|
I don't understand the usefulness of Spellcraft for determining what spell an opposing caster is casting during combat. Since play is done via turns and the caster does their action on their turn, they get to fire off whatever spell they want and you'll probably find out the hard way what they just cast. Of course, you can have a character always ready an action, just in case they start to cast, but you have to declare exactly what you're readying and it might not be too useful if you get that successful SC check.
Is that the only way Spellcraft during combat is useful, if you have a character with a readied action?
Signed -
Dumb Spellcaster
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the usefulness of Spellcraft for determining what spell an opposing caster is casting during combat. Since play is done via turns and the caster does their action on their turn, they get to fire off whatever spell they want and you'll probably find out the hard way what they just cast. Of course, you can have a character always ready an action, just in case they start to cast, but you have to declare exactly what you're readying and it might not be too useful if you get that successful SC check.
Is that the only way Spellcraft during combat is useful, if you have a character with a readied action?
Signed -
Dumb Spellcaster
If you intend to counterspell and don't have dispel magic you need Spellcraft.
More generally, you're right that some spells (like fireball) are pretty obvious once they happen so it's not much help to ID them. However, there are plenty of spells that are less apparent and would be useful to ID: resist energy (crap, don't use that type anymore!), true strike (better disrupt whatever comes on his next turn!), telling the difference between invisibility and teleport when he disappears, telling the difference between wall of stone and silent image, etc.
Also, sometimes a spell has a 1-round casting time. Summon monster V might be worth some effort to disrupt, while enlarge person might not be.
Hope that helps!
Jiggy's certainly right, ID-ing spells like resist energy is extremely useful. Its also nice to know what buffs are in effect on the enemy so you can decide if its worth dispelling
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Hmm. Would IDing resist energy tell you which energy they picked or just that they've cast resist energy? I don't see anything in Spellcraft about giving you information about which spell options they've picked.
But to answer Prethen, it can be very useful with spells that don't have obvious visible effects, or similar visible effects. The difference between an opposing caster that just cast invisibility versus teleport is important, even if all your characters saw was the foe disappear.
Another example would be an opponent 'disappearing'. Did he just cast Greater Invisibility and is getting ready to unleash some stealthy snackdown, or did he just do Dimension Door with the intention of escaping? Knowing the difference can dramatically affect what action you might take next.
Edit; Ninja'd!
|
And there are (a very few) spells where identifying them is extremely beneficial to opponents.
If recognized as a shadow evocation, a damaging spell deals only one-fifth (20%) damage.
My 8th level alchemist may have the world's worst will save but at least that's one spell he's likely to take reduced damage from.
|
|
How did you avoid the damage by recognizing the spell? I'm missing a connection here.
My ranger avoided a ton of damage against a Shadow Fireball by making his Spellcraft check.And there are (a very few) spells where identifying them is extremely beneficial to opponents.
If recognized as a shadow evocation, a damaging spell deals only one-fifth (20%) damage.My 8th level alchemist may have the world's worst will save but at least that's one spell he's likely to take reduced damage from.
|
|
How did you avoid the damage by recognizing the spell? I'm missing a connection here.
That's just one (rare) case, not a general rule.
Here's a link to that specific spell:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/shadowEvocation.html#_shadow-evoc ation
Normally the target(s) of a shadow evocation get a will save to recognize it as an illusion (disbelieve it). Then whatever save is normally allowed by the evocation being duplicated. Making the will save means the spell does only 20% damage (before any further reduction from the second save). Recognizing it as shadow evocation (say by using spellcraft) has the same effect as making the will save.
There has been some discussion on that. It isn't entirely clear in cases such as shadow conjuration. However, shadow evocation specifically says if you recognize it as a shadow evocation then it is only 20% effective. Identifying the spell pretty clearly recognizes it. Try not to overthink it.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Okay...now THAT makes sense... But, if you know it's an illusion spell, do you automatically get to ignore it or just get a better save?
Shadow spells are partial illusions. Essentially if you know that it's a shadow spell you avoid a lot of the damage.
There was a big thread on this very subject just this week - there wasn't a consensus, but I'd say the majority beleived that a successful spellcraft equated with automatic disbelief. I was of the opposite opinion myself, in that while you know what the spell was, it still takes an act of will to convince yourself that the very real seeeming thing is actually false.
There was a big thread on this very subject just this week - there wasn't a consensus, but I'd say the majority beleived that a successful spellcraft equated with automatic disbelief. I was of the opposite opinion myself, in that while you know what the spell was, it still takes an act of will to convince yourself that the very real seeeming thing is actually false.Okay...now THAT makes sense... But, if you know it's an illusion spell, do you automatically get to ignore it or just get a better save?
Shadow spells are partial illusions. Essentially if you know that it's a shadow spell you avoid a lot of the damage.
Which would apply to other shadow spells, but shadow evocation states that if you recognize it, you suffer less damage. Since a spell can only be recognized by way of Spellcraft, that particular spell is fairly clear in how it works.
Note, by the way, that greater shadow evocation supports your interpretation that Spellcraft isn't an automatic disbelieve. If recognized, you suffer 60% damage rather than the 20% of the lesser spell, but it doesn't alter the effects of a Will save to disbelieve (which would reduce damage to 20% also for the greater spell).
That's what this forum (Rules Questions) is for.
Some GMs hate the idea that 1 rank in Spellcraft means you can ID any spell that you make the roll on, but that's the rule.
I don't see how that's possible.
Spellcraft DC to identify a spell = 15+ spell level + modifiers... Distracted = +5 (for skill checks unless you have a feat combat is always distracting) Distance = +1 per 10 feet
If you are within 10 feet of the caster hopefully you have better options - but even still it's a 15+5+1 for a level 1 spell = 21. I guess a 1 rank in spellcraft lets you roll a 20 to identify a level 1 spell but that's about it.
Does your GM not read the last part about spellcraft checks using the same modifiers as perception for identifying a spell rolls?
|
|
Never noticed the Distance rule before. Interesting. I'm not sure if I would tack on the +5 for distracted though unless they're directly in melee.
Some GMs hate the idea that 1 rank in Spellcraft means you can ID any spell that you make the roll on, but that's the rule.
I don't see how that's possible.
Spellcraft DC to identify a spell = 15+ spell level + modifiers... Distracted = +5 (for skill checks unless you have a feat combat is always distracting) Distance = +1 per 10 feet
If you are within 10 feet of the caster hopefully you have better options - but even still it's a 15+5+1 for a level 1 spell = 21. I guess a 1 rank in spellcraft lets you roll a 20 to identify a level 1 spell but that's about it.
Does your GM not read the last part about spellcraft checks using the same modifiers as perception for identifying a spell rolls?
|
|
Some GMs hate the idea that 1 rank in Spellcraft means you can ID any spell that you make the roll on, but that's the rule.
I don't see how that's possible.
Spellcraft DC to identify a spell = 15+ spell level + modifiers... Distracted = +5 (for skill checks unless you have a feat combat is always distracting) Distance = +1 per 10 feet
If you are within 10 feet of the caster hopefully you have better options - but even still it's a 15+5+1 for a level 1 spell = 21. I guess a 1 rank in spellcraft lets you roll a 20 to identify a level 1 spell but that's about it.
Does your GM not read the last part about spellcraft checks using the same modifiers as perception for identifying a spell rolls?
Eh, it's going to vary by GM. For example if you are locked in mortal combat with a wizard, most GMs I know will say that you are aren't going to take the distraction modifier on identifying his spells. You can't take 10 because you ARE in "immediate danger" but you aren't distracted. (Now if you're having a conversation with a beautiful <being of your choice> and he casts from behind you - yep, you're distracted.) Distance will always apply. A modifier for conditions might be applied. Like I said, it's gonna vary by GM.
You also get to add your int bonus and if it's a class skill that's another +3, so a 16 Int wizard is starting out with a +7 with one rank. (+9 if it's a spell from his specialized school). As NN said - it's any spell you "make the roll on."
Does your GM not read the last part about spellcraft checks using the same modifiers as perception for identifying a spell rolls?
Wait, what? *goes to check* Well damn.
Don't forget you have to be able to clearly see the spell being cast too. If they're invisible you don't get the check.
As someone that was vehemently against allowing spellcraft to identify illusions for automatic disbelief, I have to admit, the wording in Shadow Evocation seems to support that this in fact the way it was intended. Consider my opinion swayed.
I will have to be more careful about casting illusion spells in the future.
The note about you must be able to see the spell clearly would suggest that obstructions such as soft cover from allies may prevent using spellcraft to identify spells. So, illusionists should take full advantage of this.
Don't forget you have to be able to clearly see the spell being cast too. If they're invisible you don't get the check.
There is a perception neg for invisible (it's either +10 or 15 to the check) - I'd still allow a check if the spell isn't silent.
As to the Int bonus and such - yes a Wizard is going to be *very* good at those rolls - the 'only need a 1' seemed to imply that any character with a 1 in spellcraft could potentially identify almost any spell. When it's just the Wizard making the rolls (personally) I don't get all picky about modifiers. If someone tried to use that 'trick' on a Barbarian I'd make sure it didn't work as much as I could - I say that and re-reading it seems a bit harsh - let me add if the Barb player had a positive Int bonus - put effort into a backstory about being interested in spells - etc. I'd most likely be ok with it - but by level three someone trying to game the system with a single point in spellcraft will make me play the 'lets add the modifiers in' card - at least until they decided to put more points (and invest in the skill) or stopped trying to play rules games.
I learned a bunch of stuff on this thread, which is especially usefully as being a novice GM. I'm glad I posted it. Thanks guys!
That's why this peanut gallery is here.
Hey, even experienced ones can learn something in these things :) I know I did.
Gotta love this site.
Spellcraft DC to identify a spell = 15+ spell level + modifiers... Distracted = +5 (for skill checks unless you have a feat combat is always distracting) Distance = +1 per 10 feetI've never once seen a "distracted" modifier applied to a Spellcraft in normal combat. Nor should it. There's nothing in the rules that says someone who cast magic isn't obvious as doing so. In fact, neither Silent Spell, Still Spell, or Eschew Materials indicate any modifier to a Spellcraft check. So as long as I have line of sight and you cast as spell, I can try and identify it.
Sure, range modifies apply. But you're not going to sell me on distracted. If one of my enemies starts casting spells, you can bet your sweet bippy that ALL of my character with Spellcraft are going to take notice. Now, maybe you're caught in a grapple, it might apply. But magic is a big deal and people are going to pay attention in battle.
Add to that fact, the game basically requires that all sides know the actions that each side is taking. I've seen GMs try and play games with facing and what you can see, and it's a load of BS. It's a game. When someone across the room shoots a bow, everyone gets to know what...NPCs and PCs. Is it a prefect reflection of reality? Probably not, but it's part of how the game works. Quit trying to screw players over on their skill checks.
No spellcraft specifically has modifiers that affect the roll. It's intentionally supposed to be harder depending on the visible factors to the target. If you are in combat (with range of another creature) and you are actually fighting I'd rule distracted. Assuming you are not within range I'd rule not distracted. And I never said silent or still spell gave a modifier to a spellcraft check - I said I'd actually allow a check against an invisible opponent (RAW you can't) if the spell wasn't silent (it's actually a -20 to the check but depending on the skill value and the spell level it's still a chance).
*but* - thank you for that writeup - you convinced me still spell doesn't allow a spellcraft check (even if it has a vocal component) - the check is *only* if you can see the spell being cast. A spell without a somatic component can't be seen when cast - perhaps heard - but spellcraft doesn't allow a check on vocal spells. I will need to be careful of checking the spell components when doing this type of check.
Does your GM not read the last part about spellcraft checks using the same modifiers as perception for identifying a spell rolls?Wait, what? *goes to check* Well damn.
Don't forget you have to be able to clearly see the spell being cast too. If they're invisible you don't get the check.
are you sure? I would think maybe you could identify verbal components still
@N N 959 I disagree. My players get me and I get them back all the time. Its a fun cycle. As long as the rules apply to the GM the same way they apply to players then its completely fair. Some people like to give their buddies a hard time lol. What better place for that then a game? If its done intelligently, in good taste, good fun, and good sportsmanship then its always fun:)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget you have to be able to clearly see the spell being cast too. If they're invisible you don't get the check.
Jason Bulmahn on this topic (quoted below for everyone's convenience).
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 PublishingEdit: I should also note that I also agree with James, that a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.
Ahhhh...now, I'm beginning to see a tad bit more usefulness in it. Luckily, it's basically a free action anyway.
exactly. Free action is why its valuable
From the same thread JB posted how he handles it in his own games:
"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."
Makes sense to me.
I would think a spell that has V,S,M components would be 33% harder to identify if you took one of those away. But, of course their is no rules available to back that kind of assertion up. And, as a sorc, without material components, they would always have that 33% extra, so I'm not so sure I like the idea anyway.
For what the rules say, "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast"
It's pretty clear that if something obstructs your vision to the spellcaster, you don't get to make a check.
That means, those spells cast with cover or concealment could not be identified, as you can not clearly see the spell as it's being cast.
I would think a spell that has V,S,M components would be 33% harder to identify if you took one of those away. But, of course their is no rules available to back that kind of assertion up. And, as a sorc, without material components, they would always have that 33% extra, so I'm not so sure I like the idea anyway.
For what the rules say, "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast"
It's pretty clear that if something obstructs your vision to the spellcaster, you don't get to make a check.
That means, those spells cast with cover or concealment could not be identified, as you can not clearly see the spell as it's being cast.
And I would think someone in Full Plate would be easier to hit than the same person in plain clothes, but they would take less damage on each hit. Yet, that's not how the game works despite what makes "sense."
Cover does not block line of sight. You have light of sight, you can clearly see the target. Nor is there any Perception modifier for Cover. Deciding that anything less than Total/Improved Cover restricts a Spellcraft check, while certainly possible as a house-rule, is simply asinine. The only people who will routinely use Spellcraft to identify spells are PCs. As a GM, I have no doubt you metagame when PCs casts spells.
@Ckorik,
You can make up what ever house rules you want. In fact, why don't you just simply kill your PCs the moment they show up?
Hostile much? Take a deep breath and lets debate this issue rationally, shall we?
Even considering that partial cover doesn't block line of site to the point where you can no longer "clearly" see the spell being cast. Then you would have to agree that total cover as well as concealment would.
The partial cover aspect would indeed be a GM interpretation. If cover blocks line of effect as written by RAW, I would argue it obscures line of sight as well. (but I admit this is my own interpretation)
However, concealment is a cut and dry issue.. If the spellcaster is invisible, in areas of dim light, under the effects of blur, ect.. Then per RAW, spellcraft is not possible as you cannot clearly see the spell being cast.
|
Whether or not the players & GM should try to game the system against each other is certainly an "As Long As Everyone Agrees" sort of issue, though I'd rather agree not to do it.
If I'm the GM, I'd only institute the "Distracted" penalty if you're threatened by someone else, being grappled, or taking ongoing damage. Otherwise, you can focus your attention on the person casting the spell. As for "knowing they're casting an illusion vs. saving against the illusion itself," I'd check with the players on their thoughts about it. At the very least, I'd give the Spellcraft user a +4 on the save.
Going by illustrations of spell casting I've seen on, for example, the Character Folio, I've taken it that people can notice and read the sigils or glows arcane and divine spell casters trace or wave with their divine foci with Still Spell, you just don't need to trace them with your fingers or touch your divine focus, but they can still be read. That's also why you can't be sure you've ID'd the spell without line of sight.
For personal stories, I thanked the GM when he said, "Reward Creative Solutions": My wizard avoided an enemy sorcerer's readied counterspell by hiding behind a pillar to break line of sight.
What I am hostile to is GMs who insist on interpreting the rules to screw over players. Do you think that makes for a better game? What I am hostile to is GMs who have one set of rules for players and ignore those rules as they metagame the NPCs. If you want to house-rule the game into stupidity, be my guest. But don't try and do it under the auspices of RAW.
Your 1 point in spellcraft trick doesn't work by RAW except for low level spells that you are right next to. The shadow evocation you originally listed is a level 5 spell.
15+5 = 20 = so if you were within 10 feet of the caster with 1 point in spellcraft (assuming no other mods) you have to roll a nat 20 to identify the spell.
Some GMs hate the idea that 1 rank in Spellcraft means you can ID any spell that you make the roll on, but that's the rule.
Who is trying to metagame using RAW here?
The worst rationale for changing the rules is it "makes sense". The game is filled with things that don't make sense. If the entire game had to "make sense" it would be unplayable. As silly or as implausible as the rules may seem to any individual, the rules are there for a reason: they facilitate an experience.
Nevermind - I see who is trying to use RAW for an advantage at no cost - which is the only case I'd ever bother to get picky with a player over the modifiers. Which I've stated - at least twice in this very thread.
In this case the RAW is clear. Presence or absence of material components has no effect on IDing per spellcraft. Ask yourself why the developers went that route? Clearly they knew Still/Silent Spell and Eschew Materials were options for affecting Spellcraft and they provide one single penalty. Again, ask yourself why.
That's easy - they changed the rules from 3.5 specifically to allow counter spelling SLA's which wasn't possible with the previous rules.
Obviously I'm using your post as a basis for a general statement. I really don't care what you do in your personal game nor do I have any issue with you on any personal level.
You seem overly hostile over the entire case - no one is talking about material components - the debate is if the phrase in spellcraft for making the check "must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast" means sight only. It doesn't say you must be able to hear the spell - it doesn't say you must be able to smell the spell or identify components - only that you must see the spell. It's pretty obvious from the other thread where the lead designer piped in that the change made things open to gm interpretation - i.e. the rules are not very clear - and he uses a +4 modifier for each meta applied (for silent and still) - that's a pretty reasonable ruling.
I'd be much harsher (as I've said before) at my table if someone tried to metagame a 1 spellcraft skill character though - and if someone want's to cheese the rules that way then I have a choice of banning it - changing the rules - or using the rules to determine just how hard it is to identify a spell being cast - it just so happens the rules are there - use the same modifiers as perception. And yeah - I'd have no problem applying distracted for an entire host of reasons - otherwise I'll have the raging barbarian in combat with 3 enemies trying to game the rules - if someone wants to play a computer game or a card game they are at the other table. Luckily this has *never* come up or been an issue with the people I play with - it's more about the fun than anything else.
What I am hostile to is GMs who insist on interpreting the rules to screw over players. Do you think that makes for a better game? What I am hostile to is GMs who have one set of rules for players and ignore those rules as they metagame the NPCs.
You assume I'm trying to screw someone over with this rule. When in reality, I'm looking at it from a players perspective as a BOON not a hindrance. I reject your premise. I play way more than I GM, and I would play with my interpretation as much as I would GM it. So don't ever assume that I'm trying to screw over anyone. It's insulting.
The worst rationale for changing the rules is it "makes sense".
I disagree, sometimes this is the best rationale.
Cover doesn't block line of sight or Line of Effect. Total Cover blocks both.
Interestingly though, you can use that cover to make a move action stealth check, granting you concealment (provided your stealth beats the perception roll of course) Then take your standard to cast the spell without risk of identification.
I don't see any RAW that says Concealment (20%) blocks line of sight where as Total Concealment clearly does. Is there some spell or ability that says you don't have line of sight on someone with 20% Concealment? If you have it, please share it.
You may not be looking in the right places.. look into vision and light subsections: "In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment."
Now I'm not sure how you read things, but if having concealment means you can see "somewhat" then you obviously cannot see "clearly". Concealment by it's very definition is obscured vision.
Let me quote Jason for you...
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.Emphasis mine.
Emphasis mine.
Silent/Still Spell do NOTHING to stop a valid Spellcraft check.
I find it funny you use Jasons quote as a barometer that these components have nothing to do to stop a valid spellcraft check, and then ignore his recommendations that at the GM's discretion, he could add modifiers for spells lacking the normal components.
So did I when I first started GMing 3.5. Now I know better.
Are you telling me, that when the rules are unclear you just ban the rule all together? Or do you, like everyone else, apply a little common sense to make the rule work?
Nevermind. Ignore that question and please address the rest of my previous post, which you seemed to have ignored.
Technically spellcraft says: "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."
It doesn't say see the caster, it says see the spell. By RAW, without detect magic or arcane sight or something up, you can't do it at all. I don't know any GMs that would rule that way.
Presuming one is kind enough to allow spellcraft to identify a spell without detect magic up, the perception rules allow for favorable and unfavorable conditions. I would think that a spell that has been modified through meta-magic, especially to use less components, would be more difficult to identify than a spell that hasn't been modified, because its casting methodology is different. Therefore a penalty to identify via spellcraft is appropriate.
A spell without a somatic component can't be seen when cast - perhaps heard - but spellcraft doesn't allow a check on vocal spells. I will need to be careful of checking the spell components when doing this type of check.Lie much?
No - the statement stands - when you look up what somatic means and have the epiphany that it doesn't mean 'material component' perhaps you will understand.
No where have I ever once talked about material components.
*edit* - definition - from the rules.
Somatic (S)
A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
- material components are denoted by the following:
Material (M)
A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don't bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.
Technically spellcraft says: "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."
It doesn't say see the caster, it says see the spell. By RAW, without detect magic or arcane sight or something up, you can't do it at all. I don't know any GMs that would rule that way.
Interesting thought. I hadn't considered that. In order to see a spell it could certainly be argued that detect magic or arcane sight is required. That would certainly eliminate much of what could be detected.
I don't think I would go that far, but it could certainly be interpreted that way.
After all, spellcraft requires detect magic for identifying magical items. The precedent is certainly there for it to be required to identify spells as it's being cast.
Not sure I would play that way though, seems too restrictive.