Yes, swinging a sword is or casting a fireball is obvious. But some are not so obvious to me.
What really prompted this is a paladin/inquisitor type using Detect Evil (Sp) on literally every single person or object encountered within 60' radius of where ever they happened to be at any/every moment.
Should the people in town have known that he was using some power on them and been scared? Fled? Called the Cops?
Had a similar situation with a PC using a Wand of Detect Secret Doors in the throne room. Should the guards have been tackling him?
More generally:
Are Su, Ex, and/or Sp abilities noticeable? What about magic item activation that has no visible effect?
Detect Evil is definitely noticeable, as it's a Spell-like ability, and therefor functions exactly like the spell Detect Evil; it requires a Standard action to activate, requiring somatic components. Onlookers would therefor see him waving his hands in catsty-like movements for a couple seconds before directing his attention to them one by one. Not exactly subtle. However, most Paladins are pretty obviously Paladins, so most people would probably not freak out; the Paladin's just doing his thing, keeping us safe from Evil. Although, if someone in the crowd was Evil, and saw a Paladin doing that, he would probably make an educated guess that the Paladin's looking for Evil creatures - even if the Evil person wasn't learned in magic - and stay out of sight.
What is your opinion on Su, Ex, and activation?
It's up to the GM - if you want it to be detectable - explain how it works (some GM's have the eyes glow on any detect spell for example) *before* the situation comes up - now that it's happened if you want to change it - you must ignore what went before and explain the change and just move forward.
That being said - be consistent about whatever way you rule - and if you make it work as a big 'flag' be consistent about all detection like things - not just one you don't like.
If you want examples from how it may not be - check out the fiction section of the store and get 'King of Chaos' - it describes paladin detect evil as being 100% non-detectable - and different for every paladin - the main protagonist gets the 'butterflies of evil'.
As an aside - remember that the only things that ping on detect evil are clerics of evil deities and stuff with high HD - also (if using the official setting) any decently large city most likely has someone from Cheliax around with a priest high enough to ping and 100% legit and non-touchable - just pinging evil doesn't make something a target.
A Spell-like ability has no somantic/verbal components. At the very most, one could argue that people just witnessed a stranger looking at them funny. That is, unless they were using Detect Magic themselves.
As for the wand, if people would normally notice someone pointing a magic stick in a general direction and verbally speaking a command word in a firm voice, then yes, they'd notice. Wands need to be pointed and a word to activate.
Do note that Some magic items naturally emit light.
Any other SU/EX ability seems situational.
Detect Evil is definitely noticeable, as it's a Spell-like ability, and therefor functions exactly like the spell Detect Evil; it requires a Standard action to activate, requiring somatic components. Onlookers would therefor see him waving his hands in catsty-like movements for a couple seconds before directing his attention to them one by one.
Not really correct. Spell-like abilities do not have any components, verbal, somatic, or material. Paladin looking at a single target is also only a move-action.
I agree it's fairly obvious in general, at least for standard actions.
Detect Evil is definitely noticeable, as it's a Spell-like ability, and therefor functions exactly like the spell Detect Evil; it requires a Standard action to activate, requiring somatic components. Onlookers would therefor see him waving his hands in catsty-like movements for a couple seconds before directing his attention to them one by one.Not really correct. Spell-like abilities do not have any components, verbal, somatic, or material. Paladin looking at a single target is also only a move-action.
I agree it's fairly obvious in general, at least for standard actions.
But everyone says if you cast a spell with still spell, silent spell, and eschew materials that everyone can still tell you are casting a spell.
Detect Evil is definitely noticeable, as it's a Spell-like ability, and therefor functions exactly like the spell Detect Evil; it requires a Standard action to activate, requiring somatic components. Onlookers would therefor see him waving his hands in catsty-like movements for a couple seconds before directing his attention to them one by one.Not really correct. Spell-like abilities do not have any components, verbal, somatic, or material. Paladin looking at a single target is also only a move-action.
I agree it's fairly obvious in general, at least for standard actions.
My mistake. Spell-like abilities provoke attacks of opportunity while casting though, correct? It must be moderately obvious, then, when someone's casting one if while being flanked by 8 creatures, you would still be able to notice (no Perception check required) if one of them casts a Spell-like ability with enough awareness to be able to react with an attack.
My mistake. Spell-like abilities provoke attacks of opportunity while casting though, correct? It must be moderately obvious, then, when someone's casting one if while being flanked by 8 creatures, you would still be able to notice (no Perception check required) if one of them casts a Spell-like ability with enough awareness to be able to react with an attack.Detect Evil is definitely noticeable, as it's a Spell-like ability, and therefor functions exactly like the spell Detect Evil; it requires a Standard action to activate, requiring somatic components. Onlookers would therefor see him waving his hands in catsty-like movements for a couple seconds before directing his attention to them one by one.Not really correct. Spell-like abilities do not have any components, verbal, somatic, or material. Paladin looking at a single target is also only a move-action.
I agree it's fairly obvious in general, at least for standard actions.
Spell-Like Abilities: Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
If a character class grants a spell-like ability that is not based on an actual spell, the ability's effective spell level is equal to the highest-level class spell the character can cast, and is cast at the class level the ability is granted.
So - yeah - it can be disrupted - but within combat it would be the 'mental' activation distracts them enough I'd say - outside of combat I have a hard time figuring out how you notice that someone used one - without GM fiat about the spell in question
My mistake. Spell-like abilities provoke attacks of opportunity while casting though, correct? It must be moderately obvious, then, when someone's casting one if while being flanked by 8 creatures, you would still be able to notice (no Perception check required) if one of them casts a Spell-like ability with enough awareness to be able to react with an attack.
Personally, I'd imagine that's due purely to the concentration needed to bring a spell-like effect into being, and thus being temporarily unable to keep one's guard up to defend against AoOs. I'm under the impression you can't even make a Spellcraft check vs. a Spell-like ability, due to there being no obvious sensory stimuli until the spell actually comes into effect. This is further shown by the fact they can't be counterspelled.
Edit: Of course, I could be making a logical fallacy or two. Regardless, there's nothing to hint that they actually produce anything a perception check can catch other than the spell effect itself. At best the very best, I'd say a sense motive check to figure out why the paladin fellow looks temporarily constipated and staring into the distance.
I could agree with that if...
Everyone says that by RAW, if you cast a spell with still spell, silent spell, and eschew materials that everyone can still tell you are casting a spell even if there is zero visible or audible effects.
.
.
It's up to the GM - if you want it to be detectable - explain how it works (some GM's have the eyes glow on any detect spell for example) *before* the situation comes up - now that it's happened if you want to change it - you must ignore what went before and explain the change and just move forward.
That being said - be consistent about whatever way you rule - and if you make it work as a big 'flag' be consistent about all detection like things - not just one you don't like.
If you want examples from how it may not be - check out the fiction section of the store and get 'King of Chaos' - it describes paladin detect evil as being 100% non-detectable - and different for every paladin - the main protagonist gets the 'butterflies of evil'.
I have no problem house ruling something if necessary. But I generally want to understand the RAW interpretation before we discuss it as a group.
And yes, consistency is very much my goal here. I am trying to avoid what seems to me like an inconsistent situation. This is always detectable for no discernible reason. That is never detectable for no discernible reason. Those we can't tell if discernible or not. Etc...
.
.
...
As for the wand, if people would normally notice someone pointing a magic stick in a general direction and verbally speaking a command word in a firm voice, then yes, they'd notice. Wands need to be pointed and a word to activate. ...
What if the command word is one that can be used without being especially noteworthy? The word 'Fascinating' can be worked into almost any conversation with little effort. It is also fairly easy to point a stick in various directions while walking or just moving your hands in a conversation. Especially if you have a rather flamboyant personality. There have been times were swagger sticks were common among those wanting to seem afluent.
Apparently I'm mistaken... there's potential yet for an SLA to be spellcraft identified, and indeed spells to be detected despite being still/silent/eschewed.
No, it is not obvious that a person casting Detect Evil is casting Detect Evil. You need the Spellcraft skill to do that. ...
The question was whether you can tell his is doing 'something' other than just standing there.
And thus the ambiguity - some feel that a silent/still/ingredient spell that is activated by a single thought shouldn't be able to be identified.
The RAW is you can - how is left to 'it's RAW'
SLA's work like a spell except where it's called out different - thus - they can be identified by spellcraft - RAW.
RAW aside many feel that this is too much incongruity and so they don't allow it.
RAW says - yes - you can tell - if you can make the spellcraft check - with distance rules applied.
Jason B. who wrote the rules admits that it seems a bit too easy - and thus would but a -4 on the check for each thing missing. (that's a houserule) so on an SLA it would be at a -12.
Others think if it's just a mental action - nope can't figure it out unless the spell has a visible effect.
YOU will honestly need to figure out how you will handle it (any of these honestly is fine - none of them will break the game) and try to make sure it's always how it works *in that game*.
...
SLA's work like a spell except where it's called out different - thus - they can be identified by spellcraft - RAW. ...
I'm not so much worried about if they can identify which effect will be happening. I agree that would be spellcraft. (Though I like the idea of a penalty for not having some components.)
What I am most concerned is whether or not someone without spel craft can tell that something is being done.... YOU will honestly need to figure out how you will handle it (any of these honestly is fine - none of them will break the game) and try to make sure it's always how it works *in that game*.
Agreed. We will decide as a group. We just prefer to have the RAW ruling if there is one before sit down to decide what needs changed.
In all honesty, that is because in the past we have been very happy with some of our logical house rules. Then a new guy joined the group and let us know that our house rules weren't. I checked his comments and he was correct, that is the way the rules should have been all along. We just read it wrong and thought it was stupid. So we changed them to what they already were. It would have been much less confusing if we had actually checked to find what the RAW was before we got started.
This one seems to not be so clear.
If I'm reading everyone's comments correctly.
You can tell a wand is being activated even if there is no visible effect.
No one is sure about an Su or Ex ability.
So far seems to be an even split that you can't tell a Sp ability like Detect Evil is being used.
Everyone agree that a Sp ability like Detect Evil can be identified with spellcraft. . . ?!?
Yes, you can tell that something is done. SLA are just like spells by RAW, except they dont have components. Nothing in the rules prevents them from being noticed even without components. So by RAW you can still spellcraft them, and you cant spellcraft what you do not notice. Basically RAW would have to say ______ creates an instance where you would not notice, and the lead developer already said that was not the case. He only suggested adding a penalty as a houserule.
A Spell-like ability has no somantic/verbal components. At the very most, one could argue that people just witnessed a stranger looking at them funny. That is, unless they were using Detect Magic themselves.
As for the wand, if people would normally notice someone pointing a magic stick in a general direction and verbally speaking a command word in a firm voice, then yes, they'd notice. Wands need to be pointed and a word to activate.
Do note that Some magic items naturally emit light.
Any other SU/EX ability seems situational.
SLAs provoke, so there is something that is obviously not normal about them.
SLAs provoke, so there is something that is obviously not normal about them.
And has been mentioned up-thread, all that proves is that concentrating on doing it distracts you from the flow of combat and grants your opponent an opening.
Provoking means they dropped their guard (such as to concentrate on the spell or spell-like ability, rather than on not being stabbed). It does not necessarily mean the attacker knows that they are casting, only that they dropped their guard.
For all we know Detect Evil causes a distortion effect to come from the Paladin's eyes.
There is something that can be seen, takes concentration, and allows anyone with Spellcraft to potentially know exactly what is going on. Most artwork of someone using magic has some sort of colored effect for the magic operating or being released. Might be some sort of particular distortion effect, a sound, or an innate sense but people can detect it and those with the proper training can even tell exactly what you are attempting.
RAW doesn't define what it is, just that it can be detected by anyone who can perceive the caster and identified by those able to make their spell craft rolls.
I don't know why everyone keeps citing Jason's post. He clearly states that "the rules are silent here" and that "it is up to the GM to adjudicate."
In any case, he isn't even the proper person to make or clarify rules of the game. His opinions are exactly that: opinions.
RAW: It is obvious because still/silent/eschew material spells are not any less noticeable than their somatic/verbal/material counterparts. Creatures with a spellcraft skill can make a roll to identify the spell as it is cast. Creatures without it know a spell was cast. Anything else is your table rules on how you want to run it.
RAW they really went out of their way to remove the feats and such that allowed a caster to hide what they are doing.
There is one way (to the best of my knowledge) to hide your casting -
False Arcanist (Ex)
At 1st level, a hidden priest is able to disguise his cleric spellcasting, presenting it as arcane magic of some kind. Typically, this is as alchemist, bard, sorcerer, or wizard magic, and the cleric disguises the words and gestures of the cleric spell with accoutrements appropriate to his apparent profession.
He must make a skill check (DC 10 + twice the level of the spell) to disguise his casting and successfully cast the spell. The type of skill check depends on the type of caster he pretends to be: Craft (alchemy) for alchemist, Perform for bard, Knowledge (arcana) for sorcerer or wizard. Using Spellcraft to identify the spell works normally, though unless the observer beats the DC by 10 or more, she doesn’t suspect the source of the magic is divine.
For example, a hidden priest pretending to be an alchemist wants to cast cure light wounds on a wounded townsperson. If he makes a DC 12 Craft (alchemy) check, he disguises his spellcasting as the mixing of an alchemical extract or potion (perhaps with the words disguised as reciting an obscure formula or talking herself through the list of ingredients), which he gives to the target. An observer making a DC 16 Spellcraft check can identify his spell as cure light wounds, but doesn’t realize his “alchemical” methods are a sham unless her check result is 26 or higher.
When the hidden priest uses this ability, he must still provide any divine focus components for the spells he casts. However, the divine focus doesn’t need to be an obvious symbol of his faith. It could be a small coin, tattoo, or garment bearing the symbol, whether presented openly, disguised, or hidden within a larger picture.
For example, a hidden priest of a god of dawn or light could use a coin with an ankh or sunburst, a complex tattoo or scar that has an ankh shape hidden within it, a glove with an ankh stitched on the inside of the palm, and so on. He must use this replacement divine focus just as he would his true one (for example, he couldn’t leave the coin in his shoe). If a spell requires a divine focus with a specific or minimum cost, the replacement divine focus must be of similar value to be used as the divine focus.
A hidden priest adds half his class level (minimum +1) on all Bluff skill checks to send secret messages about religious matters, and on all Sense Motive checks to recognize similar messages. He also adds this bonus on Perception and Sense Motive checks relating to agents of the laws against his religion (including city guards in lands where these laws are in effect).
This ability replaces one of the cleric’s two 1st-level domain powers (her choice).
I'm unaware of any other options that help along those lines.
As pointed out by RD the 'rules are silent' - the debate goes both ways in terms of metamagic (a silent, still, no component spell) and so it really rests in how your table want to run it - people can argue both ways - but considering SLA's are all the above (that part is certain) whichever way you play it - affects those metamagics as well.
Wands and SU abilities are totally different - they aren't listed as being silent, still, and requiring no component (by default).
Creatures with a spellcraft skill can make a roll to identify the spell as it is cast.
According to the opinion of a developer with no authority over the rules.
Creatures without [Spellcraft] know a [eschewed/silenced/stilled] spell was cast.
If said creature wasn't directly targeted, and there is no associated visual effect accompanying the spell (such as fireball creating fire) then there is absolutely nothing within the rules supporting your claim.
Creatures with a spellcraft skill can make a roll to identify the spell as it is cast.According to the opinion of a developer with no authority over the rules.
...and the description of the Spellcraft skill.
Action: 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.
If you can see the caster and have Spellcraft skill you can attempt to determine what spell they are casting.
The skill is Int/Trained Only, so it isn't clearly defined exactly what happens if you don't have the skill. On the other hand, the simplest explanation is that you know they are doing something but not exactly what they are doing. Sort of like someone with no training in Disable Device who observed someone picking a lock would know they are doing something with the door but wouldn't know exactly what they are doing.
It would look suspicious.
|
Most games are going to work a little differently than one another on this issue. It falls into a category of questions that every group playing has to decide for themselves... or the GM has to decide for them. There is no right or wrong answer, just what is right for your game. As long as things are consistent within your game then it's being done correctly.
I don't know why everyone keeps citing Jason's post. He clearly states that "the rules are silent here" and that "it is up to the GM to adjudicate."
In any case, he isn't even the proper person to make or clarify rules of the game. His opinions are exactly that: opinions.
This. He never mentions "house rule," only GM adjudication.
...and the description of the Spellcraft skill.
Those are general rules that assume a standard spell being cast. Applying general rules like that to a specific case isn't definitive.
Typically, I've seen it ruled that SLAs and supernatural abilities can be used without suspicion. We have some enchanters in PFS that often utilize the touch-range charm ability of wizards to great effect.
The spell as it is being cast. Not the spellcaster's somatic/verbal/material components of the casting of the spell. The spell itself. I read that to mean that all spells (unless specified in the spell description) create some kind of visual effect upon casting which allows any caster (even divine identifying arcane) to try to use spellcraft to identify what spell was just cast. I extend this to non-spellcraft creatures knowing a spell was cast, they have no idea which one however barring an obvious effect (such as a fireball).
...all spells (unless specified in the spell description) create some kind of visual effect upon casting which allows any caster (even divine identifying arcane) to try to use spellcraft to identify what spell was just cast.
Except there is no rule stating as such Tarantula. That's just supposition.
...all spells (unless specified in the spell description) create some kind of visual effect upon casting which allows any caster (even divine identifying arcane) to try to use spellcraft to identify what spell was just cast.Except there is no rule stating as such Tarantula. That's just supposition.
"Action: 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."
The only RAW we have is that spells can be visible, and if they are, you can make a spellcraft check to identify it as it is being cast. There is no mention of avoiding this by making a spell silent/quickened/still/eschew material so even a spell with all of those could be identifiable with spellcraft.
Now, since spells are not specified one way or the other, we have a couple options.
1) Assume all spells have visible effects, as counterspelling/noticing spells being cast is something wizards have regularly done throughout the setting.
2) Assume some spells have visible effects, but which ones are up to GM discretion and vary table to table. This is the least helpful, as we can have a discussion about almost every spell that exists to whether it is or is not visible.
3) Assume no spells have visible effects, and you need detect magic/arcane sight up to be able to use spellcraft to identify them. Most restrictive option, but its an interpretation as well.
I think that 1 is the most likely, as spellcasting is distracting enough to provoke AoOs or at the very least risk losing the spell if anything distracts you while you cast.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree then. I'm for #2. #1 not being helpful isn't really a case.
2) is just GM fiat all around. I guess that works if everyone is in agreement. Not so great for PFS.
2) is just GM fiat all around. I guess that works if everyone is in agreement. Not so great for PFS.
PFS has GM fiat all the time - I realize that many people hate that but if the rules are vague (as the designer himself pointed out) then it's up to the GM to adjudicate.
I don't know why everyone keeps citing Jason's post. He clearly states that "the rules are silent here" and that "it is up to the GM to adjudicate."
In any case, he isn't even the proper person to make or clarify rules of the game. His opinions are exactly that: opinions.
He is the lead rules designer.
2) is just GM fiat all around. I guess that works if everyone is in agreement. Not so great for PFS.PFS has GM fiat all the time - I realize that many people hate that but if the rules are vague (as the designer himself pointed out) then it's up to the GM to adjudicate.
Sure, but something as little as a Paladin who in his first game was told "no, they can't tell if you are detect evil, only you get to know that."
And then in his second game, with different DM, casts detect evil, and the town freaks out because he is casting spells while talking to the mayor.
Not really a fair situation. It should be the same all around. Since spellcraft states that you must be able to see the SPELL and not the spellcaster, I think that all spells as they are being cast are inherently visible to a degree. Once the spell is cast, can someone tell you are concentrating on keeping detect evil up? Probably not. But I think they can tell when you cast the spell, whether its V,S,M,DF(F) or still/silent/quickened/eschew materialed.
He is the lead rules designer.I don't know why everyone keeps citing Jason's post. He clearly states that "the rules are silent here" and that "it is up to the GM to adjudicate."
In any case, he isn't even the proper person to make or clarify rules of the game. His opinions are exactly that: opinions.
Sorry, got him mixed up with James Jacobs. My point still stands however. In that post he clearly isn't making a new ruling, or even clarifying anything. He is offering his opinion (which was that it is under the purview of the GM). That's not a stance. As such the interpretation shared by Tarantula and others remains wholly unofficial.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could agree with that if...
Everyone says that by RAW, if you cast a spell with still spell, silent spell, and eschew materials that everyone can still tell you are casting a spell even if there is zero visible or audible effects.
That's because you are making a Poop Face. And not the quick grunt of casting a swift-action spell, but several seconds of pushing.
That's because you are making a Poop Face. And not the quick grunt of casting a swift-action spell, but several seconds of pushing.I could agree with that if...
Everyone says that by RAW, if you cast a spell with still spell, silent spell, and eschew materials that everyone can still tell you are casting a spell even if there is zero visible or audible effects.
That made me laugh. ;)
That made me laugh. ;)
That's because you are making a Poop Face. And not the quick grunt of casting a swift-action spell, but several seconds of pushing.
Dangit, That's what I picture too. V_V;;
What do you do in the absence of fluff? No flash of color in the eyes, or floaty hair and robes, strongly held holy symbols, shimmering abjuration effects or sensors, sparkles of diamond dust or powerful words and magic gestures...Yep. Poop face.
I'd Still argue that at the very minimum, without detect magic/arcane sight/whatever active, it'd still require a decent Perception and/or Sense Motive check, to notice the most errant twitch or held breath or shifty, concentrating eyes... anything that denotes concentration. After all, the defining gestures-that-never-were, and words-never-spoken, are effectively invisible and inaudible.
Sure, you can spellcraft it. If you're aware of it at all.
Sorry, got him mixed up with James Jacobs. My point still stands however. In that post he clearly isn't making a new ruling, or even clarifying anything. He is offering his opinion (which was that it is under the purview of the GM). That's not a stance. As such the interpretation shared by Tarantula and others remains wholly unofficial.He is the lead rules designer.I don't know why everyone keeps citing Jason's post. He clearly states that "the rules are silent here" and that "it is up to the GM to adjudicate."
In any case, he isn't even the proper person to make or clarify rules of the game. His opinions are exactly that: opinions.
I agree that it is not official. Per RAW spells can be spellcrafted. In 3.5 they were purely mental abilities if you all certain metamagic feats, and I think they could not be spellcrafted per the 3.5 FAQ. Personally I think that makes more sense.
Would it be relevant to bring up the interaction between paralysis and still/silent spellcasting? How might that influence the discussion?
And my point is, the fact that spellcraft states that normal perception modifiers for distance/conditions apply, means it is just as easy to tell someone is casting a spell as it is to see someone is there in the first place.
Out of curiosity, I went and looked at spellcraft in 3.5. It states that: "15 + spell level Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry."
So there is precedent that spells don't have visible effects and if a spell is still/silenced then you don't get to detect it being cast. Pathfinder did away with that line, instead going with, "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."
So, somatic components only? Blind oracle's can't spellcraft? Lots of unanswered bits with it.
RAW I think that pathfinder all spells are known when they are cast because it is not listed otherwise. RAI: I think that silent/still spells (and SLAs) should be unnoticeable unless the seer has detect magic/arcane sight up and is in range.
Would it be relevant to bring up the interaction between paralysis and still/silent spellcasting? How might that influence the discussion?
A paralyzed character cannot move, speak, or take any physical action. He is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless. Not even friends can move his limbs. He may take purely mental actions, such as casting a spell with no components.
That seems to suggest that either Purely Mental are somehow detectable, or there is no physical indication whatsoever. This particular SLA doesn't yield any perceivable effects either. Since it seems most sound that a purely mental action is not detectable by outside physical means (other than the time it takes), you're essentially setting up a perception check for something that's Not only invisible, inaudible, and untraceable, but that isn't there.
Likewise, since a Spellcraft check "incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors", It seems to me that the spellcraft check would take the same penalties as above. That is to say, if you're not using detect magic or arcane sight, it's a bust.
Also, Thank you for the input! ^-^ Missed that bit.
Likewise, since a Spellcraft check "incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors", It seems to me that the spellcraft check would take the same penalties as above. That is to say, if you're not using detect magic or arcane sight, it's a bust.
To be fair, there is a +20 for "creature or object is invisible". Which apparently most spell effects are.