2. Yes. Provoking isn't noticing the spell (or potion being drunk) it's that you stop doing the background dodging and twisting that is part of combat, giving your opponents an extra attack beyond what they can normally force past your guard.
There's been a lot of debate on the others.
Yes to all three. Psychic magic is just another type of magic. Can one use Spellcraft to identify a Divine spell being cast? Does casting an Arcane spell provoke an AoO? Can one Counterspell a Divine spell?
There's been a lot of debate on the others.
Not... really...? People have asked, and people have answered. But there hasn't really been any debate that I'm aware of (and if there is it sounds rather nonsensical).
Can you use spellcraft to identify a Silent verbal-only spell?
Identify Spell Being Cast
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.
Can you use spellcraft to identify a Silent verbal-only spell?
Yep. The dev's have even said you can identify SLA's, which means that components are not a factor in whether you can identify a spell, since SLA's lack any components.
Currently, it has been treated by some as a kind of Supernatural ability.
That's just stupid. It's spellcasting. Where did they get that ridiculous idea from when nothing even hints at anything like that?
Yes - by RAW, you can identify a spell, even if it has no obviously observable components (Silent, Still, etc.) as it is being cast.
It makes no sense, but due to the language of the Spellcraft skill, by RAW you can.
So, given that you can use Spellcraft to identify it, you can also Counter it.
(I do agree with the AoO logic - you have to pull your focus away from combat in order to cast a spell.)
The Spellcraft skill also says it is modified similar to a perception check, which is done in response to observable stimulus.
What about an invisible caster. By the strict interpretation described here, you'd be able to identify a silent still spell being cast by an invisible caster, because it's a spell, but wouldn't be able to have any idea this invisible caster is present.
The Spellcraft skill also says it is modified similar to a perception check, which is done in response to observable stimulus.
What about an invisible caster. By the strict interpretation described here, you'd be able to identify a silent still spell being cast by an invisible caster, because it's a spell, but wouldn't be able to have any idea this invisible caster is present.
The answer is in the Spellcraft skill that you quoted: "... you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast,...". An invisible caster is by no means the same as a caster who is casting a Silent, Still spell with no material components.
I for one think that the rules support the notion that a spell with no components (such as a spell modified by the Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Material feats) cannot be identified by the Spellcraft skill (at least not until after it is cast). After all, there is no observable stimulus, and Spellcraft takes all the same penalties as Perception when it comes to spell identification. You can't identify something you never observed (directly or indirectly). It's just not physically possible.
However, I will acknowledge that the game developers themselves disagree with this notion, using a seemingly nonsensical (to me) interpretation of the rules that opens a heck of a can of worms.
Can you use spellcraft to identify a Silent verbal-only spell?Yep. The dev's have even said you can identify SLA's, which means that components are not a factor in whether you can identify a spell, since SLA's lack any components.
This is the first that I've heard of it. Mind linking to/quoting your source?
Currently, it has been treated by some as a kind of Supernatural ability.That's just stupid. It's spellcasting. Where did they get that ridiculous idea from when nothing even hints at anything like that?Don't be rude. There's absolutely no need to use such hard words as "stupid" and "ridiculous" just because you disagree with someone else's interpretation. It's enough to say you don't think it works that way.
However, I will acknowledge that the game developers themselves disagree with this notion, using a seemingly nonsensical (to me) interpretation of the rules that opens a heck of a can of worms.
+1
After all, there is no observable stimulus, and Spellcraft takes all the same penalties as Perception when it comes to spell identification.
This is the heart of the disagreement. You've removed the material component with Eschew Materials, you've removed the Verbal component with Silent spell, and you've removed the Somatic component with Still Spell, but there is something (unspecified) left, something the rules don't identify but that spellcraft can.
Maybe magic produces a smell like ozone. Maybe it's neutrino emissions for all I know. It's just an assumption that an invisible caster's neutrino emissions are also invisible.
Do you mean that a Fireball without components doesn't fling a small red ball that then explodes?
Do you mean that a Fireball without components doesn't fling a small red ball that then explodes?
There's a difference between identifying a spell after it has been cast and identifying it as it is being cast.
I have no issue with identifying it after - when the effect becomes visible. But to identify it while I am casting, so that you can Counter, etc., when there are no visible cues to prompt you? That I don't understand. And yet that is the designer's intent, and the RAW supports this (crazy) view.
I for one think that the rules support the notion that a spell with no components (such as a spell modified by the Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Material feats) cannot be identified by the Spellcraft skill (at least not until after it is cast). After all, there is no observable stimulus, and Spellcraft takes all the same penalties as Perception when it comes to spell identification. You can't identify something you never observed (directly or indirectly). It's just not physically possible.
However, I will acknowledge that the game developers themselves disagree with this notion, using a seemingly nonsensical (to me) interpretation of the rules that opens a heck of a can of worms.
I think part of the can-o-worms comes from being able to witness the RESULTS of action, rather than the action itself, and being able to piece things together in retrospect. (Note, this is how geologists can piece together ancient earth timelines.).
Tiny ball of flame that erupted into a big ball of flame suddenly appeared for a brief moment? Must be Fireball
When the baddie shows up and her skin is rock-like? Stoneskin.
Heck, many spells have some descriptive text about swirling magic or other visual cue, independent of components.
I feel like an equally big problem in this regard is the decisive overlap of Spellcraft and Knowledge(Arcana).
My favorite are the spell effects that don't even have external visuals. If my psychic casts Oneiric Horror on enemy A, enemy B still gets to spellcraft it as I cast or Kn. Arcana on the ongoing effect to know exactly what spell has been used.
No finger wiggles, no spell components, no verbals, no visual effect other than enemy A suddenly swatting at the air with their club, yet enemy B knows exactly what went down. That stretches plausibility to me.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Proponents of "you can always tell there is spellcasting" tend to go with taking something from the art style of Pathfinder - that spellcatsing always produces flashes of energy and such that can be ID'ed with Spellcraft, even if the caster is otherwise motionless. Some people don't like that flavor.
RAW I'd say psychic magic isn't any different from divine and arcane in this respect. That's your PFS answer. In a home game, go with whatever makes the group happy.
Have the developers said anything about a quickened spell and identifying it as its being cast? What about a quickened, stilled, silent, eschewed spell?
Do you mean that a Fireball without components doesn't fling a small red ball that then explodes?There's a difference between identifying a spell after it has been cast and identifying it as it is being cast.
I have no issue with identifying it after - when the effect becomes visible. But to identify it while I am casting, so that you can Counter, etc., when there are no visible cues to prompt you? That I don't understand. And yet that is the designer's intent, and the RAW supports this (crazy) view.
Spellcraft to ID a spell being cast uses the same penalties as Perception. Mind you, with a high enough perception you can pick out an invisible opponent in a silence field.
My favorite are the spell effects that don't even have external visuals. If my psychic casts Oneiric Horror on enemy A, enemy B still gets to spellcraft it as I cast or Kn. Arcana on the ongoing effect to know exactly what spell has been used.
No finger wiggles, no spell components, no verbals, no visual effect other than enemy A suddenly swatting at the air with their club, yet enemy B knows exactly what went down. That stretches plausibility to me.
Hate to say it, but nearly all magic and use of Spellcraft stretch plausibility.
You know the aura of this item because of Detect Magic? You can figure out EXACTLY what it does.
You readied to counterspell? You can identify and counter a spell with a casting time of swift action (a fraction of a second).
You have someone else's spellbook? You can read the magic from it regardless of any coding or encryption they attempt to set up.
Again, as the Inquisitor with 50+ perception notices the the most subtle clues against the silent/invisible foe, the Arcanist with 50+ spellcraft picks up thew subtlist cues against the componentless spell.
Well, the fastest way to find a dev comment on this is from the occult adventures playtest section so lets see *scrolls for three seconds*
Here.
So yes. You can identify psychic spells since all spells can be identified regardless of components.
There was a comment about identifying spell-like abilities.
I don't remember where it was, or what was said.
Anyone know?
That comment is an inference, from the statement that SLA's can be dispelled and countered as regular spells, and to counter you need to identify with spellcraft.
Yes - by RAW, you can identify a spell, even if it has no obviously observable components (Silent, Still, etc.) as it is being cast.
It makes no sense, but due to the language of the Spellcraft skill, by RAW you can.
No sense? You mean the swirling flame gathering together into a ball-shaped mass of fire doesn't suggest fireball regardless of if your fingers are twitching just so, and you didn't mumble those words? And that someone is starting to fade out of sight doesn't imply invisibility is involved? Or the gaggle of geese that are phasing into place doesn't suggest summon monster #?
Now, there's probably a spell or fifty that I can't imagine what the signs of their casting are. But in general, it's helpful to deliberately imagine a circumstance that supports the rules instead of just giving up.
Point is, it's entirely reasonable that the effects of a spell may be discernible even if the caster isn't using gestures and words. Basically, spell components aren't there for help/hinder Spellcraft. They're there so being immobilized or silenced are tactical impediments. That's all.
Think of Still Spell like Quick Draw; the effort involved in the action is massively reduced but you still know a dagger is getting unsheathed directly into your face.
Yes - by RAW, you can identify a spell, even if it has no obviously observable components (Silent, Still, etc.) as it is being cast.
It makes no sense, but due to the language of the Spellcraft skill, by RAW you can.
No sense? You mean the swirling flame gathering together into a ball-shaped mass of fire doesn't suggest fireball regardless of if your fingers are twitching just so, and you didn't mumble those words? And that someone is starting to fade out of sight doesn't imply invisibility is involved? Or the gaggle of geese that are phasing into place doesn't suggest summon monster #?
Now, there's probably a spell or fifty that I can't imagine what the signs of their casting are. But in general, it's helpful to deliberately imagine a circumstance that supports the rules instead of just giving up.
Point is, it's entirely reasonable that the effects of a spell may be discernible even if the caster isn't using gestures and words. Basically, spell components aren't there for help/hinder Spellcraft. They're there so being immobilized or silenced are tactical impediments. That's all.
Think of Still Spell like Quick Draw; the effort involved in the action is massively reduced but you still know a dagger is getting unsheathed directly into your face.
My counter to that logic is the Arcane Trickster's Tricky Spells ability, which removes S and V components, in an effort to make the spellcasting undetectable (the ability to undetectable charm someone in a crowded party, for instance). To then say that all spellcasting is detectable whether it has components or not sort of defeats the purpose of that otherwise powerful ability.
The only way to have spells that are undetectable to my knowledge is from the vigilante playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This came up in PFS, so I like to have something I can point to.
Where is the note about Spell-Like Abilities being identified with Spellcraft?
It never said this specifically, it used to say in the glossary that "Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal". Which since counterspelling states "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". This, many people have inferred that you must be able to identify Spell-like abilities to be able to counterspell them.
The glossary has been errata'd, and not reads "Spell-like abilities can be dispelled but they cannot be counterspelled or used to counterspell", so this inference is no longer valid, as is the entire basis for this argument that any spell can be identified regardless of components.
Maybe magic produces a smell like ozone. Maybe it's neutrino emissions for all I know. It's just an assumption that an invisible caster's neutrino emissions are also invisible.
Or, possibly, that someone in the room has gas.
Wait.
You can't use Dispel Magic, as a Spell-Like Ability, to Counterspell, any spell, whatsoever?
Nope. But you'd be able to dispel it after it is in effect.
So, Psychic magic can't Counterspell Psychic magic?
Um... Psychic magic isn't a SLA....
This whole thing is really really really simple. It's just another form of magic. It's different in the same way divine is different to arcane. It has a few special rules (in the same way arcane and divine magic have special rules and unique components), but aside from that it works exactly the same as arcane or divine magic.
Can psychic magic do x? Yes, it can, unless x states that it only works with arcane or divine magic.
There is nothing SAYING that you cannot counterspell psychic spells. I brought up the changes to SLA's because some were using SLA's lack of components yet ability to be counterspelled as an example of how you CAN identify a non-component spell being cast. SLA's not being counterable doesn't necessarily mean that non-component (or psychic) spells also can't be counterable, it just removes that one interpretation of the rules that seem to show that they CAN be.
Well, Spell-like abilities have no Verbal/Somatic components.
I was trying to find something to compare.
Then compare it to arcane and divine magic since those are the closest things to it.... -.-
Yes - by RAW, you can identify a spell, even if it has no obviously observable components (Silent, Still, etc.) as it is being cast.
It makes no sense, but due to the language of the Spellcraft skill, by RAW you can.
No sense? You mean the swirling flame gathering together into a ball-shaped mass of fire doesn't suggest fireball regardless of if your fingers are twitching just so, and you didn't mumble those words? And that someone is starting to fade out of sight doesn't imply invisibility is involved? Or the gaggle of geese that are phasing into place doesn't suggest summon monster #?
Now, there's probably a spell or fifty that I can't imagine what the signs of their casting are. But in general, it's helpful to deliberately imagine a circumstance that supports the rules instead of just giving up.
Point is, it's entirely reasonable that the effects of a spell may be discernible even if the caster isn't using gestures and words. Basically, spell components aren't there for help/hinder Spellcraft. They're there so being immobilized or silenced are tactical impediments. That's all.
Think of Still Spell like Quick Draw; the effort involved in the action is massively reduced but you still know a dagger is getting unsheathed directly into your face.
How about just feeling a disturbance in the Force?
Sure seeing the whole dance and hearing the words to the song make it easier to identify, but you can still feel the reverberations in the ether without them
Not according to some.
*Shrug* Then those people are blatantly wrong. The book specifically says: "A psychic spell largely functions like any other spell. It’s another type of magic, similar to arcane or divine magic—in fact, those who use psychic magic are easily mistaken for practitioners of arcane and divine traditions." and then goes on to say the ONLY differences between psychic magic and the two other forms of magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone is necessarily against all spells being somewhat identifiable while being cast. The issue is that the Spellcraft skill is too vague on what the casting being observable means. It says the DC should be modified as a perception check, which would take into account distance between you and the caster, fog, darkness, etc - but it doesn't really take into account a way for it to be defined as harder or easier to detect based on S or V components. It really SHOULD be easier to identify a spell being cast that has the guy waving his arms around and speaking arcane gibberish than if the guy just starts concentrating a little harder on someone. There is no part of the rules that allows this.
If the current DC 15+SL is based on a basic spell with V & S components, then I'd say there should at LEAST be a +5 to the DC for each of those components that aren't there. The fewer observable clues you have the harder it should be to ascertain what the caster is doing.
In reality, it doesn't matter as much, since I honestly don't see much countering going on. The need to ready an action for it sort of takes a lot of the utility out of countering.
Just wanted to reiterate that this is incorrect. It used to be a rule during the first printing of the Core Rulebook, but has since been errata'd away.
Technically, that text isn't necessary since it says " In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell." and it doesn't say they cannot be identified.
Pathfinder's rules are permissive.
You need rules that say you can do something, not rules saying you can't.
Umm... But it is permitted. It says " In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell." So... since it doesn't have text discussing identification of spells, you must assume the default spell rules.
There's really not much POINT in identifying SLA's as they are being cast, since they can't be countered anyway.
There's really not much POINT in identifying SLA's as they are being cast, since they can't be countered anyway.
Wait, is that all other groups use identifying spells for? Huh. My group (when one of the players actually takes ranks in spellcraft for once) likes to know what Spells and SLA's do so they can change tactics or just so they know what a buff or debuff specifically did.