| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I figured if people wanted to throw the strict RAW card....
In my opinion the game is much better when the rules are guidelines. Having constancy is important and making sure the players and GMs are on the same page is important, but spending time exploiting loopholes, employing legalistic tactics and feeling the the books are some sort of divine instrument is what makes for really bad games.
It is utterly and completely irrelevant what a developer does in their home game or uses for house rules.
Jason didn't write the rules to the game. He may have rewritten some and added new ones, but 3.5/PF are based on over a decades worth of development crafting. Think about it. Obviously the entire brain trust didn't think it made sense to add a +4 modifier to RAW.
Why is that?
You missed my entire point. My point, is that that GM's are the final arbiter of what rules mean when they are written in a manner that is unclear. They can also add house-rules when they feel the rules do not make sense. My pointing out that your use of Jason's quote is ironic, in that he also made a suggestion as to what he might do in his game. In essence, if it makes "sense" than go with it.
What I am telling you is that it's a game. Understand that. Understand that a game has rules that are crafted for a reason. The game's rules are interdependent. When you start yanking on loose threads, you're going to unravel the sweater instead of making it look neat.
It is indeed a game. A game that encompasses a rule zero. But I'm not here to argue house-rules... If we could get back to the topic of the thread. Spellcraft can not be used when the subject has concealment or total cover. That is the RAW of it.
Of course, there is new evidence, that perhaps Spellcraft can't be used at all unless the person has detect magic up.
Well. That escalated quickly.
You missed my entire point.I didn't miss your point. But you missed mine. Jason reminding us that we can change the rules doesn't change what the rules actually state. Ask yourself why the rules don't use his suggestion?
It is indeed a game. A game that encompasses a rule zero.I don't play outside of PFS, so there is no Rule Zero. In fact, the absence of Rule Zero is exactly why I play PFS.
Of course, there is new evidence, that perhaps Spellcraft can't be used at all unless the person has detect magic up.Yes we do. The rule for Spellcraft does not require Detect Magic to ID the spell. It specifically requires it in a given situation. So basic reading comprehension makes it crystal clear DM is not required to ID spells. Nor is DM required by Knowledge Arcana to ID a spell effect.
Again.. in a third attempt to bring this back on topic. Do you agree that concealment and total cover prevent spellcraft?
*edited to fix wonky quotes
Again.. in a third attempt to bring this back on topic. Do you agree that concealment and total cover prevent spellcraft?I've already stated that Total C/C block spellcraft.
As far as basic concealment. Can you clearly see someone from 100 ft away? What about 200? What about 300? I interpret the "clearly" requirement as justifying Perception modifiers.
ie..
In order to make an unmodified check you must be able to clearly see the spell being cast. If you can't clearly see the spell being cast, apply modifiers. Distance and Environment will affect how "clearly" you see the spell being cast.
And here's where we have a rules dispute. I'm saying that concealment.. (not just total concealment) is enough to prevent spellcraft.
Spellcraft states that you must "clearly" see the subject. Concealment by definition is obscured vision. This has rules support within in the vision in light section that states a character can see "somewhat".
Thus, if you gain any form of Concealment or Total Cover, Spellcraft cannot be used to identify your spells.
Smart players will use this to their advantage.
That seems a bit extreme to me. No spellcraft in dim light?
That's what the rules say anyway. Vision and Light
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat
Of course that varies depending on race. Darkvision changes the variables, and probably low-light.. But, since spellcraft requires you to see "clearly", dim light is clearly no-no for spellcraft for some races.
----
Here's another interesting thought. Since disbelieving an illusion still keeps a translucent out-line. One could potentially cast an illusion of a wall, that if identified via spellcraft, is now a translucent wall. (ie. allowing light, but not detailed images, to pass through)
With a now translucent wall between you, you are now free to cast without fear of your spell being identified.
*edit - removed the extra "some" in the prd quote.
That seems a bit extreme to me. No spellcraft in dim light?That's what the rules say anyway. Vision and Light
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhatOf course that varies depending on race. Darkvision changes the variables, and probably low-light.. But, since spellcraft requires you to see "clearly", dim light is clearly no-no for spellcraft for some races.
----
Here's another interesting thought. Since disbelieving an illusion still keeps a translucent out-line. One could potentially cast an illusion of a wall, that if identified via spellcraft, is now a translucent wall. (ie. allowing light, but not detailed images, to pass through)
With a now translucent wall between you, you are now free to cast without fear of your spell being identified.
*edit - removed the extra "some" in the prd quote.
Well that would give some interesting options to the mix - fog cloud to hide your casting - or even a smokestick at low levels. I don't think the illusion works quite that way though - the 'translucent outine' to me meant the lines themselves were translucent - like a wireframe made of semi-see through lines - I wouldn't expect the middle to block line of sight.
Well that would give some interesting options to the mix - fog cloud to hide your casting - or even a smokestick at low levels. I don't think the illusion works quite that way though - the 'translucent outine' to me meant the lines themselves were translucent - like a wireframe made of semi-see through lines - I wouldn't expect the middle to block line of sight.That seems a bit extreme to me. No spellcraft in dim light?That's what the rules say anyway. Vision and Light
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhatOf course that varies depending on race. Darkvision changes the variables, and probably low-light.. But, since spellcraft requires you to see "clearly", dim light is clearly no-no for spellcraft for some races.
----
Here's another interesting thought. Since disbelieving an illusion still keeps a translucent out-line. One could potentially cast an illusion of a wall, that if identified via spellcraft, is now a translucent wall. (ie. allowing light, but not detailed images, to pass through)
With a now translucent wall between you, you are now free to cast without fear of your spell being identified.
*edit - removed the extra "some" in the prd quote.
It would be up to the GM to decide just how much is outline and how much is see through in this scenario.
If I were to create a thicket of bushes as wide and as thick as the spell area allows for, one could certainly argue that each and every bush as well as each leaf and branch is fully outlined. With so much outlining required, you would have a hell of a time trying to seeing through it.
As a matter of consistency, I rule that the entire image is translucent. As what constitutes outlines is entirely subjective. This is one of those rules that clearly requires the GM to make a ruling as the rules are not so cut and dry.
I have always played with recognition of a spell component to make a spellcraft check, and if there is none, you'll need arcane sight or detect magic.
From RAW, the spell is what's needed to be seen clearly, and the visual effects of spells as they are being cast are not in the rules, so the only general way to be able to make that spellcraft check is by being able to somehow see magic. Other visual effects include obvious visual effects like magic missile or fireballs ("I rolled a 20! That explosion was indeed a fireball!"), but these apply after the spell has been cast, not during the casting.
If, by RAW, you need to see the magic, then Detect Magic won't cut it. It takes 3 rounds at least. Well, maybe you can ID Lesser Restoration with it's 3 round cast, or Mending with its ten minute one, but in combat, almost nothing. Arcane Sight will. At what level can you see magic? This totally shuts down Spellcraft to ID a spell before that level.
/cevah