Still spell is now utterly useless?

[DM_Blake]

Shadowlords wrote:

But the pure visual aspect of a spell while being cast is not mentioned as a thing anywhere except the line "you must see the spell to ID it"

That's it. Right there. That's the key.

Think about it.

If there are any spells that cannot be seen during the casting, then you cannot use those spells as counterspells.

For example, if you were to say that Charm Person has no visual detail so it can never bee seen while casting, then you are also saying that you cannot use Charm Person as a counterspell to stop another caster from casting Charm Person.

But the Counterspell rules explicitly state that you can use ANY spell as a counterspell. Which means you CAN use Charm Person to counter another Charm Person. Doing so REQUIRES you to identify that other guy's Charm Person while he's casting it, therefore you CAN identify it, visually because it says you must see it to identify it, therefore you CAN see Charm Person while the guy is casting it.

And the same is true for EVERY spell. You can see them all while they're being cast.

[Ravingdork]

Sounds like a catch-22 to me. You can counterspell any spell, but you must successfully identify it with Spellcraft first. Spellcraft requires you to see the spell. There are no rules and little to no evidence that a spell is observable during the act of spellcasting. So how do you counterspell any spell?

So yes, the rules are incomplete, contradictory, and unclear.

That's why I'm starting a dedicated FAQ thread.

I strongly encourage any who seek answers on this matter to FAQ it.

[Shadowlords]

Counterspell saying you can use any spell as a counterspell
and Spell craft saying you must be able to see the spell to ID it

does not equal the phrase "the act of casting a spell generates a visual effect that you can use to ID it before the spell finishes"

we all can infer that from those statements but it does not make it RAW. that is my only point.

[DM_Blake]

Shadowlords wrote:

Counterspell saying you can use any spell as a counterspell

and Spell craft saying you must be able to see the spell to ID it

does not equal the phrase "the act of casting a spell generates a visual effect that you can use to ID it before the spell finishes"

we all can infer that from those statements but it does not make it RAW. that is my only point.

Except that any OTHER conclusion leads to some spells that cannot be seen, which completely contradicts the RAW. Or it assumes the "see the spell" phrase really meant "see the guy as he casts the spell" which is RAI at best AND fails the logic test of also requiring spellcasting feats like Still Spell to do things that are not stipulated in their specific rules.

So, when one conclusion satisfies every word of the RAW while other conclusions violate some part of the RAW or require non-existent rules to be viable, then the one conclusion is the only viable conclusion - all others are house rules.

Although I might not say "generates a visual effect" as much as I would simply say "is visible" and leave it at that. Semantics, but without the implication that something is being added ("generated").

[Matthew Morris]

Shadowlords wrote:

you said it "you must see the spell being cast" RAW

where in the rules does it say spells generate a visual effect during their casting. please tell me, cite that rule for me.

It's ok, I specifically said "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. "

Its from this little thing call the PRD? Maybe you've heard of it? I mean you do keep adding and subtracting things from it and calling that RAW, so maybe you haven't. If so, then I suggest you take the time to read it.

Let's parse these words.
"Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action"
Pretty clear there. No standard/move/swift/intermediate/free action required.
"but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast"
(please note the full phrase) Now if I read it right, that's passive voice. Good rule of thumb, if 'by zombies' can be put on a sentence, it's passive voice. A phrase 'by the caster' would have helped. Now from a straight line viewpoint, the phrase seems to lead that you *can* see the spell as it is being cast. Especially since it doesn't have the 'spells with visual components' line you accidentally inserted there.

If you had to rely on the VSM for the spell, then psychic magic couldn't be detected with spellcraft. If that was the case then the phrenic ability of the psychic wouldn't specifically call out raising the DC of spelcraft. Another point that if you see the caster casting (see the first line I quoted?) you can see the spell.

How? Hmm, maybe because the SRD and PRD don't waste time on minutae of how magic looks? Just like the PHB listed the Greyhawk deities and didn't get into the details of the churches, and the CRB does the same for the Inner Sea deities. As a non setting specific core rule book, it simply codifies it can be done. Whether it be Wayne Reynolds' style runes, Harry Dresden stle glowing implements, or Dragonball Z style power gathering is left for the GM to define.

[Shadowlords]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Shadowlords wrote:

you said it "you must see the spell being cast" RAW

where in the rules does it say spells generate a visual effect during their casting. please tell me, cite that rule for me.

It's ok, I specifically said "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. "

Its from this little thing call the PRD? Maybe you've heard of it? I mean you do keep adding and subtracting things from it and calling that RAW, so maybe you haven't. If so, then I suggest you take the time to read it.

Let's parse these words.
"Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action"
Pretty clear there. No standard/move/swift/intermediate/free action required.
"but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast"
(please note the full phrase) Now if I read it right, that's passive voice. Good rule of thumb, if 'by zombies' can be put on a sentence, it's passive voice. A phrase 'by the caster' would have helped. Now from a straight line viewpoint, the phrase seems to lead that you *can* see the spell as it is being cast. Especially since it doesn't have the 'spells with visual components' line you accidentally inserted there.

If you had to rely on the VSM for the spell, then psychic magic couldn't be detected with spellcraft. If that was the case then the phrenic ability of the psychic wouldn't specifically call out raising the DC of spelcraft. Another point that if you see the caster casting (see the first line I quoted?) you can see the spell.

How? Hmm, maybe because the SRD and PRD don't waste time on minutae of how magic looks? Just like the PHB listed the Greyhawk deities and didn't get into the details of the churches, and the CRB does the same for the Inner Sea deities. As a non setting specific core rule book, it simply codifies it can be done. Whether it be...

I did not add the word visual component to my phrase. I am in no way talking about the V, S, or M components of the spell.

To see the spell the spell must generate something that we can perceive with our eyes during the casting of it. this is not the V, S, or M components a spell needs to be cast, but this is some effect from the spell itself.

But there is nothing in the rules saying spells generate an effect that we can see.

Ravingdork putting it best

Quote:

Sounds like a catch-22 to me. You can counterspell any spell, but you must successfully identify it with Spellcraft first. Spellcraft requires you to see the spell. There are no rules and little to no evidence that a spell is observable during the act of spellcasting. So how do you counterspell any spell?

So yes, the rules are incomplete, contradictory, and unclear.

[Matthew Morris]

Shadowlords wrote:

I did not add the word visual component to my phrase. I am in no way talking about the V, S, or M components of the spell.

Funny...

Shadowlords wrote:

By RAW counterspell and spellcraft ID does not work except on spells that specifically say they generate some visual effect before the spell goes off

So I did misspeak, saying component vs effect. Still doesn't change RAW

[DM_Blake]

Shadowlords wrote:

To see the spell the spell must generate something that we can perceive with our eyes during the casting of it. this is not the V, S, or M components a spell needs to be cast, but this is some effect from the spell itself.

But there is nothing in the rules saying spells generate an effect that we can see.

Ravingdork putting it best

Ravingdork wrote:

Sounds like a catch-22 to me. You can counterspell any spell, but you must successfully identify it with Spellcraft first. Spellcraft requires you to see the spell. There are no rules and little to no evidence that a spell is observable during the act of spellcasting. So how do you counterspell any spell?

So yes, the rules are incomplete, contradictory, and unclear.

If that's true, then it's impossible to counterspell. Ever.

Yet they wrote the rules.

Probably because we're meant to use counterspells.

I'll grant that it's unclear. But not incomplete or contradictory - I've already pointed out the exact way it works by RAW. With no fluff, no houserules, no assumptions about effects.

[Quandary]

Everybody arguing nonsense in this thread is just wasting their time and being a pain in the ass for Paizo Design Team.
They have already posted to this thread, stating they can issue new FAQ re-stating what they've prev. said and clarifying other issues.
Links have been posted to prev. statements saying there is a (visually) noticeable element to spellcasting, independent of components.
(and tying that to Spellcraft check)
So I don't see what the point is in arguing otherwise, or arguing anything at all.
If you don't think that is clear from current RAW outside of Paizo's statement, then the FAQ will clear it up.
If you think there is an implementation detail for Paizo's stated functionality that could be cleared up, post it.
Otherwise, you're not doing anything productive and are just forcing Paizo to wade thru more crap looking for those other issues so they can make the best FAQ possible.

[Crimeo]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Shadowlords wrote:

By RAW counterspell and spellcraft ID does not work except on spells that specifically say they generate some visual effect before the spell goes off

Can you cite that rule? Spellcraft says "Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors. "

Nothing about 'visual effect before the spell goes off' In fact psychic magic clearly shows this isn't the case, or psychics couldn't boost the DC to identify the spell.

Uh because you can't see things that don't exist. Are you seriously suggesting that the Perception rules need to explicitly spell out "You can't see non-existent things" for you to consider this RAW?

Perception of something that doesn't exist is obviously a (DC Infinity) perception check. So the "same penalties as perception" add +infinity DC to the spellcraft for a spell that has nothing to see.

Quote:

Who cares? The rulebook doesn't say WHAT we're seeing. It simply says we're seeing the spell.

No, it says you MUST see the spell. =/= "You will see the spell."

To get a driver's license, I MUST pass my driving test. That doesn't mean I guaranteed will.

Quote:

Counterspell says we can use any spell as a counterspell. ANY spell. So we can use Charm Person to counter a Charm Person.

This doesn't imply anything about spellcraft, because the caster could just tell me "I'm about to cast charm person." At which point I don't need a spellcraft check at all since it's already been identified, and I can counter it with charm person.

This satisfies the requirement that "you can use charm person to counter things" while still not requiring charm person to ever necessarily be identifiable with spellcraft.

Same goes for taking the feat "improved counterspell" and then using charm person to counter some other enchantment spell that does have visual effects. Also meets the criteria: charm person was indeed just used to counterspell (it just wasn't used to counterspell charm person). So this still also doesn't imply charm person need ever be identifiable with spellcraft.

You're assuming and inferring things, and then claiming they are written. This is not written, it's only implied in the context of a lack of imagination about other ways to satisfy the requirements.

Quote:

If there are any spells that cannot be seen during the casting, then you cannot use those spells as counterspells.

So yes, you can. Even if they cannot ever be seen. Via several methods.

[Matthew Morris]

Crimeo,

Are you seriously suggesting that no one casts spells?

Do I need to point out again that you can spellcraft psychic spells?

[Crimeo]

Quote:

Are you seriously suggesting that no one casts spells?

Uh yes people cast spells all the time. How is this relevant to the argument?

The thing that doesn't exist (unless you're told otherwise) is the visible manifestation of the spell. I'm not saying SPELLS don't exist.

Quote:

Do I need to point out again that you can spellcraft psychic spells?

Is there a single psychic spell in the game that clearly mentions a visible manifestation of the magic in its description? If so, this is immaterial.

Edit: Yup: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/m/my-light "Your eyes emit a 20 foot cone of light" Sorry.

[Matthew Morris]

Good, since you concede that people cast spells, I direct you to the description of spellcraft, RAW. "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. "

My light, emits light after the spell is cast I can see the caster, as he is casting the spell, I can spell craft it.

Edit, I also advise you to check the cunning caster feat from Heroes of the Streets. If you didn't need to hide a spell, then why does the feat exist?

[Crimeo]

Quote:

My light, emits light after the spell is cast I can see the caster

Where is it written that light only begins to be emitted after the casting action, and not that it begins to be emitted during the casting action?

Quote:

Edit, I also advise you to check the cunning caster feat from Heroes of the Streets.

I can't seem to find this feat in google?

[Rednal]

Individual spells are not described that way, so that's kind of an odd question to ask. However,

Quote:

You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.

So there's that.

[Crimeo]

Rednal wrote:

Individual spells are not described that way, so that's kind of an odd question to ask. However,

Quote:

You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.

So there's that.

Okay so the cone starts growing during casting, but in no particular direction / just whatever way I happened to be facing, and then I guide it and reorient it to the correct location right around the time it gets to the point of being big enough to hurt people at the end point of casting. Imagine like a little Tai Chi move at the end as you direct it when you're ready, and it speeds up and fills the whole space quickly. *Shrug*

Obviously not specified, but possible.

[Rednal]

Specifically as written... no, probably not.

Acceptable in any game I'd run? Absolutely. XD I'm extremely flexible when it comes to flavor as long as no mechanics are changed, especially when it helps players have more fun.

[DM_Blake]

Really, Crimeo, you're so eager to "win" this discussions that that's your argument: I can use my Charm Person to counterspell your Charm Person but only when you told me you're casting Charm Person, otherwise I can't.

You read the rule that says "Any spell can be used as a Counterspell" and you somehow twist that simple rule into that weird interpretation, just to rationalize having Charm Person (etc.) be invisible during casting because they're invisible after casting?

I've seen people contort their logic though lots of hoops over the years, but this one is a doozy.

I suggest going with my tongue-in-cheek idea that the visible effects time warp from the future; it made at least the same amount of sense and didn't require twisting any printed rules.

[Matthew Morris]

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

My light, emits light after the spell is cast I can see the caster

Where is it written that light only begins to be emitted after the casting action, and not that it begins to be emitted during the casting action?

Quote:

Edit, I also advise you to check the cunning caster feat from Heroes of the Streets.

I can't seem to find this feat in google?

Likewise, where is it written that light only begins to be emitted during the casting action. Hint: It doesn't.

Important part of the text of the feat from Heroes of the streets.
When casting a spell, you can attempt a Bluff check (opposed by observers’ Perception checks) to conceal your actions from onlookers.

This means... you can't normally. OH, and it adds penalties to the bluff check from verbal, somatic, material components and If the spell produces an obvious effect (such as a summoned creature or visible spell
effect).

[Cao Phen]

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

Are you seriously suggesting that no one casts spells?

Uh yes people cast spells all the time. How is this relevant to the argument?

The thing that doesn't exist (unless you're told otherwise) is the visible manifestation of the spell. I'm not saying SPELLS don't exist.

Quote:

Do I need to point out again that you can spellcraft psychic spells?

Is there a single psychic spell in the game that clearly mentions a visible manifestation of the magic in its description? If so, this is immaterial.

Edit: Yup: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/m/my-light "Your eyes emit a 20 foot cone of light" Sorry.

My Light, though "looks" like it is from a Paizo source called Psionics Unleashed, is actually a third-party spell from a third-party book by Dreamscarred Press.

The Paizo hardcover book is called Occult Adventures.

Just remember that d20pfsrd mixes in third-party stuff in their searches.

[Matthew Morris]

Good catch Cao Phen. Thank you

[JosueV]

I have a question that I'd like to pose to both sides of the debate:

What if my character, who specializes in counterspells, has a permanent Arcane Sight spell, (or is a Drow with said racial feats)?

Can I then see a Silent/Stilled spell with my readied action?

Not to derail things completely, I was just curious if this might make it so playing within either interpretation of the rules would still allow one to make a niche character: the counterspelling master!

^_^

[DM_Blake]

Since you asked both "sides", from my reading of the RAW, a human with normal eyes and NO Arcane Sight spell (or anything like it) can see magic as it's being cast. Because RAW.

Having Arcane Sight or Drow racial feats (I assume you mean Drow Nobility?) has nothing to do with being able to see a spell being cast. Ranks in Spellcraft have everything to do with being able to identify the spell while it is being cast, but everybody can see it, assuming they're able (not blind, not in darkness, not in thick fog, not too far away, etc.).

[the secret fire]

I just want to bask in the afterglow of what has been a hot, sweaty, and very RAW debate. Mmmmm...so RAW.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

JosueV wrote:

I have a question that I'd like to pose to both sides of the debate:

What if my character, who specializes in counterspells, has a permanent Arcane Sight spell, (or is a Drow with said racial feats)?

Can I then see a Silent/Stilled spell with my readied action?

Not to derail things completely, I was just curious if this might make it so playing within either interpretation of the rules would still allow one to make a niche character: the counterspelling master!

^_^

I'd totally say that you're fine then, as you see the magical energies as they come into being... HOUSERULES RULE!

[Crimeo]

Quote:

Really, Crimeo, you're so eager to "win" this discussions that that's your argument: I can use my Charm Person to counterspell your Charm Person but only when you told me you're casting Charm Person, otherwise I can't.

Yes, absolutely. When YOU start pulling in obscure references from totally different parts of the book, insisting that they matter for a thin thread of logical technicalities, then fine, we can play that game, but you are asking to be given no mercy in the case of just as many technicalities thrown right back at you.

If that's not how you want to play ball, then don't bring the counterspells nonsense into it to begin with. Can't have your technicality cake and eat it too.

Quote:

Likewise, where is it written that light only begins to be emitted during the casting action. Hint: It doesn't.

I know it doesn't. I'm not suggesting that that interpretation is RAW in the sense that it is absolutely what happens.

I'm saying only that it isn't NOT RAW / i.e., it's just as valid as any other interpretation of vaguely written rules, as there's nothing contradicting it as a possibility.

Quote:

third party

It was literally like the second psionics spell I looked at. There are millions of them with visible manifestations. "Biting Cold" first one I see now from Paizo, for example.

[ErichAD]

JosueV wrote:

I have a question that I'd like to pose to both sides of the debate:

What if my character, who specializes in counterspells, has a permanent Arcane Sight spell, (or is a Drow with said racial feats)?

Can I then see a Silent/Stilled spell with my readied action?

Not to derail things completely, I was just curious if this might make it so playing within either interpretation of the rules would still allow one to make a niche character: the counterspelling master!

^_^

That would give some purpose to an otherwise oddball spell.

[Matthew Morris]

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

Likewise, where is it written that light only begins to be emitted during the casting action. Hint: It doesn't.

I know it doesn't. I'm not suggesting that that interpretation is RAW in the sense that it is absolutely what happens.

Well yes, when you ignore published material, sure they're vaguely written.

[Cao Phen]

Biting Cold is also third-party from Dreamscarred Press.

[Legio_MCMLXXXVII]

DM_Blake wrote:

Since you asked both "sides", from my reading of the RAW, a human with normal eyes and NO Arcane Sight spell (or anything like it) can see magic as it's being cast. Because RAW.

Having Arcane Sight or Drow racial feats (I assume you mean Drow Nobility?) has nothing to do with being able to see a spell being cast. Ranks in Spellcraft have everything to do with being able to identify the spell while it is being cast, but everybody can see it, assuming they're able (not blind, not in darkness, not in thick fog, not too far away, etc.).

You have yet to show that all spells make a visual display when cast. Your extrapolation from the counterspell rules is entirely inferred, and not supported by explicit rules text.

As a result of this, an ability like Arcane Sight or Detect Magic would be a reasonable way to say that a character can view an otherwise non-visible spell as it is cast. This would also allow for all spells to be used as counterspells, so long as the person intending to counterspell has Arcane Sight.

Because seriously, magical sparkles is just about the stupidest thing ever, and the PDT should be publicly shamed if they insist that all spells make magical sparkles.

[Rednal]

Think of it as glowing octarine instead?

[Legio_MCMLXXXVII]

Rednal wrote:

Think of it as glowing octarine instead?

Still asinine. Floaty runes, magic sparkles, lens flare. All asinine.

[Rednal]

Yet things being observable is still in the rules, possibly for reasons of fairness and balance. Casters don't really need to be more powerful than they already are, after all, and that's exactly what you'd get if it was so easy to disguise spellcasting.

[Legio_MCMLXXXVII]

Rednal wrote:

Yet things being observable is still in the rules, possibly for reasons of fairness and balance. Casters don't really need to be more powerful than they already are, after all, and that's exactly what you'd get if it was so easy to disguise spellcasting.

Except, as noted, that it isn't. The rules specify that you must be able to see the spell being cast, not that you are always able to see a spell being cast. The previous statements on this matter have all gone against RAW, in the derpiest possible way.

[alexd1976]

DM_Blake wrote:

Shadowlords wrote:

To see the spell the spell must generate something that we can perceive with our eyes during the casting of it. this is not the V, S, or M components a spell needs to be cast, but this is some effect from the spell itself.

But there is nothing in the rules saying spells generate an effect that we can see.

Ravingdork putting it best

Ravingdork wrote:

Sounds like a catch-22 to me. You can counterspell any spell, but you must successfully identify it with Spellcraft first. Spellcraft requires you to see the spell. There are no rules and little to no evidence that a spell is observable during the act of spellcasting. So how do you counterspell any spell?

So yes, the rules are incomplete, contradictory, and unclear.

If that's true, then it's impossible to counterspell. Ever.

Yet they wrote the rules.

Probably because we're meant to use counterspells.

I'll grant that it's unclear. But not incomplete or contradictory - I've already pointed out the exact way it works by RAW. With no fluff, no houserules, no assumptions about effects.

Actually, regarding WHEN spells 'become visible' (i.e. during casting).

I will use Fireball as an example, because it produces something that is clearly described as a visual effect.

Regardless of HOW it is being cast/produced (Stilled/Eschew/Silenced) a bead flies out from the caster... it has not yet hit the target area.

The readied action to counter it takes place. The countering wizards rolls to identify this spell based on the visual clues that the spell has described, the spell still hasn't impacted and caused damage.

Interrupts/Immediate actions do weird things in the game.

Spells don't resolve at infinite speeds. The time it takes to travel from caster to target is when the counterspell takes place.

Fireball has a visual effect.

Fireball can be countered.

Charm Person has no described visual effect. Charm person can be countered by Dispel Magic, or Charm Person (but only if the person countering can identify it as such).

At this point, the houserules come into play. Rather than adhere to rules as written, I allow people to ALSO identify spells based on components being used.

I'm not obligated to do so. This is a courtesy. But it works.

I would like to thank all of you for all the absolutely STUNNING writing that has taken place in this thread, honestly. You guys have analyzed something that needed a closer look, and have offered many potential approaches.

I truly appreciate all the contributions in here, these forums are VERY helpful to me and my group when we need to discuss rules.

Thank you everyone.

[Cheburn]

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:

Rednal wrote:

Yet things being observable is still in the rules, possibly for reasons of fairness and balance. Casters don't really need to be more powerful than they already are, after all, and that's exactly what you'd get if it was so easy to disguise spellcasting.

Except, as noted, that it isn't. The rules specify that you must be able to see the spell being cast, not that you are always able to see a spell being cast. The previous statements on this matter have all gone against RAW, in the derpiest possible way.

None of them have gone against RAW. Nothing in RAW states that spells have no visible effects when they're being cast. OTOH, while the Spellcraft skill strongly implies that you can see effects of a spell as it's being cast, it does not explicitly say that. So I can see the argument.

The previous statements have gone against your personal concept of the aesthetics of spellcasting. That's something completely different, however, from RAW.

Lots of gamers though would have a different concept of what spellcasting looks like.

[alexd1976]

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:

Rednal wrote:

Yet things being observable is still in the rules, possibly for reasons of fairness and balance. Casters don't really need to be more powerful than they already are, after all, and that's exactly what you'd get if it was so easy to disguise spellcasting.

Except, as noted, that it isn't. The rules specify that you must be able to see the spell being cast, not that you are always able to see a spell being cast. The previous statements on this matter have all gone against RAW, in the derpiest possible way.

It isn't easy.

You have to a) take a feat (or maybe two, or even three) and b)cast the spell using a higher level slot (maybe even two slots higher).

This isn't EASY.

Charm Person becomes a third level spell. Like Fly, or Fireball.

[Rednal]

So, just to clarify... do you believe that the effects of spells occur during casting, or after casting?

[alexd1976]

Cheburn wrote:

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:

Rednal wrote:

Yet things being observable is still in the rules, possibly for reasons of fairness and balance. Casters don't really need to be more powerful than they already are, after all, and that's exactly what you'd get if it was so easy to disguise spellcasting.

Except, as noted, that it isn't. The rules specify that you must be able to see the spell being cast, not that you are always able to see a spell being cast. The previous statements on this matter have all gone against RAW, in the derpiest possible way.

None of them have gone against RAW. Nothing in RAW states that spells have no visible effects when they're being cast. OTOH, while the Spellcraft skill strongly implies that you can see effects of a spell as it's being cast, it does not explicitly say that. So I can see the argument.

The previous statements have gone against your personal concept of the aesthetics of spellcasting. That's something completely different, however, from RAW.

Lots of gamers though would have a different concept of what spellcasting looks like.

Nothing in Spellcraft even comes close to implying that you can see all spells.

A requirement that must be fulfilled is listed.

These are not the same thing.

Look at it this way:

Can you see the spell? (determine if spell can be seen)
If yes, then Spellcraft may be used to ID it.

vs your version...:

You may see all spells, because... reasons. No exceptions can (or will) exist.

Um... no, don't see THAT version anywhere...

"Nothing in RAW states that spells have no visible effects when they're being cast."

You are correct.

Nothing in the rules states that my third level Hunter DOESN'T get fifteen Wishes every round as a free action, either.

So applying the same logic, I guess I get those? That's gonna change the game on a fundamental level...

[blackbloodtroll]

When in doubt, I will just run with poopy face.

[alexd1976]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

When in doubt, I will just run with poopy face.

Me too.

Someone dropping their guard provokes AoO... They could be walking past you, pulling an item out of their pack... casting...

I don't like to imagine a scenario of a PC in the crowd watching one of their compatriots about to be hanged for a wrongfully convicted crime...

The wizard in the crowd has prepared a Stilled/Silenced spell and also has Eschew materials...

the spell is 7th level, and allows him to teleport an ally from short range (single target rather than multiple).

As a ninth level slot (Stilled/Silenced), he wants to use this to teleport out his ally without revealing himself.

The wizard, in disguise, in a crowd... casts this spell. He is surrounded on all sides by allies and hirelings who are there to aid in his concealment...

And a giant neon sign appears over his head. It reads "Spellcaster here".

No thank you.

[Ravingdork]

Rednal wrote:

So, just to clarify... do you believe that the effects of spells occur during casting, or after casting?

After.

[Cheburn]

alexd1976 wrote:

Look at it this way:

Can you see the spell? (determine if spell can be seen)
If yes, then Spellcraft may be used to ID it.

vs your version...:

You may see all spells, because... reasons. No exceptions can (or will) exist.

Um... no, don't see THAT version anywhere...

"Nothing in RAW states that spells have no visible effects when they're being cast."

You are correct.

Nothing in the rules states that my third level Hunter DOESN'T get fifteen Wishes every round as a free action, either.

So applying the same logic, I guess I get those? That's gonna change the game on a fundamental level...

DMBlake has already laid out the argument for this, between looking at Spellcraft and looking at Counterspell (under Magic), as well as the Spellsong feat. Note that Spellsong strongly implies that you can notice SOMETHING about spells being cast normally, but it's not necessarily anything as flashy as runes or swirlies (video I posted notwithstanding).

I've already said I can see both sides of this argument. I'm not terribly invested in this argument (or really most arguments on these boards). I just always get amused that people on these forums are so sure that their personal interpretation is 100% correct, and anyone who disagrees is a fool.

I'm going to leave it at this:

Jason Buhlman wrote:

Hey there Everybody,

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 Publishing
Edit: 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.

So if my statement that 'the rules don't specify what casting a spell looks like so there may be visible elements' is nonsensical and results in hunters getting 15 free action Wishes per round ... well, at least I'm a fool in good company.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Jason made the ruling to which DM Blake is referring (about stimuli) back in the old days when it could be done without a FAQ and be official, and, as an official adjudication at the time, it has since then been used as the official ruling when writing Pathfinder RPG line books, which is why you see all those references mentioned in this thread.

However, that's not the end of the story; the other posters who say otherwise are also correct that it is true that a later policy change has made non-FAQ non-errata rulings (even from Jason) no longer an official source. So in different ways, everyone is right.

Would it solve the concern here if I worked with the PDT to have it made into a FAQ to once again instate it as official? As many of you know here, a tech glitch destroyed the FAQ queue, so until they can get it sorted, this could be a way to do a useful FAQ, if people here think it would be useful.

I'm personally looking forward to when this gets FAQed and people continue to kvetch about it.

[Rhedyn]

I would rule that you can identify any spell as it is being cast. Redgardless of still/silent/invisible as long as you have line of effect to the spell's target/area.

Still spell is more for hands tied or spells while polymorphed or wearing armor.

[alexd1976]

Rhedyn wrote:

I would rule that you can identify any spell as it is being cast. Redgardless of still/silent/invisible as long as you have line of effect to the spell's target/area.

Still spell is more for hands tied or spells while polymorphed or wearing armor.

I see this whole thread as discussing two options:

1-All spells are visible, making any casting result in what may as well be a flashing neon arrow pointed at the caster. Good luck playing a tricky illusionist or enchanter.

2-Magic works as written (visual effects only when listed in the spell), and there may be situations where you can't figure out which spell was cast. Many variations and houserules abound here.

[Rhedyn]

alexd1976 wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

I would rule that you can identify any spell as it is being cast. Redgardless of still/silent/invisible as long as you have line of effect to the spell's target/area.

Still spell is more for hands tied or spells while polymorphed or wearing armor.

I see this whole thread as discussing two options:

1-All spells are visible, making any casting result in what may as well be a flashing neon arrow pointed at the caster. Good luck playing a tricky illusionist or enchanter.

2-Magic works as written (visual effects only when listed in the spell), and there may be situations where you can't figure out which spell was cast. Many variations and houserules abound here.

My view is that you are identifying the spell not the caster when counterspelling. Your ability to identify it is based on your spellcaft check. When counterspelling the spell has been cast, you are just preventing the effect. How do you detect the spell? Idk, it's magic. It doesn't have to be something we understand. In this case character knowledge is greater than player knowledge.

For AOOs the casting causes an opening in your defenses that near creatures exploit. They may not know you are casting a spell.

[Pixie, the Leng Queen]

For those touting the Counterspell horn, there is a flaw in your argument.

You are creating a reason to justify your stance based upon your evidence. But your evidence does not support you 100%.

Your "evidence" can also end up being ruled like this:

Enemy Wizard: Readies action to counter spell PC wizard.

PC Wizard: Ok, I go behind a wall and cast Summon Monster.

GM: Well he counters it.

PC Wizard: WAT?? WHY??? HOW??? I am behind a wall??"???

GM: *gives "evidence" that the counterspell people do*

PC Wizard: Well doesn't he have to see it???

GM: well the Rules of Counterspell says, "he readies action. You cast, he gets spellcraft check. Then counters. Never says anything about having to see it"

PC: WTF.....

Technically this can be seen based upon the rules you want to go and bring up. Unless you rules that YOU DO need to see the spell to do a spellcraft to counterspell. Now at that point you are introducing the rules of Spellcraft. At that point your argument falls apart...

You resort to having to make up "GLOWING MAGICAL SPARKLY RUNES!!!" In order to satisfy the requirement of perception... that and intentional misreading and mis using the english language... saying a spell CAN be used to counterspell does not mean you can ALWAYS see it to counterspell.

[alexd1976]

You can use a dagger to kill a dragon.

*hands dagger to level 1 commoner child*

Go child, go kill that dragon.

[DM_Blake]

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

For those touting the Counterspell horn, there is a flaw in your argument.

You are creating a reason to justify your stance based upon your evidence. But your evidence does not support you 100%.

Your "evidence" can also end up being ruled like this:

Enemy Wizard: Readies action to counter spell PC wizard.

PC Wizard: Ok, I go behind a wall and cast Summon Monster.

GM: Well he counters it.

PC Wizard: WAT?? WHY??? HOW??? I am behind a wall??"???

GM: *gives "evidence" that the counterspell people do*

PC Wizard: Well doesn't he have to see it???

GM: well the Rules of Counterspell says, "he readies action. You cast, he gets spellcraft check. Then counters. Never says anything about having to see it"

PC: WTF.....

No ma'am, Your Royal Pixiness.

I never said that.

In fact, you'll note that the Counterspell rules tell you to use Spellcraft, and the Spellcraft rules tell you that normal penalties for "distance, poor conditions, and other factors" apply the "same penalties as Perception".

I definitely understand that hiding behind a wall" counts as "other factors". I do understand that the penalty to Perception (regarding visibility) for "hiding behind a wall" is absolute. No chance. Nada.

So, no, I would be on your PC's side in that scenario, 100%.

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Technically this can be seen based upon the rules you want to go and bring up. Unless you rules that YOU DO need to see the spell to do a spellcraft to counterspell. Now at that point you are introducing the rules of Spellcraft. At that point your argument falls apart...

I don't have to rule that I need to use Spellcraft. The rulebook tells us that in the Counterspells section. No GM ruling needed. I don't need to rule that you do need to see the spell. The rulebook tells us that in the Spellcraft section.

How does my argument fall apart when I am ONLY using the rulebook and reading directly from it?

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

You resort to having to make up "GLOWING MAGICAL SPARKLY RUNES!!!" In order to satisfy the requirement of perception... that and intentional misreading and mis using the english language... saying a spell CAN be used to counterspell does not mean you can ALWAYS see it to counterspell.

Well, I don't quite go so far as "GLOWING MAGICAL SPARKLY RUNES!!!" but maybe some others do. That's entirely up to them.

There is no intentional misreading in my direct literal reading.

I certainly am not "mis using the english language..." I don't usually put on my grammar-Nazi hat, but please, if you're going to accuse a person of misusing the English language, try do so without two glaring errors in just 4 words; it will make you more credible if you misuse the English language less often than the person you're accusing.

And as for "saying a spell CAN be used to counterspell does not mean you can ALWAYS see it to counterspell", well, I've explained that a dozen times in this thread, but I don't think you were open to my explanations then, so I don't see the need to go there again.

[DM_Blake]

alexd1976 wrote:

You can use a dagger to kill a dragon.

*hands dagger to level 1 commoner child*

Go child, go kill that dragon.

But you're the one (not the only one) insisting that some dragons cannot ever be killed by daggers. Ever.

So the analogy is more like:

Hey, you've killed 47 dragons with your dagger. But here's a dragon you cannot kill with that dagger ever. Not in a million years. Period. Even though the book says you can kill ANY dragon with a dagger, but, well, you can't.