? Is it evil...'ad nauseum.
I think that the DM can go a long way to avoid player foolishness by explaining that a 'ping' is not a 'license to kill'.
It seems my wit got a little bit too acerbic there. It tends to do that just before I go to sleep after being awake so long during a double shift at work. I apologise for any hurt feelings. You've asked some legitimate questions and I'll do my best to answer them, while keeping my 'wit' to a minimum.
It's all gravy!
The confusion lies in the fact that we are actually talking about two different things: the initiation of a magical effect (by 'spellcasting', or by 'activation'), and the result (the spell itself, or SLA itself)!
Hmm, well the problem is that I actually intended to talk about the initiation, though you did go to great detail about the result. I still thank you for your efforts as your post was thorough and insightful into your philosophy, but I still wish to get further into my next point.
These include, but are not limited to, V,S,M,DF/F components.
This raises the same question that I've been trying to ask you, so I will rephrase. When you say "but are not limited to", what are these other options? What are you using Spellcraft on to identify a spell as it's being cast when it has no components?
You are choosing to make certain spells hard or impossible to use in social and stealth situations.
Actually I thought about it and decided to add an additional derail (has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, but is slightly relevant).
I have found MANY threads on this forum where GMs are having a hard time dealing with players (usually casters) using a spell or ability to such an extreme that they're breaking the game. I've found that by having real repercussions to their abilities, players think more rationally about their other choices.
Essentially, in my games, it is difficult to stealth cast. In order to do so, I actually require stealth rolls to remain unseen. This usually means the players have to rely on their skills a bit more instead of simply their class abilities taking care of their problems.
I still end up with a great deal of Bards and other caster classes, and in fact, I almost always end up with somebody who wishes to stealth cast often. This, of course, may simply just be the group dynamic I have with my friends and everybody can flavor to suit their own needs.
I originally felt not that I was nerfing spells or spell-like abilities more so than I was nerfing the Eschew Materials, Silence Spell, and Still Spell meta-magic feats.
When I first enacted the difficulty to use class abilities that were not supernatural stealthily, I did notice a change however. My players began role-playing more.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These include, but are not limited to, V,S,M,DF/F components.This raises the same question that I've been trying to ask you, so I will rephrase. When you say "but are not limited to", what are these other options? What are you using Spellcraft on to identify a spell as it's being cast when it has no components?
The rules don't tell us.
This should not come as a suprise. Since the inception of D&D most spells have had verbal components, but the rules don't feel the need to specify what those 'magic words' are for each different spell.
Many spells have somatic components, but the rules see no need to tell us what those actions are. Just imagine having to list the instructions to 'the Timewarp' ('It's just a step to the left....') with every spell published, and make every set of somatic instructions unique for each spell.
The point is that the knowledge of those things is not needed to play the game! You just say, 'DM, I'm casting magic missile'; those are the only magic words needed by the player!
Material and focus components are listed, because being deprived of these prevents casting that spell, while you don't need to prevent different specific words and actions to prevent verbal and somatic components, just a rope and a gag. It must also be noted that the current devs don't really want us to think too closely about material components; they are happy for us to have a component pouch and hand-wave the rest, because it's not fun to worry about such things. We should be worrying about the BBEG, not bat guano. Advice for life, there.
All of these things are mundane, not magical. The 'magic' is within the caster, and is 'released' by these mundane actions. Although the released magic may be flashy, the actions to release them remain mundane.
So, what about the things done to cast a spell which can be seen but are not components? Nobody knows what they are, in exactly the same way that nobody knows what the magic words actually are. We do know what they are not. They do not involve sound, movement, material or focus.
Now, you could rule that these unknown things involve magical light shows that make spellcasting obvious. But that is a huge leap! As well as affecting the way the game is played as discussed in my previous post, where does this magic come from? The 'magic' hasn't been initiated yet! Just because these actions are undefined, and are undefined because they are not interesting, does not equal, 'therefore, they must be magical light shows!' If they were, they would be interesting! They could be exploited and used in some way!
I suspect that Jason's ruling about Spellcraft being useable even on a spell with no components is a game balance issue. It certainly came as a surprise to me! Previously, I would have ruled that the components are the sum total of what can be observed, and that spellcraft would therefore be unable to identify a componentless spell. Jason didn't say what those non-component actions may be; I believe he was thinking about the game mechanics of Spellcraft, rather than its implications.
All the above text is regarding casting spells, and Jason's ruling applies to identifying spells. It would be wrong to artificially extend them to SLAs, and also invent a use for Spellcraft it does not have.
We know from the rules that, while spellcasting might be complicated, using an SLA is not. They are initiated with a thought. There are no components. They cannot be identified with spellcraft 'as they are being initiated' in the way that spells can. The magic doesn't appear before it appears! There is absolutely no reason to suppose that SLAs suddenly need these phantom mundane actions to initiate, nor to suppose a magical light show accompanies the mere act of concentrating to maintain an effect, wether from a spell or from an SLA.
Houseruling so that it does has wider-ranging effects, as discussed earlier.
|
|
You are choosing to make certain spells hard or impossible to use in social and stealth situations.Actually I thought about it and decided to add an additional derail (has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, but is slightly relevant).
I have found MANY threads on this forum where GMs are having a hard time dealing with players (usually casters) using a spell or ability to such an extreme that they're breaking the game. I've found that by having real repercussions to their abilities, players think more rationally about their other choices.
Essentially, in my games, it is difficult to stealth cast. In order to do so, I actually require stealth rolls to remain unseen. This usually means the players have to rely on their skills a bit more instead of simply their class abilities taking care of their problems.
I still end up with a great deal of Bards and other caster classes, and in fact, I almost always end up with somebody who wishes to stealth cast often. This, of course, may simply just be the group dynamic I have with my friends and everybody can flavor to suit their own needs.
I originally felt not that I was nerfing spells or spell-like abilities more so than I was nerfing the Eschew Materials, Silence Spell, and Still Spell meta-magic feats.
When I first enacted the difficulty to use class abilities that were not supernatural stealthily, I did notice a change however. My players began role-playing more.
So, your players began role-playing more, because the magic granted by their bard levels is no longer effective in social situations. It won't be long before they realise that they can role-play perfectly well without those now useless bard levels, and take levels in classes whose abilities remain useful. Like blasty-type sorcerers, stabby rogues, intimidating barbarians, etc.
Honestly, if I were to join your game and you explained beforehand your house-rule on magic, why would I waste my time with any magical ability that would otherwise be useful in social situations?
BTW, spellcasting is noticeable unless steps are taken to conceal it. But you seem okay with using Stealth, Sleight of Hand or Bluff to do that (pick one skill), but casting a silent, still spell with Eschew Materials isn't good enough for you? Having to use a 4th level slot to cast a 2nd level spell, as well as three whole feats, is not good enough for you?
So, what about the things done to cast a spell which can be seen but are not components? Nobody knows what they are, in exactly the same way that nobody knows what the magic words actually are.
I was hoping for a bit more, but I suppose if your answer is that you do not have one, then we have reached our impass.
Jason didn't say what those non-component actions may be
Actually, just as a clarification, he did. Jason used some fairly bad examples that he was criticized for, but if you read more of the text he does give these examples.
They cannot be identified with spellcraft 'as they are being initiated' in the way that spells can.
Certainly this is an area that we have discussed that I feel like we will never agree on. I feel like the RAW specifically says otherwise ("Otherwise, spell-like abilities work just like spells" sounds to me like the rules are expressly saying that identification works the same), you interpret the RAW differently, so perhaps this side of the debate is also put to bed.
Houseruling so that it does has wider-ranging effects, as discussed earlier.
I prefer not to think of it as a house-rule, but maybe this is how people define the term. To me a house-rule is a change of the rules, however my interpretation of the rules works completely in the confines of the rules, as does yours. I usually just refer to this as an interpretation of an ambiguity, but not a house-rule. Maybe I'm just being anal about the terminology though.
So, your players began role-playing more, because the magic granted by their bard levels is no longer effective in social situations.
I never said the magical bard abilities lose effectiveness. I said that it is difficult to do so stealthily. Most bardic abilities don't require stealth at all, and most commoners don't have Spellcraft to really know what's going on even if you don't hide it.
In fact, most bardic abilities are supernatural and not spell-like. So the entire example is a bit moot. The ones that ARE spell-like require a saving throw, so if they fail it doesn't even matter if they saw it.
The only time this idea hurts a bard is if they use Suggestion or Frightening Tune AND the target passes their save AND the target can successfully identify what happened. Then the bard certainly has to answer for what they were trying to do.
But you seem okay with using Stealth, Sleight of Hand or Bluff to do that (pick one skill), but casting a silent, still spell with Eschew Materials isn't good enough for you?
No, using those feats is not good enough to cast stealthily. That's not what those feats are for. This is also not good enough for Jason Buhlman's clarification or James Jacob's (who I always got the feeling that he was begrudging about that one).
I think a lot of people are making the assumption that if you are concentrating on an object or person then you have to SEE that person or object and that is not the case.
To concnetrate on a person or object you only need to be AWARWE of it and have LINE OF EFFECT to it which is explicitly different than LINE OF SIGHT.
Here are rules snippets I found that I thought pertained to this debate.
Under Spellcasting
AREA: A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quarter-circle in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and widens out as it goes.
This indicates you DON'T have to be looking in the direction the cone emanates since it can start in any corner of your square.
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin.
This implies that Line of Sight and Line of Effect are two separate things.
Concentration implies you are aware of a creatures presence even if you don't know exactly what square they are in. IE: if you don't know a creature is there, you can't concentrate on it based on text below from the spell.
"If an aura is outside your line of sight, then you discern its direction but not its exact location."
Spell-like Abilities: Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components).
So based on all that it would seem you DON'T need to stare at the object or person your concentrating on and therefore can use it without any notice. That's by RAW.
As far as RAI go, I think the intent was that you have to look at the person/object to see the aura.
So it's up to the players as to what camp you fall into RAW or RAI.
I can understand this standard and respect the ideals behind it, but in truth there are more assumptions being made to include into the game than there are actual rules. I will defer once again to the fact that there are no rules that state that dead character do not take actions.
However, this is taking your point to an extreme. I will say that under most circumstances I agree with you. The reasons why I feel like there are quantifiable and reasonable arguments for this case I have outlined, but will say again.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. There are a lot of assumptions (reasonable or otherwise) that are placed into a fantasy RPG setting. The rules that define the setting as different from the reality that we know are the ones that are explicitly stated. As the dead do not take actions in reality, so too do they not take actions in our favourite fantasy RPG setting since the rules do not expressly state that they do. The rules do not expressly state that gravity works the same as it does in reality, nor do they expressly state that apples are not poisonous. I think it takes a leap of faith to believe that things are implicitly allowed simply because the rules do not expressly forbid them; a leap of faith that can easily border on the unreasonable.
Fair enough, however I would think that there are two reasons for a presumption. Like all things, you reserve the right to take them with a grain of salt.
The first is simply that the two biggest developer names at Paizo have specifically stated that they believe it to work this way. By this I mean that a Stilled, Silent, Eschewed spell is observable for Spellcraft. The connection to spell-like abilities is a different ambiguity that could easily be argued either way and I have not seen a clear interpretation from the developers. I can only imagine that James Jacobs would immediately then say that the GM has the right to come up with his own indications as to why, or simply change the rules. JJ seems to advocate rule 0 often.
The second is that I am unable to get a viable explanation to how people imagine magic to work that fall within the limits of these rules. If magic is not observable, I would love to hear the alternative to how a spell is identified before it is finished being cast when there are no components. This is the third time I have stated this challenge and am awaiting some interesting answers (though I hope some pick up when it's not the weekend).
In most magical settings, there are conventions by which magic "functions" (or can be explained). This is not an universal truth, though. There is no clearly defined effect, and while it is reasonable to assume that there is one anyway, some magical effects are meticulously clear in how they manifest. As a former freelance writer for White Wolf's Exalted line, I believe that I can say the following with confidence.
As there are clear-cut examples of where specific magical manifestations are defined; arcane sight being an example of another divination spell that has an observable effect. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that spells (and by extension, spell-like abilities) that are able to be detected by normal senses would have clear, observable effects. Not every spell has one; by design, I believe. As a writer, I was meticulous in describing observable effects when one is warranted. In the absence of an observable effect, the creation of observable effects is not directly warranted, though your mileage at your gaming table may vary, naturally.
I believe it to be a rational choice that if there is some observable effect (i.e. a fireball), you can make a Spellcraft check, even if one uses the Silent Spell, Stilled Spell and Eschew Materials feats to mask the casting. It's the spell effect that you're observing in that case, not the components. In the case of a spell (or spell-like ability) that has no components (or said components are somehow removed from the equation) and no observable effect, there is no in-game justification for being able to detect the magic in use. In the case of a paladin's detect evil spell-like ability, the detection is described as a concentration ability that affects a single item or individual (not the cone shaped emanation of the spell and without the V, S and DF components as well). At my gaming table, I would rule that as there is no verbal, somatic or divine focus material mentioned in addition to the concentration requirement (i.e. no text that states, "this spell functions in all other ways identically to the spell detect evil"), it is replacement text for the effect and the requirements, and therefore, there's nothing to watch for other than someone concentrating (which looks different from person to person and would require a decently high Perception check in my book to notice). This is further justified as it being a pared-down version of the spell, as it only identifies a single target for the paladin and not all creatures in a 60' cone-shaped emanation.
But, of course, how I rule at my table may not work for you. Such is the nature of Rule 0. :)
Best wishes!
|
|
My two cents.
Taking the effort to detect evil on a sentient creature in a social situation would require a Bluff check with heavy minuses. Staring at someone very critically, even for a short period, is noticed. (It may be worth noting that trying to detect someones alignment without them knowing could be considered not honorable, depending.)
Is there a magical bright shining light that comes out of their eyes, or down from the sky? No, not as written.
Is there something inherently wrong with a paladin detecting evil on every single NPC they ever deal with? No, makes for a pretty boring game. When your GM is limited to non-evil NPC's life gets pretty bland.
Thank you for taking the time to respond
You're welcome, and I certainly appreciate your well thought out response!
As a former freelance writer for White Wolf's Exalted line
One of my friends was an artist for White Wolf's Exalted line. I would not mention names in forum, but wonder if you have at least met any of the artists as a freelancer writer?
In the case of a spell (or spell-like ability) that has no components (or said components are somehow removed from the equation) and no observable effect, there is no in-game justification for being able to detect the magic in use.
Under many other circumstances, I could easily see your point in this, however we were granted a justification when Jason Buhlman and James Jacobs both commented as a clarification that the rules allow you to identify a spell before it is cast (an action made prior to the in-game effect and counter-spelling) even when there are no components. I am being quite lazy right now, but I have quoted one of them earlier in the thread. Essentially, Jason Buhlman went on to actually say that magic has an unwritten effect to justify how this works and this effect is prior to the actual casting is completed. It could be thought of as the building up and creation of the magical pattern that is recognizable and identified using Spellcraft.
There are some that do not subscribe to this theory as it is not in the rules, but so far I have not had any other explanation brought forth to justify that you may identify a Still, Silent, Eschewed spell BEFORE it is cast and the effect is present (as is the case in counter-spelling).
At my gaming table, I would rule that as there is no verbal, somatic or divine focus material mentioned in addition to the concentration requirement...
All spell-like abilities do not have components so this is accurate.
(i.e. no text that states, "this spell functions in all other ways identically to the spell detect evil")
At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell.
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
The way I have interpreted the bold items above, spell-like abilities will function exactly like spells in all ways except in ways that it specifically says otherwise. The text within Paladin states a few other ways in which it is different from the spell that are inclusive of the set of rules that make spell-like abilties differ.
There is no mention that spell-like abilities are not cast, nor cannot be identified. Since spell-like abilities are like spells in all other ways, I concluded that spell-like abilities can be identified.
I've heard a few arguments against this. Primarily that activation is mutually exclusive to casting. In the event that you believe that these two words cannot operate in conjunction, then there is an alternative logical recourse (This being the one offered by Malachi Silverclaw and I can respect his stance).
However, I am still wondering if anybody can offer me a simple explanation that is an alternative to how identification of a spell works prior to casting (it cannot be the effect of the spell because it cannot exist if it is counter-spelled, otherwise we'd have more logic loopholes for Divination, Illusion, or Charms) without components.
Without an alternative explanation that fits the rules clarification, I'm afraid that the idea of a visual and observable effect of spells during casting (and prior to the actual effect) is the only offered explanation that fits all of the rules. If spell-like abilities function as spells in all ways that were not specifically pointed out, I propose that the conclusion that Detect Evil (Sp) is identifiable is the most logical recourse.
No, not as written.
In the RAW corebook? You are correct. However, I'd say written by the lead developer, yes:
This was also because it is getting lost in the thread and I wanted to repost this for Bodhizen as well
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, not as written.In the RAW corebook? You are correct. However, I'd say written by the lead developer, yes:
This was also because it is getting lost in the thread and I wanted to repost this for Bodhizen as well
Thank you for providing this link. I learned lots of stuff!
The rules are silent on this issue, meaning that it is really up to your GM. I would, personally, rule that each missing component adds +4 to the DC to identify the spell. There are, after all some tell tale markers, even if all of the components are removed. If they are all removed, I might rule it impossible to ID before the effect occurs, but it depends on the circumstances.
Jason doesn't seem so convinced after all!
Combined with this:-
15 + spell level Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.
The 3.5 version is more detailed, but the Pathfinder version doesn't contradict this. The upshot being:-
In 3.5 the rules were very clear. No verbal or somatic components means you cannot identify it.
So, to answer the question that has vexed you so; since Spellcraft cannot identify which spell is about to appear if there are no verbal or somatic components to hear or see, then there is nothing to see, and the spell cannot be counterspelled, nor can Spellcraft tell you that spellcasting is even taking place. No wonder neither of us could imagine what actions could there be that weren't components!
All this applies to spells, not SLAs.
spell-like abilities will function exactly like spells in all ways except in ways that it specifically says otherwise.
We all agree on this. So, initiating an SLA is the same process as casting a spell, unless the rules specify a different process, right? Right!
A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally.
The rules clearly state an entirely different way to initiate SLAs! Therefore, there is no reason to use the line,' SLAs work like spells, unless stated otherwise' to believe that the initiation processes are the same! The writers are under no obligation to write all the things that SLAs aren't! It should not surprise you that there is no line saying, 'BTW, when we said that SLAs are activated mentally, we forgot to add that this is instead of spellcasting, not in addition to.
But, what about Spellcraft? Like all skill descriptions, it describes what using the skill allows you to do. It does not need to specify a comprehensive list of all the things it can't do. Spellcraft allows you to identify a spell as it is being cast. It does not say that it allows you to identify an SLA as it is being mentally activated! Nor does it need to say that it doesn't! You can't say that a skill doesn't specifically that I can't kill people with a glance, so that must mean that I can!
If the activation processes of spells and SLAs resembled each other, then you might have had a case re: they're the same unless stated to be different. But, as I've shown, the rules do state different activation processes for each.
Even if you were to believe that PF deliberately changed Spellcraft so that the requirement to hear or see verbal or somatic components in order to use Spellcraft to identify a spell as it is being cast is no longer the case (I don't on the grounds that if Jason had deliberately changed it then he would have been sure of the situation rather than making it up on the spot), that wouldn't change the fact that the rules specifically state entirely different activation processes for spells and SLAs, and therefore assumptions about what an observer sees a caster do to cast do not hold when observing what an SLA-user does to activate an SLA.
Which is activate it mentally. Spellcraft won't help, but other skills (Perception, Sense Motive) may.
Again, Thanks for the link. : )
Jason doesn't seem so convinced after all!
You did not quote all of Jason's statement, I shall post it all:
The rules here are certainly not clear, because they generally assume that the act of casting a spell has some noticeable element. Notice I did not say component, because I think the rules are silent on parts of spellcasting that are codified components versus those that occur without any sort of codification, such as the wiggle of a finger, change in breathing and other flavor bits that happen when a spellcaster makes the magic happen, as it were.
Back to the topic at hand, since the rules are silent here, I think it is well within the GMs purview to impose a penalty to the Spellcraft check to identify a spell without components (V, S, M). Since there is no real increase for spells with just one, I would guess that this penalty is not very large, perhaps only as much as -4.
This is, of course, up to your GM to adjudicate.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingEdit: I should also note that I also agree with James, that a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.
I would say that the bold text is quite clear.
The 3.5 version is more detailed, but the Pathfinder version doesn't contradict this
There was a deliberate exclusion of the mentioning of components in Paizo's rules. I do not believe this was on accident, but I will concur with you that Jason may not have been fully aware. It is a very long rule-book and I doubt he compared every section to the 3.5 equivalent. He was fairly clear as to how he read the RAW in his addendum, whether he was aware of this or not.
As to the rest, I have already consented that your viewpoint has it's own merit because you do believe that activation and casting are mutually exclusive terms.
I do not. I personally feel that activation is a descriptive term of the type of casting (mentally activated, as you also say) and that the usage of casting time also has linguistic merit.
However, this is impossible to debate because one is a game term to a fictional rule-book (cast) and another is a normal English word with no other defined usage (activation). Because of this, I continue to respect your interpretation and feel like I have a perfectly reasonable stance as well. When we hit the limitations of language, we may certainly shake hands, because I've seen debates that try to find the definitions of words as used by intent and it's not pretty.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You did not quote all of Jason's statement.
Just to clarify, I was not quoting that statement.
Jason's facebook page makes it clear how he would rule it in his games.
Then he quoted Jason;s Facebook page:-
The rules are silent on this issue, meaning that it is really up to your GM. I would, personally, rule that each missing component adds +4 to the DC to identify the spell. There are, after all some tell tale markers, even if all of the components are removed. If they are all removed, I might rule it impossible to ID before the effect occurs, but it depends on the circumstances.
See, this doesn't sound like someone who knew that 3.5 only allowed Spellcraft to identify a spell as it is being cast if the verbal or somatic components could be heard or seen, and it must be that anyone who had deliberately changed Spellcraft so that it worked without being able to observe the components (as opposed to the descriptions of skills to be pared down to the minimum to save space) must have already have figured out what the alternative situation was and why. Jason seems to be making it up on the spot! He is the guy who wrote/altered the 3.5 text for the CRB, isn't he?
As to the rest, I have already consented that your viewpoint has it's own merit because you do believe that activation and casting are mutually exclusive terms.
I do not. I personally feel that activation is a descriptive term of the type of casting (mentally activated, as you also say) and that the usage of casting time also has linguistic merit.
You have every right to your own opinion, but I confess I don't understand your logic here. Spells are cast. SLAs are mentally activated. SLAs don't need to say they are not cast! They just need to say that they are mentally activated!
Spellcasting is a complex process with lots of rules to clarify the game mechanics of it. It doesn't have room to describe the fluff of spellcasting, in terms of specific special effects associated with casting each spell, nor can any be assumed. Mentally activated is not something that needs a lot of rules explanation, so it should not surprise you that there is not much space wasted on explaining so simple an idea as 'mentally activated'. The two processes are different, so the line about 'same unless stated to be different', when applied to this part, shows that SLAs are not only mentally activated, but that they are not cast!
And the part about skills doing what they say they do; it makes sense that there is no ability to use Spellcraft to identify an SLA as it is cast, because they are not cast! If Spellcraft could be used that way, Spellcraft could say, 'identify a spell or spell-like ability as it is cast (or activated)'. It is wrong to add capabilities like this to skills, especially when Spellcraft allows spells to be identified as they are being cast by observing the spellcasting process, when there is nothing to observe when 'mentally activated' is the process for SLAs.
|
|
I did not see this point discussed so:
Your actions are bad because they are pointless ( as said 95% of the people will not ping ) and because they delay the game overmuch.It is ok to do it with people you interact with but not with everyone who pass you on the street
About the 137th time you ask your DM the question 'is the scenery evil ? ' , he is justified in howling loud and try to strangle you ...
Is was mentioned a few times, but not much because, well, we all agree. : )
You can't just "detect" = "smite" in a town. Even if the guy is a priest of a evil deity, he may be operating under civil protection. If you do find him, and kill him, you may be up for murder charges. If you turn him over to the constables, they may go "Yeah, that's Bob the Evil Priest, we're keeping an eye on him, but so far he hasn't broken any laws that we know of. You do know this Kingdom has freedom of Religion, right?'
No one is asking if it is legal, just is it good is only thing Paladin cared about.
He either is an out law Paladin (on the run from the law but still LG) or he goes to jail. Third he proves man is a killer and evil.
and more just being able to sense the pull on the Aether as the spell comes into being, or something like that
You are now the first person who even attempted to answer my question! Thank you! We finally have an alternative explanation in the thread.
a random commoner in a bar will have no idea what the Paladin is doing on that basis.
I agree and always have. A random person without the skill cannot identify the spell. However Spellcraft never mentions anything about knowing there's magic.
There is a difference between knowing that magic happened and being able to identify what it is. In your interpretation, can it not be said that everybody nearby feels a pull on the Aether but has no idea what happened unless they can identify it with Spellcraft?
It it just for the sake of hiding the V/S components of the spell, essentially making the feat a Still Spell ect.
Yes, not to mention the fact that you can still identify a spell if it is Stilled, Silent, and Eschewed, as clarified by Jason Buhlman above.
It is a thought exercise to be sure. Certainly the RAW is ambiguous for an explanation, which is why I'm always very open to hearing new interpretations.
I don't say that my answer is a RAW rule, but I do love to interject the idea when I see others saying "there's no way to do this". Call it devil's advocate, but I love to debate when I see absolution without logical facts. There are many ways to interpret the RAW rule book and still not break rules after all.
I don't know why everyone is here assuming that as soon as I detect evil on a character, I pull out my sword and lop his head off. No, of course not - I haven't gone full retard.
ROFL, omg thank you. Been a long day at work and I needed to read that comment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok my Thoughts!
First off Spellcraft cannot be used to detect a spell like ability being cast. You could identify the effects of a spell after the fact if there is some visible clue for your character to see by using Knowledge Arcana
Spellcraft 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.
A spell like ability has no verbal, no somatic and no material components. It is activated by will alone. By RAW you cannot see someone's will, so you cannot identify the spell AS it is being cast because you cannot see it being cast in the first place.
So second, because of the above rules I would rule that people would not notice that a paladin was using detect evil UNLESS they had detect magic or similar spell active. Then they could identify the spell as an ongoing effect as long as the paladin was concentrating on maintaining the spell.
A spell like ability has no verbal, no somatic and no material components.
Just so that you know, Jason Buhlman said that components have nothing to do with spell identification as it is being cast. The entire set of logic you concluded was based around that idea, so you may need to rethink your point.
The rules here are certainly not clear, because they generally assume that the act of casting a spell has some noticeable element. Notice I did not say component, because I think the rules are silent on parts of spellcasting that are codified components versus those that occur without any sort of codification, such as the wiggle of a finger, change in breathing and other flavor bits that happen when a spellcaster makes the magic happen, as it were.
Back to the topic at hand, since the rules are silent here, I think it is well within the GMs purview to impose a penalty to the Spellcraft check to identify a spell without components (V, S, M). Since there is no real increase for spells with just one, I would guess that this penalty is not very large, perhaps only as much as -4.
This is, of course, up to your GM to adjudicate.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingEdit: I should also note that I also agree with James, that a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.
A spell like ability has no verbal, no somatic and no material components.Just so that you know, Jason Buhlman said that components have nothing to do with spell identification as it is being cast. The entire set of logic you concluded was based around that idea, so you may need to rethink your point.
The rules here are certainly not clear, because they generally assume that the act of casting a spell has some noticeable element. Notice I did not say component, because I think the rules are silent on parts of spellcasting that are codified components versus those that occur without any sort of codification, such as the wiggle of a finger, change in breathing and other flavor bits that happen when a spellcaster makes the magic happen, as it were.
Back to the topic at hand, since the rules are silent here, I think it is well within the GMs purview to impose a penalty to the Spellcraft check to identify a spell without components (V, S, M). Since there is no real increase for spells with just one, I would guess that this penalty is not very large, perhaps only as much as -4.
This is, of course, up to your GM to adjudicate.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingEdit: I should also note that I also agree with James, that a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.
These are no more than his thoughts, they are not an errata but how he would do things. Untill they come up with an errata using this would be nothing more than a GM house rule. If you are looking for RAW by the book then what I posted above is how it is currently.
The thread that this is from is also not about spell like abilities.
If you are looking for RAW by the book then what I posted above is how it is currently.
So you're assumptions that are not written in the book are RAW, while my assumptions that are restated by a developer are not?
That's not how this works. I have just as much validity as you do.
Before you go claiming that yours is RAW, I will simply ask you to quote me where in the core rule book does it state:
so you cannot identify the spell AS it is being cast because you cannot see it being cast in the first place.
It doesn't EVER say that you cannot see it being cast. Not once. I dare you to try. Until you find me this quote, then you are being just as presumptuous.
Nobody's interpretation is RAW because the RAW doesn't say one way or the other. I offer an interpretation that fits all the rules and includes ideas stated by developers. It is one of the only interpretations that fits the descriptions of Spellcraft and counter-spelling.
Also, before it is ONCE AGAIN stated (I really wish people would read previous threads) that spell-like abilities are not the same as spells, I will ONCE AGAIN remind everybody that spell-like abilities, by RAW, work exactly as spells unless specifically said otherwise.
|
|
Also, before it is ONCE AGAIN stated (I really wish people would read previous threads) that spell-like abilities are not the same as spells, I will ONCE AGAIN remind everybody that spell-like abilities, by RAW, work exactly as spells unless specifically said otherwise.
And once again I'll point out that the rules for initiating spells and initiating SLAs are different, and stated so in RAW!
Spells are cast. It says so in the RAW.
Spell-like abilities are mentally activated. It says so in the RAW.
These are different!
There is no onus on the writers to say that SLAs are not 'cast'! They just need to say that they are mentally activated!
You're welcome, and I certainly appreciate your well thought out response!
Thank you very much.
One of my friends was an artist for White Wolf's Exalted line. I would not mention names in forum, but wonder if you have at least met any of the artists as a freelancer writer?
Not in person, but I have had occasion to speak to a few.
Under many other circumstances, I could easily see your point in this, however we were granted a justification when Jason Buhlman and James Jacobs both commented as a clarification that the rules allow you to identify a spell before it is cast (an action made prior to the in-game effect and counter-spelling) even when there are no components. I am being quite lazy right now, but I have quoted one of them earlier in the thread. Essentially, Jason Buhlman went on to actually say that magic has an unwritten effect to justify how this works and this effect is prior to the actual casting is completed. It could be thought of as the building up and creation of the magical pattern that is recognizable and identified using Spellcraft.
There are some that do not subscribe to this theory as it is not in the rules, but so far I have not had any other explanation brought forth to justify that you may identify a Still, Silent, Eschewed spell BEFORE it is cast and the effect is present (as is the case in counter-spelling).
Jason Buhlman gives an indication that does not render the use of the Spellcraft skill for the purposes of identifying spells next-to-useless, and I respect that. However, he does not give a clear indication as to what the rules state, simply that it is within a GM's purview to rule in a particular fashion. This is not an endorsement one way or the other, certainly not a strong one. (Yes, please understand that I did read it completely both via your link and your quoted responses later in this thread. Thank you for making it easily accessible for the purposes of this conversation.)
Personally, I am someone who subscribes to the theory that if it is not expressly stated in the rules (and is not consistent with how the real world works for us living in it), then it is "uncharted territory" that the GM is free to explore, or that Paizo is eventually free to expand into. Following that train of thought, it is not something that I can endorse as either reasonable or expressly permitted (because the rules do not forbid it).
I am also not someone who feels that there is adequate justification for identifying a silent, still, eschewed spell before it is cast; I go into greater detail below. I do recognize that this is not specifically consistent with every developer's interpretation, but I'm all right with that. As the GM at my own table, as long as I am consistent in my application of the rules, I am confident that my players will enjoy themselves greatly.
At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell.
GrenMeera, I am going to politely express (in as much as I can) some slight annoyance here, but only because you did not fully quote the text. Please allow me.
Detect Evil (Sp): At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range.
As you mention below, the rest of the entry details how the ability differs from the spell itself. I just felt it was important to fully quote; it's a pet peeve of mine.
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
The way I have interpreted the bold items above, spell-like abilities will function exactly like spells in all ways except in ways that it specifically says otherwise. The text within Paladin states a few other ways in which it is different from the spell that are inclusive of the set of rules that make spell-like abilties differ.
There is no mention that spell-like abilities are not cast, nor cannot be identified. Since spell-like abilities are like spells in all other ways, I concluded that spell-like abilities can be identified.
In the case of the paladin's detect evil, it does specifically state that the paladin concentrates (not casts), so in this case, I do believe that while there is room for different interpretations of how it is written, there is a case to be made for the Paladin's detect evil ability to not be cast, although for the sake of convenience, it does reference functioning (much) like the detect evil spell. It's something that could use clarification.
There is a case to interpret "concentration" as "not casting", since many of the cleric's domain powers specifically reference casting spells, the minor magic and major magic rogue talent references casting spells as spell-like abilities, the alchemist's "casting" of spells when they drink their extracts, some oracle powers granted by their mysteries, the summoner's summon monster spell-like abilities, and certain witch hexes. Therefore, I feel that a case could be presented that the paladin's detect evil power is not cast, since the mention of casting is conspicuously absent, and I am a believer in the concept that RPG game writers write what they mean to write (and in cases where they make errors, errata is presented).
I've heard a few arguments against this. Primarily that activation is mutually exclusive to casting. In the event that you believe that these two words cannot operate in conjunction, then there is an alternative logical recourse (This being the one offered by Malachi Silverclaw and I can respect his stance).
However, I am still wondering if anybody can offer me a simple explanation that is an alternative to how identification of a spell works prior to casting (it cannot be the effect of the spell because it cannot exist if it is counter-spelled, otherwise we'd have more logic loopholes for Divination, Illusion, or Charms) without components.
Without an alternative explanation that fits the rules clarification, I'm afraid that the idea of a visual and observable effect of spells during casting (and prior to the actual effect) is the only offered explanation that fits all of the rules. If spell-like abilities function as spells in all ways that were not specifically pointed out, I propose that the conclusion that Detect Evil (Sp) is identifiable is the most logical recourse.
It is my opinion that activation and casting are deliberately chosen terms; there was purpose in their selection, as it does introduce doubt as to the intention of the writing team, at the very least, regarding the purpose of casting versus activation. Activation is what is done with certain magical items; the effect of which is not equivalent to casting.
I find the concept that one can identify a spell prior to its casting to be dubious at best, as one could attempt to stretch that into identify spells prior to the declaration of intent to cast (i.e. predicting the future with Spellcasting). Identifying spells as they are cast, however, is perfectly reasonable in my estimation, as I view casting as the action that comes prior to the effect coming into play (as in, the you cast a spell, and once the spell is cast, the effect happens).
As for spell identification, one must have an observable event in the first place in order to have something to identify. The Spellcraft skill explicitly states that you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast. To quote, with my own emphasis:
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. Learning a spell from a spellbook takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0-level spells take 30 minutes). Preparing a spell from a borrowed spellbook does not add any time to your spell preparation. Making a Spellcraft check to craft a magic item is made as part of the creation process. Attempting to ascertain the properties of a magic item takes 3 rounds per item to be identified and you must be able to thoroughly examine the object.
If you are not able to see such a spell being cast, how can you identify it with Spellcraft? A character casting a still, silent, eschewed spell does not give any clear indication that they are spellcasting if the end result does not have any observable effect. However, for those GMs that feel that such effects would be valid for identification with the Spellcraft skill, it would be my advice that such spells take a cumulative -2 penalty on identification for being still, silent, have eschewed materials, or having no observable end result. Again, I must admit that this is not consistent with every GMs interpretation of rules, but I can only give my best advice in these matters.
A pleasure discussing the matter with you, GrenMeera. Please feel free to continue.
Best wishes!
Spells are cast. It says so in the RAW.
Spell-like abilities are mentally activated. It says so in the RAW.
These are different!
"These are different!" It does not say so in RAW. Using A = B, B = C, therefore A = C (deductive logic) on a case in which there is no evidence of B = C is a fallacy.
It is an interpretation and I've said that I respect your views on it. But your answer is not any more RAW than mine. As I've stated, I do not view activation and casting as two things that cannot co-exist. I did not want to get into the details of the English as I view it, but you keep bringing up your point that I have clearly stated that I respect, but we are obviously at an impass on.
However, since you seem like you wish me to do so, I will.
1. To set in motion; make active or more active.
You activate a light switch, you activate a doomsday device, you mentally activate a spell-like ability, and the wonder twin's powers... they activate.
Casting a spell is not a definitive term as it is a game term. However, I view casting as the process in which a magical pattern is constructed in order to complete the intended effect.
Casting is an act. It is a verb.
Activation is a descriptive term signifying the process in which something is begun. It is instantaneous. Casting is a verb that transitions over time.
When the Wonder Twins activate their power, they cast a trans-mutative spell. These two terms are not mutually exclusive.
GrenMeera, I am going to politely express (in as much as I can) some slight annoyance here, but only because you did not fully quote the text. Please allow me.
I apologize if that troubles you. I will try to keep that in mind for the future. I did not issue the full quote because it has already been quoted in this thread and because I did not see the relevance of the rest of the description except to point out how Detect Evil (Sp) is unique. None of it's unique qualities led me to believe it had anything to do with it's identification, so I saved some space.
I will refrain from doing this in the future.
I find the concept that one can identify a spell prior to its casting to be dubious at best
I think perhaps you misunderstood me. I do not believe that spell identification happens prior to ANY casting. Just that identification happens before the casting is complete. Casting does take time, and this is why you need a Held action in order to identify a spell as it is being cast and to counter-spell it before the casting is completed, as stated in the counter-spell rules.
A pleasure discussing the matter with you, GrenMeera. Please feel free to continue.
I agree! You have been respectful and civil while standing firm in your beliefs and discussing like an adult. It is a rare treat on a forum! Thank you!
And the fact is, you must be able to see a spell before you can ID it. Therefore, since you get a free Spellcraft check whenever someone is casting, you must be able to tell when anyone is using magic.
The rules make no allowance for this 'mental activation'. 'Treated in all ways like spellcasting' is extremely broad. They mention certain things it is not like, and 'mental activation' is not one of those purposes. Trying to shoe-horn it in simply does not work.
I find it strange that people think that spellcasting is innately subtle and hard to see. It's no harder to see then someone drawing a sword and waving it around. You may not know what kind of sword he has, but you certainly know he's waving around a weapon. There's nowhere in the rules that states anyone using magic is any less obvious, and the fact you can ID someone spellcasting anywhere in line of sight makes it plain it IS obvious.
And you don't need training to see someone is casting. You need training to ID the spell being cast. There's no DC given for spellcasting, and it takes a feat to use a skill to conceal it...so it's pretty bloody obvious.
And kindly remember that a paladin Detecting Evil could be inspecting his fingernails, mumbling prayers patiently under his breath as he rolls his eyes at the ceiling, or he could be slowly moving through a crowd with his other move action, looking at absolutely no one in particular.
Saying he has to stare at the object of his attention is a complete misnomer. He could have his head bowed, fingers on his eyes as if nursing a bad headache. He doesn't actually have to be looking at anything...Detect Evil is a whole other sense that has nothing to do with sight.
==Aelryinth
I actually thought of an interesting analogy to describe how I view activation, casting a spell, and a finished spell.
Think of it as setting off fireworks!
For this, I'd say that a firework can be lighter activated, or it can be match activated. This is akin to a spell (or spell-like ability, there isn't much difference in this example) being mentally activated. It is a description about the force that begins the process.
Lighter activated fireworks!
Okay, so next up: Casting the spell is analogous to the fuse. Over time, the fuse burns and will amount to the final product. The burning fuse is representative of the entire process of making a spell what it is, including components. Under normal circumstances, it is a standard action that can be counter-spelled (extinguish the fuse, you get no fireworks). Changing the nature of the fuse using feats can be fun, but there is still a fuse. A very short fuse (Quickened changes the casting time) can be very hard to counter-spell.
Finally, the spell effects! The explosion of blue/green/red that everybody makes weird baby sounds at! The spell effects are the end result of the fireworks. Some spell effects are impossible to see (let's just say Invisibility is a dud firework, because it's not so flashy is it).
Maybe this analogy can help others understand why I do not think mental activation is mutually exclusive to casting a spell. You can change it from lighter-activate to match-activated, but that doesn't have a huge impact on the rest of the process.
Also, since I don't believe anybody read the other threads I linked long ago, let me add a few more analogies that are relevant.
Ross Byers: Let me Brush this up!
|
|
To use your firework analogy, casting is like lighting the fuse. People can see the fuse burn down, and the way the fuse burns gives clues as to what kind of firework it will be, and there is time to stop it if you know how and have the correct equipment, analogous to Spellcraft/the correct spell prepared.
Mentally activating a spell-like ability is like mentally activating a firework using telekinesis with nothing more than a thought. There is nothing for anyone to see until the firework goes off, although the psychic may drop his guard because he is concentrating on igniting the firework and not guarding his toffee apple.
Well, it's your analogy. : )