Can you notice a spell with no components?


Rules Questions

51 to 72 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Quandary wrote:

Look at the art for spellcasters, such as from Wayne Reynolds.

There's often a 'floating circle of glyphs' around spellcasters.
That isn't corresponding to any 'component' of any sort.
Such 'floating mystical glyphs' are exactly what Spellcraft can be identifying, independent of components.
That is also why Spellcraft requires SEEING, because the glyphs must be visually perceived.

But that is not a rule.

It's a damned good explanation for a strict interpretation of the rules, but even then it has shortcomings. It's my ruling, as a GM, and the ruling my GMs have chosen, but it isn't actually RAW, it's an explanation of nonsensical RAW.

It does make sense with the "see" restriction in spellcraft though, doesn't it?

Ideally, the rules would spell this out in an unambiguous, easy-to-use way. But Pathfinder has a lot of copypasta, that's not really the developers' fault. We all knew we were buying into a copy-and-paste job from 3.5, right?

We find these things. We point them out. They make errata of them. It's not such a big deal.

Until we get that closure, ask your GM first. it's really very hard to go wrong with that as a policy.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Howie23 wrote:
Such glyphs, while nice for visualization and/or justification, are artistic interpretation and have nothing to do with the rules.

Nonsense! Next you'll be telling us that tattoos aren't mandatory for sorceresses, that rangers can use bows instead of crossbows, and that monks and magi are proficient in shirt buttons!

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
The lead designer wrote:
I should also note that ... a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.
Morphling wrote:
A spell which cannot be seen, by RAW, cannot be spellcrafted.

Notice that he never, ever, mentions spells without visual effects, ever. He does not contradict me and I do not contradict him. Read what I type, not what you'd like to think I typed.

He's referring to components, an issue upon which he and I are in agreement.

I'll put this in bold so people stop forgetting I've said it over and over (and over).

Whether or not a spell has components has no impact whatsoever on whether you can spellcraft it. You can always, always, always spellcraft a spell you can see, even if it is still and silent.

HOWEVER.

You cannot spellcraft a spell you cannot see. The Spellcraft skill states this.

The only thing in debate here is that some people think all spells make your eyeballs glow purple, which is never stated anywhere. I remind you that promotional illustrations are not considered part of the core rules, nor should they be examined by art majors to determine Rules As Drawn By Artists Who Don't Necessarily Even Play This Game.

The facts as I see them:
1. You can't spellcraft a spell you can't see.
2. You can't see a paladin's detect evil.
3. You can't spellcraft a paladin's detect evil.

I understand some of you disagree with #2 (I doubt most disagree with #1, as it's not a gray area - it's stated explicitly in Spellcraft). THAT, not a disagreement about components, is the reason we disagree here.

A fireball can always be spellcrafted.

A spell with a somatic component can always be spellcrafted.

But a spell with no observable effect and no observable components cannot be seen and thus cannot be spellcrafted.

Some posters just think there's no spells in the above category - they decide that, in their games, every spell is given an observable effect.

(For the record, I want to ensure readers that this post is me being emphatic rather than incensed. I am enjoying this debate, and don't intend for this post to seem hostile or aggressive. It's so hard to communicate these nuances in a text-based medium, isn't it? :) I simply wish to clarify my position on an issue where I've been misquoted and my opinion misrepresented. The lead designer and I are in agreement on this issue, at least as far as his quoted comments are concerned.)

Liberty's Edge

Howie23 wrote:
I think part of the problem in this thread is that people have different opinions on whether developer posts to clarify rules are RAW.

What do the people who wrote the rules know about the rules anyway...


i'm well aware that 'glyphs' are not hard-coded as THE rules.
the rules don't get into alot of specific details, just like other things the details fall under 'fluff',
but the rules DO give information that we need to know, re: seeing requirement, etc, and that doesn't need errata.
i find it worthwhile to discuss glyphs, while specifically acknowledging the RAW, because anybody playing this game
will want SOME visualization for what the mechanics are dictating, and glyphs are a perfectly feasible explanation/visualization.
but i'm not going to judge you if you prefer phantasmal frogs giving an interpretive dance of each spell.


The Morphling wrote:

You cannot spellcraft a spell you cannot see. The Spellcraft skill states this.

The only thing in debate here is that some people think all spells make your eyeballs glow purple, which is never stated anywhere. I remind you that promotional illustrations are not considered part of the core rules, nor should they be examined by art majors to determine Rules As Drawn By Artists Who Don't Necessarily Even Play This Game.

The facts as I see them:
1. You can't spellcraft a spell you can't see.
2. You can't see a paladin's detect evil.
3. You can't spellcraft a paladin's detect evil.

I understand some of you disagree with #2 (I doubt most disagree with #1, as it's not a gray area - it's stated explicitly in Spellcraft). THAT, not a disagreement about components, is the reason we disagree here.

A fireball can always be spellcrafted.

A spell with a somatic component can always be spellcrafted.

Some posters just think there's no spells in the above category - they decide that, in their games, every spell is given an observable effect.[/b].

I hear you loud and clear.

There's a bit more to clear up, I'm afraid.

There's a difference between "seeing the spell" and "seeing the spell being cast." It's a grammatical ambiguity we cannot solve on our own. There is not presently an answer, although Jason B's comments imply that he favors the latter, I won't count that here.

If it's seeing the spell, then Morphling's list above makes a lot of sense.

If it's seeing the casting, then you could, indeed, see a paladin casting detect evil, even if you cannot see the spell effects. By and large, the spellcraft rules actually refer to the casting of a spell and not the spell effect itself, even if only implicitly.

This is a good moment for everyone to realize that this is really complicated and obscure, and nobody has the right to berate anyone for their interpretation. It is not clear-cut.

For what it's worth, Morphling's interpretation is slightly more intuitive, and I'd probably expect that to be how it worked if I hadn't over-parsed the RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Howie23 wrote:
I think part of the problem in this thread is that people have different opinions on whether developer posts to clarify rules are RAW.
What do the people who wrote the rules know about the rules anyway...

This is really my complaint.

Jason's statement does not focus on components. His additional statement indicates that regardless of components (i.e., whether components are involved or not), you are allowed the check.

It's true that he never mentions spells without explicit visible effects. I don't agree that his meaning, then, is "This applies regardless of components to spells that have visible effects." I believe the simpler implication is that the RAW and its intent states that if you can see the caster (spell), then you get the check - visible spell effects or not.

Assuming that his statement ignores spells without visible effects (and therefore indicates that you don't get the check against those spells) requires a lot of reading-into his statement of things that are never mentioned.


I'd also like to add: if the intent of the game's design is that visible phenomena are a balancing factor in the use of magic, that's the kind of thing that should be writ large on page one of the magic section. Wherever the chips fall, this is the kind of thing that should be spelled out in a future product, be it a revised edition or simply an erratum.

I often push for "New Edition with only presentation, no rules changes." This is EXACTLY the kind of thing to which I refer.


The Morphling wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
The lead designer wrote:
I should also note that ... a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.
Morphling wrote:
A spell which cannot be seen, by RAW, cannot be spellcrafted.

Notice that he never, ever, mentions spells without visual effects, ever. He does not contradict me and I do not contradict him. Read what I type, not what you'd like to think I typed.

You cannot spellcraft a spell you cannot see. The Spellcraft skill states this.

The only thing in debate here is that some people think all spells make your eyeballs glow purple, which is never stated anywhere. I remind you that promotional illustrations are not considered part of the core rules, nor should they be examined by art majors to determine Rules As Drawn By Artists Who Don't Necessarily Even Play This Game.

But a spell with no observable effect and no observable components cannot be seen and thus cannot be spellcrafted.

In addition to what Xaratherus wrote... A spells' effect should not be mixed up with it's casting. A spell's effect does not exist until AFTER casting has been completed, and Spellcraft is occuring BEFORE that happens, in order for Counterspelling to occur BEFORE the spell effect is instantiated. So whether or not a spell's effect is observable or not is irrelevant. ID'ing a spell with visually distinguishable effect is done AFTER casting via the Know: Arcane skill, but Spellcraft ID'ing during casting is a distinct usage from that, and applies independent of the spell effect and components.

That leaves the casting process itself, which per Mr. Bulmahn does not depend on components at all. The caster can be paralyzed and casting SLAs/Still-Silent-Eschewed spells thru "pure mental action" and you can ID them. This is not about seeing the CASTER themself, they can be Invisible and that shouldn't stop one from using Spellcraft because that does not depend on seeing the CASTER themself.

These glyphs (which are not glowing, they do not provide any light to help one see them, you depend on a normal Perception check with valid visual conditions) are not modifications or decorations of the caster themself, what you need to see is a separate 'object' from the caster, it is simply the manifestation-in-progress/casting of the spell AS SUCH.


Everyone stop pretending there is a clear answer here.

Even if one of you is 100% correct somehow (and I don't see how that can be, given the information available), you should be able to see how your opponent would be confused. It's a mess.

RESPECT, friends.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Everyone stop pretending there is a clear answer here.

Even if one of you is 100% correct somehow (and I don't see how that can be, given the information available), you should be able to see how your opponent would be confused. It's a mess.

RESPECT, friends.

The lead designer of the game has chimed in on the matter, and as far as I'm concerned, you cannot get any more clear than that. *shrugs*

I disagree that we should read into his statement something that isn't implied to any extent - i.e., spells whose descriptions don't list any visible effects - because to me it breaks the 'common sense' rule through which the designers have stated the rules should be read. The intent is that if you can see the spell(caster), you can make the check, and I think RAW reflects that sufficiently.

As to respect - I apologize if I came across as less than courteous. As to 'respectful'... well, I have an odd personal belief that respect is earned, not given by default; I agree that people should be treated with courtesy, but 'respect' is a different matter.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

The Morphling wrote:
Read what I type, not what you'd like to think I typed.

Couldn't help chuckling at this, given it's part of a lengthy "response" to a post in which I wrote nothing at all. Haha, "what you'd like to think I typed" indeed! ;)

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
This is not about seeing the CASTER themself, they can be Invisible and that shouldn't stop one from using Spellcraft

You're saying that you can roll spellcraft to identify a componentless, silent spell cast by an invisible creature which produces no observable effect?

Welp.

Jiggy wrote:
The Morphling wrote:
Read what I type, not what you'd like to think I typed.
Couldn't help chuckling at this, given it's part of a lengthy "response" to a post in which I wrote nothing at all. Haha, "what you'd like to think I typed" indeed! ;)

That was directed at a lot of people in this thread, your post was just one of several quoting me.


The Morphling wrote:
Quandary wrote:
This is not about seeing the CASTER themself, they can be Invisible and that shouldn't stop one from using Spellcraft

You're saying that you can roll spellcraft to identify a componentless, silent spell cast by an invisible creature which produces no observable effect?

Welp.

Just to note, I disagree with this. :P


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Rerednaw wrote:

Actually this goes back to my head scratching whenever a bard casts a series of spells to improve his social skills, in front of the people he's trying to influence. Especially if the other group is unfriendly...and they see a stranger start to cast...

I prefer that some spells would work without penalties in this situation...I just don't see how they would since there does not appear to be a way to make the spells subtle (like the 3.5 feat). Or is there a way?

Yes... there's a very easy one. DON'T CAST YOUR SPELLS IN VIEW OF OTHERS, as long as they are buff type spells that are self targeted.

Um no actually it isn't.

The Perception DC to hear conversation is 0 before distance penalties. You'd have to be a long way off to get a spell off without someone hearing it. If you do cast that far off, by the time you have an encounter the buff has long since worn off.

Frequently you don't know when you will need it UNTIL you run into another group. Hence the quandry.


We're talking about a few extra things that are off-the-map with regards to Jason's comments.

His comments help with the intent, but they are far from settling these issues outright.

Liberty's Edge

ciretose wrote:
Howie23 wrote:
I think part of the problem in this thread is that people have different opinions on whether developer posts to clarify rules are RAW.
What do the people who wrote the rules know about the rules anyway...

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

Edited to remove an unnecessary statement.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

We're talking about a few extra things that are off-the-map with regards to Jason's comments.

His comments help with the intent, but they are far from settling these issues outright.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but what I'm saying is that they do settle the issue. I take Jason's statement to mean, "RAW states\implies that if you can see the caster, you can make the check." That's for all spells - even for ones whose descriptions include no visible effects.

In order for his statements to not settle the matter, you have to read into it a statement of, "...but this doesn't apply to spells without visible effects."

But I am beating the horse, and I think my opinion's clear, so I don't know that there's a reason to restate it any further at this point.


Fair enough.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh it's back! This conversation has happened at least five times already with the EXACT same points being made!

I'm not sure I need to link all of the relevant posts again like I usually do since I see some have been on the ball and already done so.

I swear this argument is like my warm fuzzy home.

The Morphling wrote:
You're saying that you can roll spellcraft to identify a componentless, silent spell cast by an invisible creature which produces no observable effect?

Yes I am saying precisely this!

Can you counter-spell? No, but not for reasons you're probably thinking. You need to pinpoint an invisible creature before you can ready an action against him. He still has the upper hand due to his invisibility.

It seems you are quite convinced of what the words "see the spell" mean. I usually think of them as seeing a spell, but you are very confident that it means seeing their components or effects. One of these being dismissed by Jason Bulhman and the other required the spell to have already completed casting before it exists therefore rendering counter-spelling impossible by it's own definition.

This is a perspective and an interpretation, but FAR from a fact. None of us will ever have even any remote amount of proof about this one way or the other until it is verified in a FAQ or official ruling.

So, like usual, I am requesting that people stop saying that they have the RAW answer as definitive. You do not. Neither do I. Your interpretation is a house-rule as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition Subscriber

I generally have houseruled (definitely not RAW but works for our group) for each missing component the spellcraft to notice/identify increases by +5 to the DC. Which isn't counting the perception required if the caster is further away and whatnot (meaning they might recognize the spell and its effects, but not where it came from depending on circumstances).


My interpretation is that if you have LOS to a paladin, you get a roll to tell if he is Detecting for evil. If he is behind a curtain, you do not because you can not see him even if you are in the area effect of his detect evil.

51 to 72 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you notice a spell with no components? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.