Which would take precedent here?


GM Discussion

3/5

I will be running a scenario with a potential hag coven in it.

From the rules on coven magic in the Bestiaries:

"All three hags must take a full-round action to take part in this form of cooperative magic."

From the hags' tactics as printed in the scenario:

"Two of the hags fight the PCs in melee while the third uses her coven abilities, such as..." (list example coven abilities) There are still the other coven restrictions such as being within 10 ft of each other listed.

In this case, do I ignore the standard Bestiary rules that require all three hags take a full round action in favour of tactics listed in the scenario that imply that only one needs to take a full round action?

5/5

It's always a judgment call when it would affect the encounter as much as this one. In this case, if you look at the two subtiers, all the scenario adds in the high subtier is the third hag that uses coven powers. Normally adding one creature to an encounter with two of that creature raises the CR by only 1, and since the higher subtier is usually shooting for raising the CR by 3 (since 8-9 is 3 higher than 5-6), it probably means that the author expected those tactics to be allowed. After all, in theory, an encounter with 5 hags is 3 CR higher than an encounter with 2 hags, and the 5 hags could have 3 of them do a coven power and the other two attack in melee, and this illegal 3 coven is strictly weaker than that. When I ran it, I stuck with the tactics and just had this be a special coven.

3/5

Part two, because I know it is going to come up, coven magic is described as spell-like abilities. Spell-like abilities, "function just like spells, but are granted through a special racial ability or by a specific class ability." Would this mean that spellcraft and knowledge arcana can be used to identify them as they would a spell?

I have heard different GMs argue that they are only spell-like and therefore aren't treated as spells in some regards while others use the "function just like spells" to argue that they cannot be treated differently than spells.

Grand Lodge 4/5

The official ruling on the matter is that Spellcraft can be used to identify SLAs.


Jeff Merola wrote:
The official ruling on the matter is that Spellcraft can be used to identify SLAs.

Oh? That one's new to me! If you could post a link, it would be much appreciated.

(I've had three 5-star GMs rule against my use of Spellcraft to identify SLAs! I want to be rules-equipped next time...)

Grand Lodge 4/5

David Haller wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
The official ruling on the matter is that Spellcraft can be used to identify SLAs.

Oh? That one's new to me! If you could post a link, it would be much appreciated.

(I've had three 5-star GMs rule against my use of Spellcraft to identify SLAs! I want to be rules-equipped next time...)

Hmm, well, I can't find the quote I was thinking of, but since the usual problems people have with Spellcrafting SLAs is lack of any components, I do have a quote that can help in that instance:

Here.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I could have sworn there was a rule somewhere stating that SLAs can be identified with Spellcraft, but I can't seem to find it...

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

There's no rule that SLA's can't be identified with spellcraft. And SLAs are like spells except for those differences explicitly mentioned.

This is actually one of the typical key arguments that spellcasting itself would be somehow visible, because casting an SLA still provokes and allows Spellcraft, despite the lack of spell components.

Sczarni 4/5

After pondering on those Spellcraft checks before, I decided that you can't identify such spells since they are both Silent and Stilled. It even mentions that using such abilities is mental only, so in it's own way, creature isn't "casting a spell".

Knowledge (arcana) to identify spell effect in place seems more appropriate to me then Spellcraft although I am curious to hear other opinions.


Malag wrote:
After pondering on those Spellcraft checks before, I decided that you can't identify such spells since they are both Silent and Stilled. It even mentions that using such abilities is mental only, so in it's own way, creature isn't "casting a spell".

There is no requirement that a spell must have spell components to be discerned by Spellcraft. Adding that requirement would be house-ruling and is forbidden in PFS. None of the component eliminating feats indicate that they have any effect on Spellcraft checks, nor is there any such implication any where in the rules. If Still spell had any effect on Spellcraft checks, it would say so. Same with Silent Spell.

I have also seen the dev post that says Spellcraft can be used on SLA's. If I get a chance I'll look for it.


So the post I'm thinking of is actually on using Spellcraft on componentless spells technically not the same as SLAs, but certainly similar. It's the same one linked by Jeff above.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l3vu?Jason-Is-concealed-spellcasting-possible- with#20

The post is from Jason Bulmahn. I'll post the most important part:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
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.

Since there is nothing that says Spellcraft doesn't work on SLA's and since SLA's function like spells, there is no reason to assume Spellcraft doesn't work on SLAs, especially since you don't need components for Spellcraft.

Silver Crusade 2/5

linkified

Sczarni 4/5

N N 959 wrote:


There is no requirement that a spell must have spell components to be discerned by Spellcraft. Adding that requirement would be house-ruling and is forbidden in PFS. None of the component eliminating feats indicate that they have any effect on Spellcraft checks, nor is there any such implication any where in the rules. If Still spell had any effect on Spellcraft checks, it would say so. Same with Silent Spell.

Let me say first, that I am not house-ruling anything here. I am adjudicating as a PFS GM. Second, I am curious how other GMs rule it because this Spellcraft dilemma troubled me before.

The rules are silent just as Jason Bulmahn mentioned and according to a very very strict reading you can always make a Spellcraft check but this is when RAW and RAI conflict, hence he suggested adding -4 penalty on such check.

So if you ask me, you get a Spellcraft check only if the effect is visible and this is mostly to GM's whims if it is.

Adam

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

I always allow a Spellcraft for spells and SLA's regardless of components or lack thereof.


why you dont treat the coven as an eidolon?
I mean, a Coven treats its members as an Eidolon for sla´s and effects?

Or how to the players manage to cast as a team?
there are any rule to this?


Malag wrote:
N N 959 wrote:


There is no requirement that a spell must have spell components to be discerned by Spellcraft. Adding that requirement would be house-ruling and is forbidden in PFS. None of the component eliminating feats indicate that they have any effect on Spellcraft checks, nor is there any such implication any where in the rules. If Still spell had any effect on Spellcraft checks, it would say so. Same with Silent Spell.

Let me say first, that I am not house-ruling anything here. I am adjudicating as a PFS GM. Second, I am curious how other GMs rule it because this Spellcraft dilemma troubled me before.

The rules are silent just as Jason Bulmahn mentioned and according to a very very strict reading you can always make a Spellcraft check but this is when RAW and RAI conflict, hence he suggested adding -4 penalty on such check.

So if you ask me, you get a Spellcraft check only if the effect is visible and this is mostly to GM's whims if it is.

Adam

It's a house rule if you were to continue to impose a component requirement to use Spellcraft.

The rules are not silent. The rules say that SLA's function like spells and there is nothing that says Spellcrafft does not work on them. As others have pointed out, there is nothing the rules that leads one to believe that the absence of spell components precludes Spellcraft. There is nothing to be adjudicated as such and thus precluding a Spellcraft is house-ruling.

Please explain to me where you see a conflict between RAI and RAW?

Malag wrote:
hence he suggested adding -4 penalty on such check

Bulmahn didn't suggest adding a -4 penalty, he suggested that adding a -4 penalty might be reasonable if a GM wanted to impose such a restriction, after he explicitly states there is no penalty for lack of components. A world of difference.

Bulman did not say a "very very" strict reading. He said a strict reading. Don't twist what Bulmahn is saying. You made the wrong call that that happens. Don't compound the problem by trying to defend it.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

Consider the following situation:
Oracle, deaf curse, so all their spells are Silent.
Uses the spell Guidance on an ally.
Guidance, normally, is V, S
Silent makes it just S.
So, would a Silent Guidance be just the Oracle touching an ally?
And would you allow another person to see that the touch is actually a spell effect, guidance, instead of just a comradely pat on the back?

So, in that case, how is it different than an SLA?

Sovereign Court 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kinevon wrote:

Consider the following situation:

Oracle, deaf curse, so all their spells are Silent.
Uses the spell Guidance on an ally.
Guidance, normally, is V, S
Silent makes it just S.

Good up to here.

kinevon wrote:
So, would a Silent Guidance be just the Oracle touching an ally?

Nope. while touching is part of the act of casting a spell, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is the only act of casting a spell. There may be some hand motions involved, like tracing a symbol in the air before you touch the ally or something like that.

kinevon wrote:

And would you allow another person to see that the touch is actually a spell effect, guidance, instead of just a comradely pat on the back?

So, in that case, how is it different than an SLA?

I would absolutely allow a check to identify that.

Sovereign Court 5/5 5/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32 aka Netopalis

So, this happens to be one of my favorite scenarios. If you don't know which one it is, don't read this spoiler.

The Scenario:
The scenario author commented previously about this error. There were originally other tactics printed which were cut for word count. Personally, I find the original tactics to be far more compelling, and since the printed ones are impossible, I use those. Look at the spoiler in this link.

3/5

N N 959 wrote:


There is no requirement that a spell must have spell components to be discerned by Spellcraft.

You must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast implies that there are components.


gnrrrg wrote:
N N 959 wrote:


There is no requirement that a spell must have spell components to be discerned by Spellcraft.
You must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast implies that there are components.

No it doesn't because Spellcraft doesn't talk about components...at all. If there was any requirement for components, it would be illogical to say nothing of this in the skill itself. What Jason Bulmahn says is the game is silent on the non-component aspects of spellcasting. You're also completely ignoring the fact that a spell may create a visual effect.

You're making an assumption that casting a spell is only discerned by its components. While that assumption is not unreasonable, it is incorrect and lacks any RAW to support it.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

More to the point, implications are not enforceable rules.

Sczarni 4/5

@N N 959

I was honestly honest when I said that I am trying to adjudicate those Spellcraft SLA checks and with again all due honestly, you should tone down your wordplay. I responded to this thread because I wanted to know the answer from other GMs and while your opinion is valid, it's only your opinion. I will comply with whatever people agree with most.


Malag wrote:

@N N 959

I was honestly honest when I said that I am trying to adjudicate those Spellcraft SLA checks and with again all due honestly, you should tone down your wordplay. I responded to this thread because I wanted to know the answer from other GMs and while your opinion is valid, it's only your opinion. I will comply with whatever people agree with most.

I haven't offered opinion, I've offered fact. It's your opinion that you need components to use Spellcraft. It's a fact that the devs said you don't.

What I find objectionable about your response is a willful attempt to misrepresent the facts of what the devs said to justify the wrong decision.

Sczarni 4/5

@N N 959

Well I am sorry that you believe so and maybe I did make a wrong decision but I am just a regular human being you know. Again, please tone down your wordplay. I am not interested into flaming comments.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Malag wrote:
I will comply with whatever people agree with most.

Unfortunately, whatever people agree with most isn't always what the rules say. And since this discussion is currently in the PFS forums, we have to follow the developers clarifications.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

The rules for using Spellcraft to identify spells are IMO a mess.

If components don't matter, then why do you need to see the spellcasting occur in order to identify it with Spellcraft?

Spellcraft wrote:
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...

If components do matter, then why can't you use Spellcraft if you hear the spellcasting (the verval component) but can't see it?

If components don't matter, then why do you take Perception modifiers to your Spellcraft roll to identify a spell?

Spellcraft wrote:
...and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

Just the skill itself is full of internal inconsistency, let alone what clarifications we get from the developers.

<Many apologies if this seems incoherant, I've been awake for 24 hours at this point>

Sczarni 4/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Malag wrote:
I will comply with whatever people agree with most.
Unfortunately, whatever people agree with most isn't always what the rules say. And since this discussion is currently in the PFS forums, we have to follow the developers clarifications.

Let me rectify that then. I will comply with whatever PFS GMs agree with most and what developers say, like I always have and always will. It really doesn't feel nice when people pick on you over a misunderstanding.

I hope I made myself clear now.

Like Michael above said, Spellcraft is full of inconsistencies. I am merely trying to get an answer.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
It's always a judgment call when it would affect the encounter as much as this one. In this case, if you look at the two subtiers, all the scenario adds in the high subtier is the third hag that uses coven powers. Normally adding one creature to an encounter with two of that creature raises the CR by only 1, and since the higher subtier is usually shooting for raising the CR by 3 (since 8-9 is 3 higher than 5-6), it probably means that the author expected those tactics to be allowed. After all, in theory, an encounter with 5 hags is 3 CR higher than an encounter with 2 hags, and the 5 hags could have 3 of them do a coven power and the other two attack in melee, and this illegal 3 coven is strictly weaker than that. When I ran it, I stuck with the tactics and just had this be a special coven.

IMO authors don't get to break the rules just because they don't understand them.

For example there is a certain Season 4 scenario that uses a hat of disguise to make a creature appear as a different type of creature that somewhat irrationally grinds my gears.

There is a Season 2 scenario that has the skeleton template applied to a creature incorrectly which makes it incredibly deadly.

Oddly enough the base creature was the same in both cases...

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Michael Eshleman wrote:
Just the skill itself is full of internal inconsistency, let alone what clarifications we get from the developers.

Totally agree.


Michael Eshleman wrote:

The rules for using Spellcraft to identify spells are IMO a mess.

If components don't matter, then why do you need to see the spellcasting occur in order to identify it with Spellcraft?

The rules are not a mess, imo. The rules are clear. What has happened is people have made inferences and assumptions about how magic is suppose to work and that has conflicted with the rules.

Some where along the way, a rash of GMs/players have decided that spell casting is only represented by the components. So the logic seems to be if you eliminate the need for components, the caster is standing there doing nothing...and then magic happens.

What the devs have made clear in their response is that a spell is more than just the components. It also stands to reason that if one can take feats to eliminate components and spellcraft is unaffected, then the thing that is crucial to the identification of each individual spell is not the components, but the non-component part of the casting.

What is the non-component part of the casting? We don't know. It's left to our imagination. But we do know that it involves something visual. We can also infer that SLA's exhibit the same visual non-component aspect of casting.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

James McTeague wrote:
kinevon wrote:

Consider the following situation:

Oracle, deaf curse, so all their spells are Silent.
Uses the spell Guidance on an ally.
Guidance, normally, is V, S
Silent makes it just S.

Good up to here.

kinevon wrote:
So, would a Silent Guidance be just the Oracle touching an ally?

Nope. while touching is part of the act of casting a spell, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is the only act of casting a spell. There may be some hand motions involved, like tracing a symbol in the air before you touch the ally or something like that.

kinevon wrote:

And would you allow another person to see that the touch is actually a spell effect, guidance, instead of just a comradely pat on the back?

So, in that case, how is it different than an SLA?

I would absolutely allow a check to identify that.

Okay, let's add a trait and a feat to the mix. Same Oracle with the Deaf curse, so she gets Silent on all her spells for free.

Add either Wayang Spellhunter or Magical Lineage for a trait.
Add the Still Spell metamagic feat.
So, the deaf Oracle can now use a Still, Silent Guidance, still as an orison, but it removes both the V and S parts, so all that you get to see would be the Oracle touching her ally, or even herself...

Can you Spellcraft this?

My opinion:
Yes, as it is still a spell being cast. But it definitely moves into the fringes of the definition.

5/5

How do you see a spell? This coversation has bought up points about the ways that spellcraft works to me. Do you need detect magic up for spellcraft?

The Exchange

prd wrote:
dentifying 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

I just read this again and noticed something that has not been discussed, not that it says you must be able to see the Spell, not the caster.

I think this may be an important distinction in this case as you are identifying the spell and what it does, not how it was cast, the verbal or somatic components have nothing to do with what you are identifying, but rather the sound or image it projects as it does its thing. A fireball shooting across the landscape always looks like a fireball, regardless of how the caster goes about casting it.

This would also potentially have the effect of allowing you to identify a spell that crosses your line of site as it is cast, even if you cant see the caster directly (say they are behind cover) so may be worth some additional clarification from the devs.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

The way I interpret it, casting spells has visual effects beyond the components used. For instance, in some artwork, Kyra's hand has a circle of runes in the air around it. I think it's these kind of secondary effects that are identified, not the actions required to cast the spell.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Philderbeast wrote:
prd wrote:
dentifying 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

I just read this again and noticed something that has not been discussed, not that it says you must be able to see the Spell, not the caster.

I think this may be an important distinction in this case as you are identifying the spell and what it does, not how it was cast, the verbal or somatic components have nothing to do with what you are identifying, but rather the sound or image it projects as it does its thing. A fireball shooting across the landscape always looks like a fireball, regardless of how the caster goes about casting it.

As I said before, this is one of the arguments commonly used to "prove" that all spellcasting creates some kind of visible effect.

Philderbeast wrote:


This would also potentially have the effect of allowing you to identify a spell that crosses your line of site as it is cast, even if you cant see the caster directly (say they are behind cover) so may be worth some additional clarification from the devs.

I'm not sure about that. Spellcraft lets you identify a spell "as it is being cast", not after it's been cast. That appears to be mostly the job of Knowledge: Arcana.

Knowledge wrote:


Identify a spell effect that is in place Arcana 20 + spell level
Identify a spell that just targeted you Arcana 25 + spell level


Joseph Kellogg wrote:
The way I interpret it, casting spells has visual effects beyond the components used.

This is exactly what is dictated by the rules: Spellcraft works on a visual non-component part of casting.

What should be proof positive for everyone involved is that fact that Spellcraft requires that you "see" the spell as it is being cast, not that you hear the spell. If Spellcraft were at all dependent upon the components, then spells with only a verbal (v) component would incur penalties if you could not hear the caster. There is no such penalty imposed anywhere in the rules. Though, it would save a lot of confusion if the bolded part was actually in the rules.

gnrrrg wrote:
You must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast implies that there are components.

The fact that this mindset is a common one has bugged me for some time. Not because it's ignoring the fact that spells with verbal only components would defy this logic, but for another reason.

I'm guessing the problem is in the how the rules approach the subject and why that induces people to come to logical fallacies about Spellcraft. It occurs to me that it's a natural inference that spells should be identifiable based on their components. There's every reason to believe that the spell components are unique to that spell. If so, they should also be a basis for spell identification. K. Arcana starts us down that path by allowing us to identify all spells that use a material component. But missing is the same option for doing that based on somatic or verbal components. And neither 3.5 nor Pathfinder actually allow you to identify a spell being cased based on the components.

I think this oversight/gap in spell identification logic is what induces people to co-opt the Spellcraft skill as the way to do that. The though process being, since the most obvious thing is to use the components to identify a spell, regardless of what Spellcraft actually says, it must be using the components. This error is compounded by the fact that the game never really tells us there is a visual non-component part of spell casting. But I suspect the original authors hadn't really thought it through, or if they did, they figured it was self-evident.


ToshiroKurita wrote:
How do you see a spell? This coversation has bought up points about the ways that spellcraft works to me. Do you need detect magic up for spellcraft?

You don't see a spell, you see the "casting" of a spell. Whether it is Charm Person or Anticipate Peril, by virtue of Spellcraft, all spells and spell-like abilities include some non-component unique visual indication that it's being cast. Think of it like a little light show centered around the caster, except it does not emit light i.e. you need an ability to see it in darkness.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

N N 959 wrote:
ToshiroKurita wrote:
How do you see a spell? This coversation has bought up points about the ways that spellcraft works to me. Do you need detect magic up for spellcraft?
You don't see a spell, you see the "casting" of a spell. Whether it is Charm Person or Anticipate Peril, by virtue of Spellcraft, all spells and spell-like abilities include some non-component unique visual indication that it's being cast. Think of it like a little light show centered around the caster, except it does not emit light i.e. you need an ability to see it in darkness.

I still think this is a pretty shaky basis for it. There's this one sentence in the middle of a skill that supposedly dictates what spellcasting looks like. Another explanation could be that the writer wasn't thinking about silent/still spells; he was writing the general principle, not accounting for the exceptions.

It would be better if there was a section in the actual Magic Chapter, titled What does spellcasting look like?, rather than us deriving the visibility of spellcasting from this one sentence in the skills chapter.

My guess is that the CRB writers didn't want to nail down what spellcasting looks like, so that individual GMs and/or players have some freedom to let their imaginations fill that in. If one group wants spellcasting to look like anime-powerup shenanigans, and another wants a more somber goetic look, it's better if the CRB doesn't get in the way of it. It's easier to let your imagination run wild if there's free space for it.

So basically, I'd be very happy with a section something like this:

hypothetical section in the magic chapter wrote:

Noticeability of spellcasting: in general spellcasting is fairly obvious. Casters speak magic words, make gestures and manipulate components. However, certain feats and other abilities can negate the need for some or all of them, and Spell-like Abilities (see page XXX) never use spell components.

Identifying a spell that is being cast without components with Spellcraft is only possible if the observer is currently using detect magic or another power that allows magic to be observed. (Once the spell is actually completed, it's effects may make it obvious what has just been done.)

Even if a caster doesn't use any components for casting a spell, he still provokes attacks of opportunity (unless he casts defensively); opponents notice he's momentarily distracted and may seize this opportunity.

What spells themselves look like is up to the GM and players; they can agree on any style that fits the campaign, be it glowing runes in the air or anime-style powerups and blasts or anything else that they like. Some spells may be easily noticed, especially ones that have obvious effects on the environment like fireball. Others, such as charm person, that depend on subtlety for their usefulness, might not be noticeable without a trick like detect magic

5/5

gnrrrg wrote:
In this case, do I ignore the standard Bestiary rules that require all three hags take a full round action in favour of tactics listed in the scenario that imply that only one needs to take a full round action?

Go with the Bestiary rules...


Ascalaphus wrote:
I still think this is a pretty shaky basis for it.

One of a thousand things that stand on shaky ground in an any RPG.

hypothetical section in the magic chapter wrote:

Noticeability of spellcasting: in general spellcasting is fairly obvious. Casters speak magic words, make gestures and manipulate components. However, certain feats and other abilities can negate the need for some or all of them, and Spell-like Abilities (see page XXX) never use spell components.

Identifying a spell

...

I'm glad the rules don't impose any penalty based on components. I don't want to debate with GMs/Players about what I can and can't hear in any given circumstance. More to the point, Spellcraft should do what it promises, let me identify a spell being cast if I can see them. There's no reason to take that away from the players. GMs hardly ever use Spellcraft so you're only nerfing the players. I do, but I don't think I've ever seen another GM roll a Spellcraft check for an NPC.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with how Spellcraft works now. Just clarify it.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

N N 959 wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
I still think this is a pretty shaky basis for it.

One of a thousand things that stand on shaky ground in an any RPG.

hypothetical section in the magic chapter wrote:

Noticeability of spellcasting: in general spellcasting is fairly obvious. Casters speak magic words, make gestures and manipulate components. However, certain feats and other abilities can negate the need for some or all of them, and Spell-like Abilities (see page XXX) never use spell components.

Identifying a spell
...

I'm glad the rules don't impose any penalty based on components. I don't want to debate with GMs/Players about what I can and can't hear in any given circumstance. More to the point, Spellcraft should do what it promises, let me identify a spell being cast if I can see them. There's no reason to take that away from the players. GMs hardly ever use Spellcraft so you're only nerfing the players. I do, but I don't think I've ever seen another GM roll a Spellcraft check for an NPC.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with how Spellcraft works now. Just clarify it.

I use it, as a GM, when appropriate. The NPC, of course, needs to be trained in Spellcraft, and a PC needs to be casting where the NPC will notice it.

Emerald Spire:
There is a cleric in the first level of the spire, being protected by a construct, who has Spellcraft trained.

One of the PCs at the game I ran moved up into the room, and started casting Sleep. Cleric made the Spellcraft check, and set the construct to target the wizard, to try and disrupt the cast.

Unfortunately, due to the damage form attempting to disrupt the spell, and some other stuff going on, the PC took a lot of damage when the construct also exploded shortly thereafter. Hard to make even a low DC Reflex save at first level when you are unconscious. Even when given a shirt reroll.

So, overall, I blame that PC death on Spellcraft. ;)

5/5

N N 959 wrote:
ToshiroKurita wrote:
How do you see a spell? This coversation has bought up points about the ways that spellcraft works to me. Do you need detect magic up for spellcraft?
You don't see a spell, you see the "casting" of a spell. Whether it is Charm Person or Anticipate Peril, by virtue of Spellcraft, all spells and spell-like abilities include some non-component unique visual indication that it's being cast. Think of it like a little light show centered around the caster, except it does not emit light i.e. you need an ability to see it in darkness.

Not how the PRD phrases it. I don't have my books at hand to check, but PRD was quoted earlier in the thread and it said you must be able to see the spell as it is being cast.

Not the spell caster, not the spellcasting, but the spell.

Hence my question earlier.


ToshiroKurita wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
ToshiroKurita wrote:
How do you see a spell? This coversation has bought up points about the ways that spellcraft works to me. Do you need detect magic up for spellcraft?
You don't see a spell, you see the "casting" of a spell. Whether it is Charm Person or Anticipate Peril, by virtue of Spellcraft, all spells and spell-like abilities include some non-component unique visual indication that it's being cast. Think of it like a little light show centered around the caster, except it does not emit light i.e. you need an ability to see it in darkness.

Not how the PRD phrases it. I don't have my books at hand to check, but PRD was quoted earlier in the thread and it said you must be able to see the spell as it is being cast.

Not the spell caster, not the spellcasting, but the spell.

Hence my question earlier.

Incorrect.

Here is what the PRD says,

PRD wrote:
You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells as they are being cast.

You seem to want to read that as

"identifying spells" and you are ignoring the qualifier of "as they are being cast."

Spellcraft continues saying,

PRD on Spellcraft wrote:
Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question

While I can see why you are confused, it isn't ambiguous. The context of how you are identifying the spell makes it crystal clear that it is the casting of the spell that Spellcraft works off of, not the result of the spell or the spell itself.

While the spell is being cast, there is no spell. That's why you use Spellcraft to counterspell. The act of casting reveals what spell is going to be cast before the spell is actually cast.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Which would take precedent here? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.