Well, it's your analogy. : )
Well, as I said, I don't believe your interpretation is wrong, just different. You can obviously see the difference in how these two ideas work from the analogy, yet I hope you can see how they both also have reason behind them.
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.
I can agree with this interpretation of rules; that spells have a "casting time" (yes, I am aware that this applies to spell-like abilities), and during that casting time, one would have the opportunity to identify (and thusly, counter) a spell by some observable means.
I, and others, have pointed people at the bold text, where spell-like abilities are explicitly stated as being cast. And where the rules say that for any and all rules functions that are not explicitly refined here, or in the specific SLA, spells and spell-like abilities are interchangeable.
Part of the conundrum here is the synthesis of available information here. As you have rightly quoted, it is explicitly stated that spell-like abilities have a casting time. However, it is not explicitly stated that they are cast; it is explicitly stated that they are activated mentally and in all other ways, they function like spells. I am not certain how Spellcraft can detect for a mental process; it certainly is not written in the rules. Also worthy of notice: the paladin's detect evil spell-like ability is explicitly stated as concentrating on a single item or individual (as opposed to the 60' cone-shaped emanation that detects evil auras within its area of effect) whereas many other effects (as I have listed in a previous post) explicitly reference being cast. I do not find it to be unreasonable that this far more limited effect can pass unnoticed, though I do admit that is my interpretation of rules.
It is my humble advice that should one rule (either in blanket fashion or on a case-by-case basis) that one can, in fact, use Spellcraft to identify spells (or effects) that lack components and visible manifestations of effect, there would be a stiff penalty to the check. A silent, stilled, eschewed spell with no visible manifestation of effect should, in my opinion, carry a -8 penalty to the Spellcraft check to identify it (-2 for being silent, -2 for being stilled, -2 for having eschewed materials and -2 for having no visible manifestation of effect). This is a far less staggering penalty than a Perception check penalty (which is referenced by the Spellcraft ability) for a creature or object being invisible (as there is no visible act or manifestation of the spell "casting"); the penalty being a +20 to the DC, though a GM could also make that ruling. However, this presents other concerns; namely, using Spellcraft to identify the spell-like effect created when activating magical items, which is not an explicitly stated use of the Spellcraft skill, and could be interpreted to using the skill to identify ongoing effects (such as those granted by ioun stones or rings) that have no visible manifestation of effect. This may not be a concern at your gaming table; I would find it to be cumbersome and overreaching.
As always, best wishes in making the best choice for your gaming table.
Well, it's your analogy. : )Well, as I said, I don't believe your interpretation is wrong, just different. You can obviously see the difference in how these two ideas work from the analogy, yet I hope you can see how they both also have reason behind them.
Ok GrenMeera another reason for why you cannot see a spell like ability being cast.
If you are Paralyzed You cannot move, you cannot act. Your Str and Dex scores are reduced to 0. BUT you can take a purely mental action. IE you can use a spell like ability. Now if someone isnt moving at all and cannot move, how can you SEE them casting the spell to identify it.
Spellcraft cannot identify a Spell like ability at all. You need Knowledge Arcana which is used to identify an ongoing effect that you notice after it has been cast.
*sigh*
Threads like this make me remember why I am loathe to post, or even read, the rules board.
But this is the "Advice" board. I thought the point of this board was to offer suggestions about how to run situations, not nit-pick the rules. Nit-picking weird corner cases and what-ifs is for the rules board, or so I thought.
Anyway, I'm outta here for now.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
OK, I think that we all accept that Spells can be ID’d with Spellcraft, even if silent, stilled, etc.
So, there’s no use bringing up again what Jason posted. We all agree.
Where we disagree is that a SLA, and esp this SLA is not a spell. Right?
So, it could be different, or the same as a spell, but the RAW is not clear.
Now, JJ has posted that in his the Paladin SLA is detected by means of Sense Motive, not Spellcraft.
This to me is clear. Even if the RAW isn’t clear, I feel the RAI is now clear.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So. Dropping in my own feelings.
1) It can be rude, dependent entirely upon the culture. Some cultures think it terribly rude to belch, others consider it rude not to after a good meal. Which one is "correct"? It doesn't really matter, as belching doesn't really affect or harm anything other than a person's feelings, it's only a matter of being polite v. being rude (and thus changes how people interact with each other). Detect Evil is similar, in that it doesn't actively harm anyone. Some may feel "infringed" upon by you "looking at them", but, you know, that's silly, especially if they don't ping evil and you thus don't treat them differently. If they ping as evil, well, they've done things enough in their life to have earned the untrustworthy moniker, thus the alignment pinging. Still nothing wrong with this.
2) I wouldn't imagine it would look like anything more than you possibly pausing for a few seconds. This could be awkward in the middle of a conversation, but you could have just been distracted or something else entirely. From my experience, it's usually only rude people or those who feel extremely comfortable with you who would stop to ask "what was that about"*, and if they're being rude they can only complain so much if you're being rude, and if they're comfortable with you, they should probably know. And I've been in conversations with people who just trail off, pause, or stop for a few seconds. (Bolding, obviously, mine. I'm not quoting anyone, I'm just pointing out that this is opinion.)
*
3) Why would anyone know you (or anyone else) are a paladin? Unless you proclaim it, you could just as easily be a fighter, cleric, inquisitor, or any other class. In our games classes usually aren't as neatly defined (though the players and GMs use them oft enough amongst themselves for some metagaming in order to help characters RP better, as they've been living in the world their whole life). The NPCs and PCs react to the people as people.
4) Presuming they know you're a paladin and know what paladins do (which is presuming they know a lot), then they might suspect you're detecting evil. And if they have detect magic going (or either of the arcane sight spells - see below), they may know you're using magic even if they don't know you're a paladin.
5) Arcane Sight (and similar spells) bring up a good point. Their wording implies that they are rather unique in that they cause a character's eyes to glow. This seems to imply, by extension, that most divination spells don't. Now, obviously, personal interpretations apply... but those are house rules and interpretations, not RAW. (Could be RAI, though, which is trickier ground.)
6) Speaking of, I rarely agree with DrDeth (and vice verse, though humorously rarely for the same reason each time), but with his above post we are in agreement. (Wait. Something must be wrong... ;P)
EDIT: Note: Seriously and honestly, I have nothing against DrDeth. We just somehow seem to consistently end up on the opposite sides of things. :)
7) A creature automatically knows when it makes a save. Detect Evil has no save, ergo this doesn't apply.
8) Normal detect evil requires a standard action and a full 18 seconds (three rounds) of concentration to a) pick up things within a cone, b) note the number and biggest power within the cone, and c) note the location (and relative power?*) of each. Paladin's detect evil is a move action to scan a particular Noun (person, place, thing, or idea) that they notice within range and it gets them all of the above information, but they don't gain the benefits of having a cone. Rules-wise how noticeable this is may be a bit ambiguous, but again, see point six above.
So, in short (TOO LATE!), in my understanding there is nothing in the rules that tells people that you're detecting evil, other than what they can figure out by being clever and knowledgable about their own world.
Smiting is a little different, though not much, in this case. If you're wasting a smite by using it early and never using it... well, okay, I suppose that means they never knew they were "smote". That's kind of a terrible idea to use up your limited-per-day smites "just in case", though.
Also some GMs may interpret "call out to the powers of good" literally, so be careful with that.
*
If you are Paralyzed You cannot move, you cannot act. Your Str and Dex scores are reduced to 0. BUT you can take a purely mental action. IE you can use a spell like ability. Now if someone isnt moving at all and cannot move, how can you SEE them casting the spell to identify it.
It's been a long thread so I often end up restating things I've already said, so please bear with me if this seems rushed.
The observable effect of casting could be anything. My interpretation involves the caster glowing, or a magical pattern somehow becoming manifest.
Take this for example. It does not matter if the character is moving (in fact, they're not! This is a picture and not a movie! ^.^), you can still observe the magic becoming manifest. This magic, of course, may disappear when the casting is complete (as in Invisibility or most Divinations).
or this example actually almost seems to exemplify a spell-like ability. Aang rarely even moves when he is "casting" like this. Usually he's just floating around looking all monk zen-like.
My point was that just because a character isn't moving, doesn't mean there isn't something observable.
If you are Paralyzed You cannot move, you cannot act. Your Str and Dex scores are reduced to 0. BUT you can take a purely mental action. IE you can use a spell like ability. Now if someone isnt moving at all and cannot move, how can you SEE them casting the spell to identify it.It's been a long thread so I often end up restating things I've already said, so please bear with me if this seems rushed.
The observable effect of casting could be anything. My interpretation involves the caster glowing, or a magical pattern somehow becoming manifest.
Take this for example. It does not matter if the character is moving (in fact, they're not! This is a picture and not a movie! ^.^), you can still observe the magic becoming manifest. This magic, of course, may disappear when the casting is complete (as in Invisibility or most Divinations).
or this example actually almost seems to exemplify a spell-like ability. Aang rarely even moves when he is "casting" like this. Usually he's just floating around looking all monk zen-like.
My point was that just because a character isn't moving, doesn't mean there isn't something observable.
At work and I cannot open your links. Will have to check them out later.
Let's be honest, shall we?
There's nothing in the rules that says Still Spell makes a spell harder to identify. Ditto Eschew Components. Ditto Silent Spell.
Nothing. Not in the feats, not in Spellcraft.
SLA's are treated like spells.
There is NOTHING in any of the rules that makes their effects harder to ID. Not a thing. If you can see, you can tell they are working magic, and potentially ID the effect.
Which should tell you right there that Spellcraft is not looking at waggling fingers, listening to words, or peeking at components. It's looking at something else, the spell and magic actually being manipulated. If this was an MMO, it would be the swirls of runes and colors that erupt as you cast your spells...none of which are V, S or M, and ALL of which are incredibly obvious.
==Aelryinth
Let's be honest, shall we?
There's nothing in the rules that says Still Spell makes a spell harder to identify. Ditto Eschew Components. Ditto Silent Spell.
Nothing. Not in the feats, not in Spellcraft.
SLA's are treated like spells.
There is NOTHING in any of the rules that makes their effects harder to ID. Not a thing. If you can see, you can tell they are working magic, and potentially ID the effect.
Which should tell you right there that Spellcraft is not looking at waggling fingers, listening to words, or peeking at components. It's looking at something else, the spell and magic actually being manipulated. If this was an MMO, it would be the swirls of runes and colors that erupt as you cast your spells...none of which are V, S or M, and ALL of which are incredibly obvious.
==Aelryinth
Actually that is wrong. Spellcraft states that "you must clearly be able to see the spell being cast". Spell like abilities break the rule of being able to see them being cast as you do nothing other than think about it happening to activate the SLA. Spell like abilities are purly mental actions as they can be used even when you are paralyzed.
Also this is not a MMO there are no glowing runes in the air as you cast a spell. That is why you NEED another spell called Detect Magic in order to see magic.
Sure you can house rule the glowing runes and such if you want but they are not part of the game as it is writen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
(It may be worth noting that trying to detect someones alignment without them knowing could be considered not honorable, depending.)
What's the difference between Detect Evil and Sense Motive? I can't even imagine using a god given ability for detecting evil being used for.... finding evil, being considered 'dishonorable.'
Seriously, Strange guy shows ups at the bar, offfers heroes a job.
Bard: I don't know guys... I don't really trust him. He had too much information about the security there...
Rogue: Did you see the way he kept looking over his shoulder?
Wizard: What about that nervous tic every time he mentioned the 'bandits' that robbed him?
Ranger: Looked ok to me... but we check his story out later, see if everything he said was true.
Paladin: I detected him as having a faint evil aura... I don't really trust him either.
Bard: YOU MONSTER!!! I thought you were the HONORABLE type?!?
yeah... I don't see that happening. Detect evil is essentially a focused, divinely powered Sense Motive. It doesn't give the paladin a free smite card... but it gives him a sense of the person he's talking to. Whether he's trustworthy or a dirty backstabbing liar of at least 5th level.... without having to go all 'sherlock holmes' on him.
As for visual signs? A peculiar look for 6 seconds. That's it. Similiar to nobody else noticing the blue beams coming out of Clark Kent's glasses when he looks through a wall. Everything is internal, no outward signs at all.
If your evil and talking to a paladin... you should ASSUME he checks you out.
SLA's are treated like spells.There is NOTHING in any of the rules that makes their effects harder to ID.
But they are not spells.
And there is nothing to say that they can be Id'd with Spellcraft.
"They are treated like spells in all other respects."
Please tell me how that does not cover watching them get cast (by whatever method) since the 'how' of it being cast has NOTHING to do with ANY version of spellcraft at work, and tell me WHERE the exception in "All other respects they are treated like spells" does NOT apply to being treated as spells for Spellcraft?
Because I'd really like to see those exceptions.
"Seeing it being cast" means you have to be able to see the creature tossing it. It doesn't mean you have to see wiggling fingers, because seeing wiggling fingers has nothing to do with ID'ing spells or people casting - POWER WORDS have no wiggling fingers, and can be id'd just fine by sight. There are spells lacking V and S and M components, and there's no penalty whatsoever to them being identified as casting and using magic. There's spells with no components at all, and by the rules, they are ID'd just as easily, despite no 'spellcasting' going on.
SLA are treated JUST like those spells. Instantly know they are casting magic, and ID'd if you have SPellcraft trained.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
"They are treated like spells in all other respects."
Please tell me how that does not cover watching them get cast (by whatever method) since the 'how' of it being cast has NOTHING to do with ANY version of spellcraft at work, and tell me WHERE the exception in "All other respects they are treated like spells" does NOT apply to being treated as spells for Spellcraft?
Because I'd really like to see those exceptions.
"Seeing it being cast" means you have to be able to see the creature tossing it. It doesn't mean you have to see wiggling fingers, because seeing wiggling fingers has nothing to do with ID'ing spells or people casting - POWER WORDS have no wiggling fingers, and can be id'd just fine by sight. There are spells lacking V and S and M components, and there's no penalty whatsoever to them being identified as casting and using magic. There's spells with no components at all, and by the rules, they are ID'd just as easily, despite no 'spellcasting' going on.
SLA are treated JUST like those spells. Instantly know they are casting magic, and ID'd if you have SPellcraft trained.
==Aelryinth
Spellcraft states you must clearly see the spell as it is being cast. SLA states A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally.
Therefore since you cannot spellcraft what you can't see, and you can't see someone thinking something... you cannot spellcraft a SLA.
Repeatedly stating "They are treated like spells in all other respects."
doesn't really MEAN much, when half the people SEE the exceptions that are made. and 'in all OTHER' respects indicates that YES, there are DIFFERNCES.
The OTHER exceptions seem clear to many, and many others disagree... honestly, in this whole thread, I don't remember anyone actually switching sides in this debate. they just argue louder and seem to get more angry.
Much like the thread about whether a paladin has 'CAST' detect evil before he can 'focus' it... Two different interpretations of the rules that seem clear to both sides. Just awaiting a FAQ on it.
interestingly enough... Silent/stilled/ spells do NOT use the word 'mentally' in there anywhere. Therefore there must be SOMETHING going in the act of 'casting' that STILL seperates it from a SLA.
They can cast a spell without XXXXX components. The rules don't say HOW... No words, no movements, no materials... Logically I could say, mental is all that's left, but the rules don't SAY that... There may be a rythmic breathing or flutter of the eyelids or something that gives them away.
(Honestly I think there should have been a rule that STOPS those from being stacked, as they make no sense....)The casting of an arcane spell HAS to come from SOMEWHERE/HOW....
SLAs? not so much, they are just willpower and mental command.
Also this is not a MMO there are no glowing runes in the air as you cast a spell. That is why you NEED another spell called Detect Magic in order to see magic.
Sure you can house rule the glowing runes and such if you want but they are not part of the game as it is writen.
Glowing runes do indeed float in the air when you cast spells in Golarion. A couple recent examples can be seen on the cover of Mythic Adventures. But for more proof, check out the cover of the Core Rulebook (extreme closeup!). That's right; many people in this thread are arguing something doesn't happen that is depicted right on the cover of the core rulebook.
Also, while it might seem like artistic license, James Jacobs has said said these runes showing up are simply a part of Golarion magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Paladin can do both.
1) Use Detect Evil as the spell (and then see the quote)
2) Concentrate on a single target and get info as if he had studied it for 3 rounds with the spell
These are 2 different abilities available to the Paladin under the common heading of Detect Evil
BTW, the Paladin gets Detect Evil so that he does not waste a Smite Evil on the wrong target
+1
I'm not sure why others seem to be missing this. I've always read it this way. Admittedly, the text could be more explicit.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more information you have about the subject of your debate, the more informed your opinion and the more likely your answer is to be sound.
Pathfinder, like it or not, was not a wholly new creation. The PF devs took the 3.5 rules-set, changed some parts they didn't like and thought that they could do better, kept the bits they liked as far as they were allowed (Behold! No Beholders!), and copied and pasted whole sections of the 3.5 rules.
This wasn't perfect. Some rules referenced rules which were changed but were not themselves changed to match. Many rules had their explanations shortened to save space.
But how do we know when a rule has been deliberately changed or removed, and how do we know if some explanatary wording has been removed on the assumption that it must be obvious how this rule works; we don't need to waste space with an explanation nobody needs, right!
Take the rule for reach weapons. I didn't even know it had changed until I read it on these threads! Insanity! However, whatever I (and over 90% of others who voted on a poll on this subject) think, it was established that the change in this rule was deliberate. All we can do is campaign for the re-instatement of that rule and use the 3.5 rule in our own games in the meantime.
Now, about Spellcraft:-
Spellcraft (Int; Trained Only)Use this skill to identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place.
CheckYou can identify spells and magic effects. The DCs for Spellcraft checks relating to various tasks are summarized on the table below.
Spellcraft DC Task
13 When using read magic, identify a glyph of warding. No action required.
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.
15 + spell level Learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll (wizard only). No retry for that spell until you gain at least 1 rank in Spellcraft (even if you find another source to try to learn the spell from). Requires 8 hours.
15 + spell level Prepare a spell from a borrowed spellbook (wizard only). One try per day. No extra time required.
15 + spell level When casting detect magic, determine the school of magic involved in the aura of a single item or creature you can see. (If the aura is not a spell effect, the DC is 15 + one-half caster level.) No action required.
19 When using read magic, identify a symbol. No action required.
20 + spell level Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.
20 + spell level Identify materials created or shaped by magic, such as noting that an iron wall is the result of a wall of iron spell. No action required. No retry.
20 + spell level Decipher a written spell (such as a scroll) without using read magic. One try per day. Requires a full-round action.
25 + spell level After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was. No action required. No retry.
25 Identify a potion. Requires 1 minute. No retry.
20 Draw a diagram to allow dimensional anchor to be cast on a magic circle spell. Requires 10 minutes. No retry. This check is made secretly so you do not know the result.
30 or higher Understand a strange or unique magical effect, such as the effects of a magic stream. Time required varies. No retry.See also: epic usages of Spellcraft.
ActionVaries, as noted above.
Try AgainSee above.
SpecialIf you are a specialist wizard, you get a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks when dealing with a spell or effect from your specialty school. You take a -5 penalty when dealing with a spell or effect from a prohibited school (and some tasks, such as learning a prohibited spell, are just impossible).
If you have the Magical Aptitude feat, you get a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks.
Synergy* If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (arcana), you get a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks.
* If you have 5 or more ranks in Use Magic Device, you get a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks to decipher spells on scrolls.
* If you have 5 or more ranks in Spellcraft, you get a +2 bonus on Use Magic Device checks related to scrolls.Additionally, certain spells allow you to gain information about magic, provided that you make a successful Spellcraft check as detailed in the spell description.
In 3.5 the rules were very clear. No verbal or somatic components to see or hear means you cannot identify a spell as it is being cast.
The PF version of Spellcraft has six entries on its list, the 3.5 version has thirteen! Additionally, the 3.5 version has much more detail in each entry on the list than PF. The 'You must see or hear the spell's verbal or somatic components' is just one of the parts removed.
Somebody wrote the 3.5 Spellcraft skill description. I mean someone actually thought about how Spellcraft works and how that would interact with the game mechanics.
The part that interests us is this:-
15 + spell level Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.)
The person who wrote the 3.5 description of Spellcraft understood how 'identifying a spell as it is cast' must work. He understood that prepared spells (and other types of actual spellcasting) are released into the world by means of a combination of the casters will and verbal, somatic and material/focus components (or the respective meta-magic feats that substitute for them), and each spell has its own 'recipe'. Therefore doing these things (components) gives an observer trained in this matter clues as to what spell is about to be cast. This also means that if these components cannot be observed then there are no clues for the observer.
Understanding this, he wrote, as he logically had to, 'You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.'
But it doesn't have this line in the PF description of Spellcraft. Why?
There are two possible explanations: deliberate design, or cutting down the description to save space.
Let's suppose 'deliberate design' for a moment. For this to be true, Jason (or someone under his control) must have read the 3.5 Spellcraft description of 'identifying a spell as it is cast', seen the line about seeing/hearing somatic/verbal components, and deliberately chose to change it! In order to do that, Jason or his colleague must have visualised spellcasting as involving observable clues which were completely independant of any components whatsoever, and to do that he must have had a clear idea of what these things are!
Does Jason sound like he has a clear idea of what these things are?
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.
And from his Facebook wall:-
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.
This does not sound like someone who has considered the matter before. It certainly doesn't sound like someone who has chosen to change the 3.5 description by removing the 'verbal/somatic components' line, and it doesn't sound like someone who must have had a clear visualisation of spellcasting that has observable non-component phenomena when he can't even think of any good examples of what they might be!
If he had deliberately changed this function of Spellcraft in this fashion then his answers wouldn't have resembled those quotes from him I just mentioned. His answers would be along the lines of, 'Yeah, we deliberately changed spellcasting from 3.5 so that casting magic was obvious even without components, and thats because spellcasting is accompanied by a magical light show. Which doesn't illuminate anything. Or give away your position.'
Given all this, it is simply not credible that the description of Spellcraft was deliberately changed so that spellcasting now includes observable phenomena unconnected to the components.
The alternative explanation, that they shortened the entire description of Spellcraft (observably true) without intending to change the way spells are cast but for reasons of cutting the word count, is a far more credible explanation. The PF writers must have believed that no-one could believe that the lack of this phrase would cause any mix-ups. That went well, didn't it?
On the other matter, it must be noted that, in 3.5, SLAs could not be identified as they were being 'cast', as they have no components to observe, which was absolutely required in 3.5! There was no entry to do so (or not do so) beacause it was impossible!
Console yourself with the truth that PF was written to be backward compatible with 3.5.
I can't find it in my heart to actually blame those players of PF who believe otherwise. After all, they are only referring to the CRB, I can't blame them for that. Even those devs who seek to answer questions on this subject are likely to refer to the CRB before they make a ruling, and the removal of that key phrsae, which probably seemed so harmless at the time, has come back to haunt us.
Spellcraft states you must clearly see the spell as it is being cast. SLA states A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally.
Therefore since you cannot spellcraft what you can't see
This is not deductive logic. You have made a fairly large leap in logic.
In order for your conclusion to be true:
Spellcraft must state that you must clearly the spell as it is being cast.
SLA must state that a spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material components.
A spell must clearly be defined to have no other visual aspect during casting other than its components
You have the first two, but without the third, you are making a leap in logic.
In fact, if you read the entire thread that I have linked previously, you'll note that your argument has been made numerous times before, but nobody has ever found any evidence to back it up. It is a guess and an interpretation, not a conclusive fact.
Also, the analogy I made that explains magic casting as teaching a dog a trick, you'll also see that "clearly see the spell as it is being cast" would be impossible under normal circumstances for a counter-spell unless there was an observable element. It is hard to clearly see a spell during casting when a spell is not in effect until casting is completed. The wordage used here is tricky, so be careful basing your argument off of that particular sentence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In order for your conclusion to be true:
Spellcraft must state that you must clearly the spell as it is being cast.
SLA must state that a spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material components.
A spell must clearly be defined to have no other visual aspect during casting other than its componentsYou have the first two, but without the third, you are making a leap in logic.
In fact, if you read the entire thread that I have linked previously, you'll note that your argument has been made numerous times before, but nobody has ever found any evidence to back it up. It is a guess and an interpretation, not a conclusive fact.
Ahhh but that's the problem really. We don't need the other thread you posted... Everything that needs to be said, was said on the first two pages of this one. Everybody's just talking in circles, saying the same things, quoting the same quotes.
You state, A spell must clearly be defined to have no other visual aspect during casting other than its components
I'm on the other side of the fence. I think if you want to detect something done mentally, A spell must clearly be defined as HAVING another visual aspect during casting other than its components
I think that if the Rules wanted there to be something extra BESIDES the 4 or 5 types of components we have... they would have listed it. This is a VERY rules heavy game.
Inferring things that aren't there seems like a bigger leap of logic. Books rarely mention things that DON'T exist. They wouldn't have written 'This is invisible to the naked eye', what would have been written is 'Even without components touching the weave will cause magical displays that wow the 'common' folk provoking knowledge or spellcraft checks...
I'm leaning more towards Malachi's explaination above. It REALLY looks like a cut/paste error with the editor assuming 'This is a mental act, No components are used' as being enough to imply 'there is nothing you see'.
3.5 stuff
You must be right because of how often you bolded must. Congrats to you, sir, as you figured out how to win arguments on the internets.
I and many other GMs couldn't care less about 3.5. Use your strawman, bolded musts, and selective quoting and bolding of rules designers all you want. I love that you didn't bold this part:
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.
Do you know what the circumstances are? It seems like you've chosen to believe those circumstances are all the time. My guess would be he's talking about situations where being stealthy warrants some leeway on the GM's part, like casting an illusion in a town, or charming somebody. But since I don't see any mention of what circumstances he is talking about, neither of our assumptions makes a lick of difference. In fact, that entire facebook statement sounds like him saying how he'd rule it at his table, aka a house rule. Also, it's not compelling to use someone's off the cuff Facebook posts to figure out how the leading RPG works when you could have forum posts, FAQs, errata, and the rulebooks themselves which are all of ever-increasing importance. No?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inferring things that aren't there seems like a bigger leap of logic.
I never made a conclusive statement. I can't be making a leap in logic when I am consistently not coming to a final logical conclusion. I try very hard to say that I have an interpretation of the rules which is not the only possible outcome, and I respect those who can say the same.
I apologize if I came in rough, but when I see people trying to prove something that is not provable, I always get the urge to show how "facts" are actually "opinion".
I've never tried to say that my way is the only way. I have mostly been saying that my way is one way that actually encompasses all of the rules and posts by the developers with a vivid explanation.
Your way does not take into consideration some of the developer's posts. This is fine, you don't have to. A developer's post is not a RAW statement, particularly a developer's Facebook post.
Also, it's not compelling to use someone's off the cuff Facebook posts to figure out how the leading RPG works when you could have forum posts, FAQs, errata, and the rulebooks themselves which are all of ever-increasing importance.
To be fair, Malachi did not originally bring up those posts, I did. He merely responded to them after they were introduced.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3.5 stuffYou must be right because of how often you bolded must. Congrats to you, sir, as you figured out how to win arguments on the internets.
I and many other GMs couldn't care less about 3.5. Use your strawman, bolded musts, and selective quoting and bolding of rules designers all you want. I love that you didn't bold this part:
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.Do you know what the circumstances are? It seems like you've chosen to believe those circumstances are all the time. My guess would be he's talking about situations where being stealthy warrants some leeway on the GM's part, like casting an illusion in a town, or charming somebody. But since I don't see any mention of what circumstances he is talking about, neither of our assumptions makes a lick of difference. In fact, that entire facebook statement sounds like him saying how he'd rule it at his table, aka a house rule. Also, it's not compelling to use someone's off the cuff Facebook posts to figure out how the leading RPG works when you could have forum posts, FAQs, errata, and the rulebooks themselves which are all of ever-increasing importance. No?
If Jason deliberately changed how casting spells worked so that spellcasting now includes observable phenomena unrelated to the components, how do you explain the answers he gave?
How could he fail to mention what this change was and why? How is it credible that the removal of that phrase was a deliberate change in the rules when the man responsible for any changes to the rules didn't know anything about it?
I'm not too concerned with why he changed the rule. He's the pro, not me. Also, there are several names on the credits for the Core Rulebook. I hesitate to guess which text changes were made by which person and why. I also never played 3.5 and don't care what was in those books. I play Pathfinder and only concern myself with Pathfinder books. If this was solely an exercise on the history of the game, then I might care Jason's deliberateness. But being that this is about practical application of the rules, I'm not going drudging through 3.5 rules to find out the way things were and then make guesses based on nothing but my own hunches as to why rules were changed.
For all I know, Jason selected the missing line of text with the intention of highlighting it, but was suddenly struck by incredible flatulence, causing his hand to twitch and hit the delete key. The flatulence was so immense that he was out of work for a week and by the time he got back, he forgot that text was even missing. Years later, with the traumatic memory of the extreme gassiness burned into his psyche and his mistake pointed out to him, he is simply too embarrassed to fess up to his mistake. It might sound ridiculous, but it fits with what he's said publicly about this issue.
|
No one has really addressed though the question of whether I should be detecting evil on pretty much any and ever NPC I interact with. Is that normal, or am I going overboard? My DM is trying to prevent me from doing it by saying that I have to hold my holy symbol and chant for 10 seconds and it's super rude + obvious to the person I'm doing it on. I disagree...
As a GM, in my game, I mostly deal with this through the assumption that almost everyone is some flavor of Neutral. Urban types tend more to Lawful Neutral. And yes, fully aware of the 4HD limitation as well...
That and while someone may or may not be evil does not necessarily mean that they should immediately be smited/smote/smitten... but it's certainly valid to, well, not trust them as much.
If I were willing to make major changes to the game, I would make all of the easy detects harder. They *can* spoil stories, and they do slow the game down.
"Okay, we advance to the door. While I detects traps, everyone else detect for evil/magic/poison/undead/etc."
Barring that, it should be assumed that this is default behavior, cause it damn well seems to be, and modules and adventure paths should include this information all throughout the product. It gets really old having to go figure out what level of detect magic & school is for everything.
Oh my god this thread got long. Can someone summarize this for me? What is the consensus here - can you detect evil on the innkeeper without him knowing, or not?
Depends on who you ask lol.
Some people think that casting any spell or spell like ability creates effects like glowing runes in the air and such as you cast the spell. This is mainly due to art work for the game. This art work could just as well be showing the spell going off after it has been cast. There is nothing in the rules though that states such effects take place UNLESS it says so specifically in the description of a spell. (think there are a couple that have wierd visual effects). As such these people belive that using a spell like ability is obvious.
The other camp which I will admit I am one of them is that spell like abilities are purly mental actions and there is no visual effect (unless the spell it is imitating has one such as light). Part of the reason being is that you can use a spell like ability even when paralyzed which allows for only mental actions. Because of this and the fact that a spell like ability has no verbal, somatic or material components then there is nothing to see.
Spellcraft only allows you to identify a spell that you can "clearly see being cast". As a spell like ability is purely mental in action you cannot see it being cast. You can however use Knowledge Arcana in conjunction with an ability to see magic such as detect magic to identify any ongoing effect that was from a spell like ability.
Other things to consider is that if a spell allows a saving throw then the target will know that a spell just targeted them. But once again that is after the spell has already been cast. Detect evil has no saving through so the person you are using it on doesnt know about it on that front also.
There is another explanation, and that's that spellcraft was made equal to Psicraft.
Psicraft of course, is the psionic version of spellcrafting. Guess what? Psionic people used to moan and complain that psionics didn't have any casting components, so there was no way anyone could possibly identify what a psion was doing.
That got scrapped fast for purposes of equality.They promptly noted that every use of psionic power came with some sort of sensory manipulation so that, yes, it was obvious you were using psionics.
The RAW is quite clear. V, S, and M have nothing to do with it. There is no 'this doesn't include SLA's because there's no spellcasting'...because using SLA's is treated like using spells.
As has been noted multiple times, it's easy to make a spell with no components, meaning it's identical to an SLA in ALL WAYS. Guess what? It can still be ID'd.
Therefore, by RAW, you can ID any spell, and by extension, any SLA, regardless of the V, S and M status...spellcraft doesn't need to see them. Even simpler, you can see anyone using magic, and they can't hide the fact without a feat or using Stealth to stay unobserved.
That's the RAW. Now, JJ may not have had a hand in it, but guess what? It's totally fair, and it's totally simple. It makes it very hard to hide spellcasting. It makes it much more similar to video games, where using magic has splashes of light and sound that are not components...they are the side effects of casting. And if there's no line in fireball saying that gathering flames flicker and congeal before arcing out to explode in a ball of fire', well, then, you've got poetic license to make up some other explanation.
To conceal a drawn blade you need Sleight of Hand. To conceal spellcasting you need a feat, or you must remain concealed. That's totally equal, totally cool, it's the rules, and why the big complaint about it?
==Aelryinth
|
|
One complaint is that the unheralded change (if such it is) removing the line about being required to seed/hear verbal/somatic components, which clearly showed that Spellcraft could not identify an SLA as it was being initiated in previous editions of the game, allows some to imagine that an SLA is identical to a cast, componentless spell.
This has never been true in any edition of the game!
Can someone point me to which post we're FAQing?
And jeez, we don't need so many novels, folks :p
Or it has been almost identical, and was made unidentical for 3E?
Seriously, SLA's are already noted as not able to be counterspelled. So all ID'ing it does now is let you know how badly you are going to get hammered. If you want to counterspell, you're going to have to spend a dispel anyways.
Invoking prior editions doesn't mean a lot here, or the fighter would be far more uber then he is. The rules we have are what we have, and they are fair and balanced. I just don't see a problem with it.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can someone point me to which post we're FAQing?
And jeez, we don't need so many novels, folks :p
Good to see you, Cheapy!
In your informed opinion, have spell-like abilities ever been simply componentless spells?
Has the Spellcraft skill ever allowed the user to identify a spell-like ability as it is activated?
Have SLAs ever been 'cast' in exactly the same way as spells are 'cast', just without components?
What is your take on the lack of the line in the PF version in Spellcraft that was present in the 3.5 description, requiring the observation of the verbal or somatic components of a spell in order for Spellcraft to be able to identify a spell as it is cast; cut for space, or a deliberate change to the way spellcasting is visualised?
FAQ this, if you like. : )
Oh my god this thread got long. Can someone summarize this for me? What is the consensus here - can you detect evil on the innkeeper without him knowing, or not?
You could always just read mine and presume I'm completely correct forever on everything and go with that.
But, you know, Banecrow actually did a good job of summarizing.
(In short, there is no consensus.)
One thing I'd point out about rune-art and JJ's posts is that, if they are correct, they apply specifically to Golarion. In the same way that CORE clerics don't need a deity, but Golarion clerics do, there are elements of the PF game that - even when presented in art or snippets of flavor/story text in the Core books - are not, strictly speaking, part of the Core Rules.
|
|
Seriously, SLA's are already noted as not able to be counterspelled. So all ID'ing it does now is let you know how badly you are going to get hammered. If you want to counterspell, you're going to have to spend a dispel anyways.
On a side note, dispel magic is able to dispel the effects of an SLA as easily is it can dispel the effects of a spell, but it may not be used to counterspell an SLA.
Just because dispel magic may be used as a counterspell, this does not allow it to counterspell something which cannot be counterspelled!
The fact that you can counterspell using detect magic without needing to use Spellcraft to identify the spell being cast does not take away the SLAs inability to be counterspelled.
|
I've been doing some looking and came across a few things that have changed my opinions on the original questions.
Can a paladin secretly Detect Evil on his target?
RAW, No. Using Detect Evil, a spell-like ability, draws an attack of opportunity in combat. Meaning it is obvious enough in combat that you're putting your guard down, then it's obvious out of combat that you're using magic.
Can a paladin secretly Smite Evil on his target?
RAW; Yes, but then it's a surprise round and roll for initiative.
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.
Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a def lection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.
The smite evil effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the paladin rests and regains her uses of this ability. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on Table 3–11, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal.
Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability’s effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. See Table 16–1 for a
summary of the types of special abilities.
Standard Actions and AOO's
Use spell-like ability Yes
Use supernatural ability No
Remember that unless they are an evil cleric, antipaladin ór evil outsider, they don't register with an evil aura until they have at least 5HD.
I've been doing some looking and came across a few things that have changed my opinions on the original questions.
Can a paladin secretly Detect Evil on his target?
RAW, No. Using Detect Evil, a spell-like ability, draws an attack of opportunity in combat. Meaning it is obvious enough in combat that you're putting your guard down, then it's obvious out of combat that you're using magic.
I would say the best you can determine... is that out of combat, it's obvious that your putting your guard down.
Which if you ARE out of combat... is basically surprise round anyway.
I guess I just don't come to the same conclusions you do. Surprise rounds and flatfootedness are such an odd concept in this game anyway, that I'd hate to use one to justify interpretations of other things.
Just as another aside, much is made of the caster looking at the target and staring at them etc. Talking is a free action and there is no reason that you cant be looking at the person and saying:
"Hi, I don't believe we've met, I'm Sir Bob...you are"? as he extends his hand.
Move action, free action, standard action.
A whole bunch of things are possible - and with no VSM to conflict, no mumbo jumbo and no obvious spell effects well seems pretty discrete.