|
The reason I'm so vocal about this is because I am a proponent of people being able to cast Charm Person or Detect Evil without letting their targets know.
It's a little thing, but it's important to me.
The biggest thing about all this is that even silent and stilled, or even psychically cast, people know you are casting a spell, per RAW. Because there is nothing in either of those that says you no longer provoke - people can tell you are distracted/vulnerable/casting and will smack you in the face for it. This lends to the idea that yes, EVERY spell has some sort of tell that you can spellcraft/counterspell/AOO on.
Ah, see you are blurring the lines here.
I'm saying that the spell itself doesn't necessarily have a physical, visual manifestation.
Seeing a spell being cast is one thing, seeing the actual spell is another thing altogether.
I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't say anywhere that all spells have a recognizable visual component.
Also, NOT every spell has 'some sort of tell' that allows you roll Spellcraft on. I don't wanna repeat myself from earlier, so just look at my earlier posts. It's all there, including quotes from one of the people who MADE the game.
Alex, it feels like you are trying to interpret the game content with your own private opinions. Per RAW, you get a Spellcraft check for any spell being cast (with visuals or no). Visual manifestation isn't even mentioned and as much as you, as a GM, feel it should affect the Spellcraft check, it doesn't. This is RAW reading. I am personally against this rule and it's houseruled in my home games, but it is as it is.
|
A problem with using the pictures in the books is that they don't follow actual spells. OA has the occult classes using somantic components to cast their spells. Also, the question is whether you see visuals as it is being cast, not after.
Fireball has light shooting from your hand after you cast it, not during. Personally, I prefer to think that the visuals of spells in the books is just for the reader to see.
I think it is important to be clear what is a somatic component and what isn't a somatic component.
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.
That is the only kind of movement that counts as somatic. Wiggling your fingers, squinting, tapping your toes, or even moving your hand in a vague way could all be part of a spell that doesn't have somatic components. I think that was the point Jason Bulmahn was making.
For all we know, this is what someone looks like while casting a teleport spell. Okay, I'm kind of joking, but nothing the protagonist is doing would actually count as a somatic component. She isn't motionless, but she isn't making measured and precise hand motions. (I have no idea what the witch is supposed to be doing.)
I think the non-somatic physical motions are probably much more subtle, but people trained to look for those signs would have a decent chance to spot them. Professional stage magicians can often tell what other magicians are doing by spotting tiny wrist movements or changes in posture that most people wouldn't be aware of. Game magic might have similar tells.
I would also expect some spells to have more overt visible signs like sparkles or glowing ribbons. Why not?
For psychic casters you might notice evidence of concentration like breathing changes, stiffness of the neck or shoulders, or squinting. Emotional components might be detectable through micro-expressions that reflect the fear, anger, or joy that the caster is using to power the spell. And again, no somatic components doesn't necessarily mean a complete lack of motions.
So I think there are many possible ways that you could visually indicate that someone is casting a spell even if they don't need to speak in a firm voice or make a measured and precise hand motion.
A problem with using the pictures in the books is that they don't follow actual spells. OA has the occult classes using somantic components to cast their spells. Also, the question is whether you see visuals as it is being cast, not after.
I actually wouldn't be surprised if the spiritualist just used the evil eye because of her experience in being a fake and doing things like that was normal for her.
The reason I'm so vocal about this is because I am a proponent of people being able to cast Charm Person or Detect Evil without letting their targets know.
It's a little thing, but it's important to me.
The biggest thing about all this is that even silent and stilled, or even psychically cast, people know you are casting a spell, per RAW. Because there is nothing in either of those that says you no longer provoke - people can tell you are distracted/vulnerable/casting and will smack you in the face for it. This lends to the idea that yes, EVERY spell has some sort of tell that you can spellcraft/counterspell/AOO on.
Ah, see you are blurring the lines here.
I'm saying that the spell itself doesn't necessarily have a physical, visual manifestation.
Seeing a spell being cast is one thing, seeing the actual spell is another thing altogether.
I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't say anywhere that all spells have a recognizable visual component.
Also, NOT every spell has 'some sort of tell' that allows you roll Spellcraft on. I don't wanna repeat myself from earlier, so just look at my earlier posts. It's all there, including quotes from one of the people who MADE the game.
Jason explicitly states that by RAW you get the spellcraft check regardless of components, and the spellcraft check takes penalties as per a perception check - since the only way most characters would be able to perceive the spell is by vision or hearing, it has to either be audible or visible (or both).
Unless you have another explanation for how all characters are entitled to a spellcraft check to determine exactly what spell is being cast regardless of components and that involves perception penalties?
Look closely.
Yes, you are allowed to roll.
No, it doesn't say spells (NOT THE SPELLCASTER) have visual components.
If you witness a spell being cast, you get to roll.
The spell itself doesn't trigger this.
The spellcaster does.
I'd say the opposite - that it is very important they not be able to do this.The reason I'm so vocal about this is because I am a proponent of people being able to cast Charm Person or Detect Evil without letting their targets know.
It's a little thing, but it's important to me.
That's fine, but Spellcraft does not say spells themselves are visible. Everyone seems to think so, which is confusing to me (because it doesn't say that), but it doesn't say that at all.
Alex, it feels like you are trying to interpret the game content with your own private opinions. Per RAW, you get a Spellcraft check for any spell being cast (with visuals or no). Visual manifestation isn't even mentioned and as much as you, as a GM, feel it should affect the Spellcraft check, it doesn't. This is RAW reading. I am personally against this rule and it's houseruled in my home games, but it is as it is.The reason I'm so vocal about this is because I am a proponent of people being able to cast Charm Person or Detect Evil without letting their targets know.
It's a little thing, but it's important to me.
The biggest thing about all this is that even silent and stilled, or even psychically cast, people know you are casting a spell, per RAW. Because there is nothing in either of those that says you no longer provoke - people can tell you are distracted/vulnerable/casting and will smack you in the face for it. This lends to the idea that yes, EVERY spell has some sort of tell that you can spellcraft/counterspell/AOO on.
Ah, see you are blurring the lines here.
I'm saying that the spell itself doesn't necessarily have a physical, visual manifestation.
Seeing a spell being cast is one thing, seeing the actual spell is another thing altogether.
I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't say anywhere that all spells have a recognizable visual component.
Also, NOT every spell has 'some sort of tell' that allows you roll Spellcraft on. I don't wanna repeat myself from earlier, so just look at my earlier posts. It's all there, including quotes from one of the people who MADE the game.
No interpretation at all.
Spells aren't visible (unless the spell says so).
Spellcraft (skill) doesn't say spells are visible (not sure why people think it says so, it really doesn't).
SpellCASTING is visible. Sometimes.
I mean, sheesh, people... I was quoting a GAME DESIGNER. If that isn't good enough, I'm not sure what is.
*shrugs*
I'm still waiting to see published text that calls out ALL spells as having visible components that allow them to be identified.
Don't quote Spellcraft, it isn't there. Seriously. Read closely.
Also, Malag, I don't disagree with the FACT that casting provokes.
It does.
HOWEVER, the spell itself does not have visual components unless the text says so.
Someone casting Charm Person, you can identify it.
Someone casting Stilled/Silenced Charm Person... NOPE (not RAW, but covered in the FAQ I quoted by game designer).
So...
No published rules have been shown that call out SPELLS as all having visual effects. People keep rattling on and on about Spellcraft saying that all spells have visual effects, but it doesn't say that. It doesn't even come close to saying that.
It says:
"Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors."
...you must be able to clearly see the spell...
To target a stealthy target, you must be able to see him...
To hand over a million dollar lottery ticket, you must know who it goes to...
...to find your missing cat, you must find him...
Come on people, seriously. Spellcraft doesn't say that all spells have visual components, it says that IF they do, you MIGHT be able to identify it.
Stop trying to make casters more powerful than the rules allow.
|
|
No interpretation at all.
Spells aren't visible (unless the spell says so).
Spellcraft (skill) doesn't say spells are visible (not sure why people think it says so, it really doesn't).
SpellCASTING is visible. Sometimes.
I mean, sheesh, people... I was quoting a GAME...
You didn't quote much honestly. The section that you quoted is Jason talking about spells in general and their S,V,M components but in the end, Jason mentions "that a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components."
What you are saying is that, every GM can suddenly rule that spell has no visual components, because of X,Y,Z reasons. That's a pretty big table variance subjected only to fluff and lack of imagination.
Bob, by requiring a Spellcraft check it incorporates by reference the rules in Spellcraft! You don't have to say "do this skill check, and by the way don't ignore the specific limitations/rules listed in that skill description."
I think Alex is probably right. Whoever wrote the Spellcraft rules wasn't thinking about feats that eliminate verbal/somatic components, and the Perception penalties were probably supposed to include things like "it's too loud to hear the verbal component" or "he's sitting down and making his somatic gestures out of sight under the table." I also take the fact that you can't counter spell or ID a spell-like ability during casting as evidence that the same should apply to a regular spell without verbal or somatic components.
Whether this is a good idea or not is highly questionable. I like the idea of psychic casters (and properly built arcane casters) being able to secretly charm/dominate people in a social encounter (but maybe allow sense motive vs. something to notice the concentration indicating he just did something), but I doubt non-psychic casters are going to be as excited and you really should ramp up the magician hatred if you're going to play this way.
I'd probably prefer a ruling that the Paizo art has it right, there's some sort of aura as you cast that can be identified. I'd also like to apply it to spell-like abilities and let us counter spell those.
I'm still waiting to see published text that calls out ALL spells as having visible components that allow them to be identified.If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell's level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent's spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can't do either of these things.I don't see any restrictions on this. It doesn't refer to the rules in Spellcraft, or any of the restrictions. Hit the DC 15+spell level check, identify the spell. Period.
you have to be able to see the target to list them as your counter-spell but i don't think this is what alex is arguing, so i'll just point it out and move on.