Identifying a Spells with Spellcraft


Rules Questions

451 to 500 of 756 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Ravingdork wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:

Quandary, your arrogance is unnecessary. Paizo ruled to your liking, we get it. But many people misunderstood, which proves it was not clear. I'm not so sure why its such a big deal to you.

I wasn't playing PF 5 years ago, so I wasn't around for that ruling. As for the rule printed in the CRB, it states that you have to see the spell being cast, that's all. In 3.5, where I had just fled from, that meant you had to see the components. Being that the PF rule, as written, could be played the same as the 3.5 rule, there was no reason not to do so.

The source of confusion is obvious.

I didn't really misunderstand. The developers have been quite clear about their intent for a long time now. Up until they made it official with this FAQ, I just flat out refuse to accept their interpretations of the RAW.

Guess I'm turning into an old Grognard who just can't bring himself around to accept the way the game is changing.

Well...at least you're being honest. I respect that.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Claxon wrote:
Well...at least you're being honest. I respect that.

I'm not always right--my memory isn't what it once was--but I'm always honest.

Also, I've edited my post above.


I don't think my GM will follow the FAQ either, he likes to ambush us with spellcasters far too often to allow an easy way to detect spellcasting from a distance.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
CampinCarl9127 wrote:


Let's try to roleplay instead of rollplay a little.

Please don't do this.

I am okay with the FAQ, but I am very much not okay with this roleplay/rollplay crap.

Don't do it. It just makes you look like a jerk.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:


Let's try to roleplay instead of rollplay a little.

Please don't do this.

I am okay with the FAQ, but I am very much not okay with this roleplay/rollplay crap.

Don't do it. It just makes you look like a jerk.

How so? I think it's important to take both the rules and flavor of the game into account when playing. You shouldn't alter reality to fit a ridiculous technicality in the rules, you should do the opposite. That is the only point I was making.


It's basically insulting people who play the game differently than you, along with a healthy dose of condescension.

At least, that's how it comes off. Some people like to play Pathfinder as a game of strategy, numbers, and player skill. Casting derision on that type of play isn't very useful.


_Ozy_ wrote:

It's basically insulting people who play the game differently than you, along with a healthy dose of condescension.

At least, that's how it comes off. Some people like to play Pathfinder as a game of strategy, numbers, and player skill. Casting derision on that type of play isn't very useful.

My point was not "you need to play the game the same way as me". My point was "take rules and flavor both into account".

If you want to run a faceless grind of numbers, feel free. But that's hardly a Pathfinder game IMHO. If I want to meatgrind enemies beneath my boots, I'll play Dynasty Warriors.

Now that's not saying that you can't enjoy the numbers. I absolutely do. I understand and use the rules so well that whenever I build characters for games with my local friends, I make sure to check their builds so that I keep in line with their power instead of blowing them out of the water. I do that because I think it's just as, if not more important to make sure the roleplaying aspect of the game is paid attention to. It is in fact, by definition, a roleplaying game.

But if you think that's condescending, that's your opinion. I just don't believe rules lawyering is in the true spirit of the game. The stories you hear about years after the fact aren't "Oh yeah, I managed to get a +18 to hit at level 4 because of these two class archetypes combining". The stories you hear are about how the halfling impersonated the king and sent the army the wrong direction while the half-orc bludgeoned the guards to death with the monk's dismembered leg.

But, to each their own. This thread is getting derailed enough as is without us having this age-old argument.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Are you aware that this was originally a war game, Carl, basically all number grinding?


Ravingdork wrote:
Are you aware that this was originally a war game, Carl, basically all number grinding?

Irrelevant. All that matters is what it is now.

But this is my last post talking about this point. It's clearly ruffling a lot of feather, it has absolutely zero relevance to the thread, and I don't want to waste my time arguing it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You could have just walked away from it.

Now, you just keep digging a deeper hole.

You moved on to "Sorry I am better than you. I suppose I will stop mentioning it."


Ian Bell wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
You also provoke from your party members every time you walk past them to check your pack. That doesn't mean they take the AoO. Same with the guards. They would only take the AoO of they wanted to. Assuming they have combat reflexes and can take AoOs while flat footed.

If someone walked up to you, was standing right in front of you, and began casting a spell while staring and motioning directly at you, what would you do?

If nothing else, you would disrupt the caster's concentration, break the spell, and demand to know what the hell he was doing--that or you'd run away and hope for the best.

I haven't acted yet, so I'm flat footed and can't take an AOO to stop him. :P

Unless you have your weapon in hand or Improved Unarmed Strike, you wouldn't be able to do the AOO even if you weren't surprised.

Quote:

It's bad because...

...it makes the game far less intuitive.
...raises far more questions and corner cases.

Indeed : what makes the spell obvious ? Is it visual ? Does casting makes sound ? Does it smell weird ?

Is it obviously magical (as the FAQ) ? Or is it just weird things but not obviously magical (as Jason Bulmahn posted a few years earlier).

Does those hints enough to identify the spell ? Does not perceiving those hints enough to prevent the spell identification. For example : if casting makes glowing runes appear around the caster, does being invisible or behind a door prevent the spell from being identified ?

I could go on for a whole day with question like that.

I won't even add the spellcraft limitations : if the caster is far, or in the dark, or everyother situation that could make identification harder.

The 3.5 ruling was more intuitive : the spell had components, you could identify it. The spell didn't have components, you couldn't identify it.

Quote:
...restricts player options.

Absolutly : why would a caster try to be subtle if magic is always obvious ?

Quote:
...is a clear political move to push their new products, such as Heroes of the Streets with its Cunning Caster feat.

And they're not even hiding it : the FAQ itself declares that there will be rules in Ultimate Intrigue that will help hide spellcasting. IT IS A FREAKING ADVERTISEMENT !!!

And it's not what Jason Bulmahn said spellcasting should look like when he answered years ago, meaning the rules have indeed been changed by that FAQ.

Quote:
...has only served to divide the Paizo roleplaying community.

True.


@Ravingdork Obviously everyone wasn't confused. Some of you have followed these threads vigorously since the dawn of pathfinder. You've caught all the remarks made by so and so.


So, where does this FAQ leave something like SU abilities, like a Witches Hex?

Is there some outward manifestation when she drops a Slumber Hex on some unsuspecting farmer?


_Ozy_ wrote:

Hmm, does this make wands more valuable? AFAIK, you don't get spellcraft checks to detect the spell coming out of a wand, so presumably there is no outward manifestation that you are activating a spell completion item.

What about scrolls?

Interesting.

Wands and other such items might very well be the key to subtle magic use, then....


SlimGauge wrote:
Draco Bahamut wrote:

Invisible pixies will have so much fun in life from now on...

What would happen if a tiny invisible caster is on the same square of someone and casts on surprise ? Is possible to know who exactly is casting the spell ?
Better question: Can my illusionist cast an illusion of the the tell-tale signs of a spell being cast (whatever those happen to be) around someone else ?

Absolutely. But in doing so, will also have the visual effect appear around himself, as per the FAQ.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
My only point is that you can't have a blanket statement for the usefulness of charm person, or any spell for that matter.
I would have thought that, that goes without saying, Carl.
You would think, but alex seems to think otherwise. Hence me trying to prove this point.

Stop telling people what I think.


alexd1976 wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
My only point is that you can't have a blanket statement for the usefulness of charm person, or any spell for that matter.
I would have thought that, that goes without saying, Carl.
You would think, but alex seems to think otherwise. Hence me trying to prove this point.
Stop telling people what I think.

If I misrepresented your position, I apologize. Could you explain to me what it is than?


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
My only point is that you can't have a blanket statement for the usefulness of charm person, or any spell for that matter.
I would have thought that, that goes without saying, Carl.
You would think, but alex seems to think otherwise. Hence me trying to prove this point.
Stop telling people what I think.
If I misrepresented your position, I apologize. Could you explain to me what it is than?

You can quote me as much as you like, but telling others what I am thinking is flat out lying.

You aren't me, so don't pretend you know what I'm thinking.

That's as much explanation as you deserve.


Saldiven wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Hmm, does this make wands more valuable? AFAIK, you don't get spellcraft checks to detect the spell coming out of a wand, so presumably there is no outward manifestation that you are activating a spell completion item.

What about scrolls?

Interesting.

Wands and other such items might very well be the key to subtle magic use, then....

Though made somewhat less subtle by the fact you have to take a wand out and do something with it.


alexd1976 wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
My only point is that you can't have a blanket statement for the usefulness of charm person, or any spell for that matter.
I would have thought that, that goes without saying, Carl.
You would think, but alex seems to think otherwise. Hence me trying to prove this point.
Stop telling people what I think.
If I misrepresented your position, I apologize. Could you explain to me what it is than?

You can quote me as much as you like, but telling others what I am thinking is flat out lying.

You aren't me, so don't pretend you know what I'm thinking.

That's as much explanation as you deserve.

I am sorry you feel that way. I simply seek to gain a greater understanding of your position so that we man continue a reasonable debate. But I see that since you have deigned to respond with accusations and seem to have no interest in defending your position, I guess that is not possible.

There is also no need to bait by accusing people of lying. If you think I am incorrect, point out my mistake. As I tried to politely request of you.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Saldiven wrote:
Wands and other such items might very well be the key to subtle magic use, then....

Not sure how subtle pointing a fancy stick at a person and saying some sort of trigger word is. Could work if you are invisible / far enough away not to be heard... but then so could regular spellcasting (unless you go with a house rule saying that can be seen through invisibility).


CBDunkerson wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Wands and other such items might very well be the key to subtle magic use, then....
Not sure how subtle pointing a fancy stick at a person and saying some sort of trigger word is. Could work if you are invisible / far enough away not to be heard... but then so could regular spellcasting (unless you go with a house rule saying that can be seen through invisibility).

You don't need to houserule it to make it visible, the FAQ took care of that.

Subtle spellcasting is no longer a thing.


alexd1976 wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Wands and other such items might very well be the key to subtle magic use, then....
Not sure how subtle pointing a fancy stick at a person and saying some sort of trigger word is. Could work if you are invisible / far enough away not to be heard... but then so could regular spellcasting (unless you go with a house rule saying that can be seen through invisibility).

You don't need to houserule it to make it visible, the FAQ took care of that.

Subtle spellcasting is no longer a thing.

Not entirely. Using the Secret Caster ability of the Dissident Dawn prestige class allows for some subtleties.


alexd1976 wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Wands and other such items might very well be the key to subtle magic use, then....
Not sure how subtle pointing a fancy stick at a person and saying some sort of trigger word is. Could work if you are invisible / far enough away not to be heard... but then so could regular spellcasting (unless you go with a house rule saying that can be seen through invisibility).

You don't need to houserule it to make it visible, the FAQ took care of that.

Subtle spellcasting is no longer a thing.

Visible yes.

The FAQ does not say it can be seen through invisibility or if the caster is otherwise concealed or in cover (in Darkness, stealthy, etc).
Some people interpret it that way, but it doesn't say that.

Oddly, those people tend to be those least in favor of the rule.


What do you think about stealth working around this ? Could a arcane trickster hide behind an ally and cast against everyone around perception ?


thejeff wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Wands and other such items might very well be the key to subtle magic use, then....
Not sure how subtle pointing a fancy stick at a person and saying some sort of trigger word is. Could work if you are invisible / far enough away not to be heard... but then so could regular spellcasting (unless you go with a house rule saying that can be seen through invisibility).

You don't need to houserule it to make it visible, the FAQ took care of that.

Subtle spellcasting is no longer a thing.

Visible yes.

The FAQ does not say it can be seen through invisibility or if the caster is otherwise concealed or in cover (in Darkness, stealthy, etc).
Some people interpret it that way, but it doesn't say that.

Oddly, those people tend to be those least in favor of the rule.

Is the spell visible according to the FAQ?

Yes.

Casters can't have it both ways. Either all spells are visible, or not all spells are visible. It has now been firmly established that all spells are visible.

Abide by it, or admit to houserules, as I have.


alexd1976 wrote:


Casters can't have it both ways. Either all spells are visible, or not all spells are visible. It has now been firmly established that all spells are visible.

Abide by it, or admit to houserules, as I have.

Except the part that spellcraft has the same penalties as perception. If not, everybody in the universe is constantly aware of every spell cast in the universe and will go crazy.


Since spellcraft has the same penalties as perception, it logically follows that it is possible to not notice spellcasting. That is not the same as saying spellcasting is not noticeable. Just because something is noticeable does not mean that it will be noticed.


alexd1976 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Wands and other such items might very well be the key to subtle magic use, then....
Not sure how subtle pointing a fancy stick at a person and saying some sort of trigger word is. Could work if you are invisible / far enough away not to be heard... but then so could regular spellcasting (unless you go with a house rule saying that can be seen through invisibility).

You don't need to houserule it to make it visible, the FAQ took care of that.

Subtle spellcasting is no longer a thing.

Visible yes.

The FAQ does not say it can be seen through invisibility or if the caster is otherwise concealed or in cover (in Darkness, stealthy, etc).
Some people interpret it that way, but it doesn't say that.

Oddly, those people tend to be those least in favor of the rule.

Is the spell visible according to the FAQ?

Yes.

Casters can't have it both ways. Either all spells are visible, or not all spells are visible. It has now been firmly established that all spells are visible.

Abide by it, or admit to houserules, as I have.

All spells are visible at all times from everywhere? Through solid walls? From miles away?

Obviously not. (I hope. Really, I hope we agree on this.)
So there are some limits. The Spellcraft rules suggest they're based on perception, taking the same penalties.
That implies that it's possible to miss someone casting, if you can't see them clearly. Perhaps if they're hiding in the bushes. Or if you can't see them because they're invisible.

All the FAQ actually says is that there don't need to be Verbal, Somatic or Material components to see that someone is casting. "all spells have their own manifestations" and "Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated;".

None of that says those manifestations are always visible, no matter what.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Avh post above is pretty much exactly what I was thinking. Thank you for writing it out in a way I could not.

Saldiven wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Hmm, does this make wands more valuable? AFAIK, you don't get spellcraft checks to detect the spell coming out of a wand, so presumably there is no outward manifestation that you are activating a spell completion item.

What about scrolls?

Interesting.

Wands and other such items might very well be the key to subtle magic use, then....

Actually, there is a NEW feat in Heroes of the Streets for that, so I guess the default assumption is that wands are not subtle. Hurray for another game option that actually LIMITS the game!


Ravingdork wrote:


Actually, there is a NEW feat in Heroes of the Streets for that, so I guess the default assumption is that wands are not subtle. Hurray for another game option that actually LIMITS the game!

I really think this is good. If you want magic subtly to be limited, than you can use the feat, if you don´t want, you can houserule it away.

Do people that never houserules anything really count the weight of all the coins and count the damage on the walls from every stray spell ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If casting a spell makes some kind of visible energy (call it sparkles, rainbows, visible ley lines, shimmering wavs of energy, swirling runes, or whatever), then it's very plausible that using a spell-trigger item like a wand creates the same energy effect.

No, that's not explicitly stated in the FAQ or elsewhere, but it's pretty obvious that using a wand actually produces a spell effect (a wand of Fireball actually produces a Fireball), so it's reasonable to assume it produces the effect in exactly the same way that the spell does - visible energy and all.

Yeah, that's an assumption, but it seems a reasonable one.

And, for me, I'm assuming that invisibility and other vision-obscuring effects can hide this visible energy, and likewise, they can hide the fact that you're pointing a wand at someone too.

So, standing in the open and casting fireball is obvious. Standing in the open and using a wand of fireball is obvious. But in both of those cases, if you're instead hiding in fog or darkness or with an invisibility spell, neither you nor your magic are obvious.


DM_Blake wrote:
But in both of those cases, if you're instead hiding in fog or darkness or with an invisibility spell, neither you nor your magic are obvious.

Or hiding in bushes, or around the corner just peaking out to see your target, or two blocks away looking between the drapes of a 3rd floor window, etc.


What is the penalty of spoting someone casting a spell on the surface of the moon at a clear night of full moon and you are at the surface of Golarion ?


+1 to the DC for every 10 feet.


Draco Bahamut wrote:
What is the penalty of spoting someone casting a spell on the surface of the moon at a clear night of full moon and you are at the surface of Golarion ?

You don't need to go that far, or even nearly that far. At just a tiny, tiny fraction of that distance the penalty is so high that not even Legolas can see that far.

I don't know about Golarion's moon, so I'll use Earth's moon instead: The average distance from the earth's surface (sea level) to the moon's surface is about 238,855 miles. That means a Perception penalty of -124,114,440 to see anything on the surface of Earth's moon (including seeing the moon itself, incidentally).

Once you get into 9 digit penalties, I don't think anyone has a high enough Perception for it. In fact, I'm quite sure they don't.


Nah, the moon's so big that you get a circumstance bonus on Perception to see it. XD So no worries there.


GM Rednal wrote:
Nah, the moon's so big that you get a circumstance bonus on Perception to see it. XD So no worries there.

Don't go there.

Size bonuses to Perception don't scale the way distance penalties do. RAW you probably can't see it.

Much like you can't see an airborne colossal (+16) dragon a mile away (-528).

Ignore RAW. Perception isn't designed to work like that.


thejeff wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Wands and other such items might very well be the key to subtle magic use, then....
Not sure how subtle pointing a fancy stick at a person and saying some sort of trigger word is. Could work if you are invisible / far enough away not to be heard... but then so could regular spellcasting (unless you go with a house rule saying that can be seen through invisibility).

You don't need to houserule it to make it visible, the FAQ took care of that.

Subtle spellcasting is no longer a thing.

Visible yes.

The FAQ does not say it can be seen through invisibility or if the caster is otherwise concealed or in cover (in Darkness, stealthy, etc).
Some people interpret it that way, but it doesn't say that.

Oddly, those people tend to be those least in favor of the rule.

Is the spell visible according to the FAQ?

Yes.

Casters can't have it both ways. Either all spells are visible, or not all spells are visible. It has now been firmly established that all spells are visible.

Abide by it, or admit to houserules, as I have.

All spells are visible at all times from everywhere? Through solid walls? From miles away?

Obviously not. (I hope. Really, I hope we agree on this.)
So there are some limits. The Spellcraft rules suggest they're based on perception, taking the same penalties.
That implies that it's possible to miss someone casting, if you can't see them clearly. Perhaps if they're hiding in the bushes. Or if you can't see them because they're invisible.

All the FAQ actually says is that there don't need to be Verbal, Somatic or Material components to see that someone is casting. "all spells have their own manifestations" and "Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated;".

None of that says those manifestations are always visible, no matter what.

I thought that was the point of the FAQ.

All spells are visible.


I didn't say Size Bonus, I said Circumstance Bonus. Different things. XD

...Also, Perception is mainly for fine details, not obvious ones.


thejeff wrote:
Ignore RAW. Perception isn't designed to work like that.

There's some irony here, yes? I'm pretty sure Perception is "designed". In the RAW. The whole game is "designed", and Perception is part of the whole game, so Perception is "designed". And it is "designed" to work exactly the way it works.

Bad design?

Yes. No doubt. But nonetheless, it is designed that way.


alexd1976 wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
My only point is that you can't have a blanket statement for the usefulness of charm person, or any spell for that matter.
I would have thought that, that goes without saying, Carl.
You would think, but alex seems to think otherwise. Hence me trying to prove this point.
Stop telling people what I think.
If I misrepresented your position, I apologize. Could you explain to me what it is than?

You can quote me as much as you like, but telling others what I am thinking is flat out lying.

You aren't me, so don't pretend you know what I'm thinking.

That's as much explanation as you deserve.

Alex, you SEEM to have grossly misunderstood what Carl was doing/saying.

Alex, Carl stated his understanding of what you were saying when he said "alex seems to think otherwise."
What that means when he says that is, with everything you've said, that is what he's understanding from it.
As Carl said, "There is also no need to accuse people of lying. If you think I am incorrect, point out my mistake." Because he's sharing what he understands you're view to be. If he's wrong say something like, "No, I don't think X. I think Y. Sorry if that wasn't clear."
Because Carl is using a Conversation Tool, namely mirrored response. It's where you say back to the person what you're understanding the person to be saying, to allow that person to see if you're understanding what message he's trying to convey.

So Alex, if I am wrong in my understanding that you SEEM to have misunderstood what Carl was trying to do then you can respond saying I am mistaken that you did know what he was trying to do and responded how you did anyways. Or you can take the statement for what it is. An observation of what people are understanding from what you are saying.

So again, if someone is "telling people what you think" and are wrong, then correct them by stating what you actually think. Because odds are that many other people will come to the same conclusion based on what you've said so far.

EDIT: Because the point of conversation and talking is to convey to others what you are thinking. So if you've said something, the normal and correct response is to use that to try and understand what you're thinking, because conveying ideas is the purpose of conversation. Thus if conversation went well the people involved would accurately know what the others think about the topic.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Two points on the "can't see the moon" thing:

1) The perception DC is to see "fine details". If we're talking about a moon, it's the DC to see the flag from a moon landing and identify it as from the USA or USSR.

2) The modifiers in the table are specifically called out as "guidelines". They are not a complete list, are not the only possible modifiers, and (best of all) allow a GM to say "X is obvious, no check required".

I really hate people doing Perception a disservice with silly "examples" of how it doesn't work.


Chess Pwn,

I don't like people telling others what my thoughts are.

I'm perfectly capable of it myself.

If you want to know what I think, read my posts.

In regards to this spells being visible/not visible thing, it's hilarious.

I pushed for 'not always visible', citing things like Fireball have described effects, while Charm does not...

Now the FAQ states that they DO in fact all have visible effects, and now that I am supporting that... the same people who pushed against me when I thought differently... still push against me even though I agree with what they had initially been saying.

Some people are on here only to disagree with others... not to actually try to help figure out the one thing that brings us all here: Pathfinder.

I love the game, and accept the ruling/FAQ regarding spells/visual effects and spellcraft, but never will I use it this way.

When I state that spells are visible, I am stating only that. By extension of this ruling/FAQ, I was presenting an example of how fundamental a change this could bring about in an otherwise established understanding of the game.

In my games, you can sometimes use Charm Person to sneak into a town after hours.

Now, it seems, you cannot.

I was not stating that the spell is always useless, you can still use it to potentially defuse a situation (one attacker, you can Charm him, whether or not he knows he has been affected doesn't change the fact that he likes you now)-but the overall utility of spells like Charm has been GREATLY reduced due to the flashing neon sign.

I mean...

Due to the flavor text you decide the exact manifestations of.

THAT is what I think.


DM_Blake wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ignore RAW. Perception isn't designed to work like that.

There's some irony here, yes? I'm pretty sure Perception is "designed". In the RAW. The whole game is "designed", and Perception is part of the whole game, so Perception is "designed". And it is "designed" to work exactly the way it works.

Bad design?

Yes. No doubt. But nonetheless, it is designed that way.

I'd actually say it's designed to work at normal encounter distances and they assumed you'd handwave it at long range.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that Alex is thinking that he doesn't like people talking about what he's thinking. I think THAT is what Alex thinks...


alexd1976 wrote:
thejeff wrote:

All spells are visible at all times from everywhere? Through solid walls? From miles away?

Obviously not. (I hope. Really, I hope we agree on this.)
So there are some limits. The Spellcraft rules suggest they're based on perception, taking the same penalties.
That implies that it's possible to miss someone casting, if you can't see them clearly. Perhaps if they're hiding in the bushes. Or if you can't see them because they're invisible.

All the FAQ actually says is that there don't need to be Verbal, Somatic or Material components to see that someone is casting. "all spells have their own manifestations" and "Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated;".

None of that says those manifestations are always visible, no matter what.

I thought that was the point of the FAQ.

All spells are visible.

Perhaps we mean different things by "visible" in this context?

All spells produce visible manifestations during casting. That's what the FAQ says, as I understand it.
Depending on circumstances, any given observer may or may not be able see those visible manifestations.

If they're behind a wall or miles away or something like that, you certainly can't see them. Arguably, if they are closer but hidden you may also not be able to see them. That's when you roll perception. Or use the perception modifiers to Spellcraft, like the skill says.


alexd1976 wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
My only point is that you can't have a blanket statement for the usefulness of charm person, or any spell for that matter.
I would have thought that, that goes without saying, Carl.
You would think, but alex seems to think otherwise. Hence me trying to prove this point.
Stop telling people what I think.
If I misrepresented your position, I apologize. Could you explain to me what it is than?

You can quote me as much as you like, but telling others what I am thinking is flat out lying.

You aren't me, so don't pretend you know what I'm thinking.

That's as much explanation as you deserve.

Unless he was right, in which case he did know what your were thinking lol


DM_Blake wrote:
I think that Alex is thinking that he doesn't like people talking about what he's thinking. I think THAT is what Alex thinks...

Pretty much.

Feel free to quote me as much as you like, or make suppositions, but do not make statements about my thoughts. Those are my own. I have shared what I wished to share.


What the FAQ say ?

The FAQ say that somehow, people witnessing the casting of the spell should have chance to roll spellcraft and know whitch spell was cast.
This is a game, we don´t really need to go beyond that.
But, because of different gaming styles, some of us need to theorize beyond that and seek answers beyond the scope of the game. And these answers break the rules.

What these mysterious signs of casting mean ?
What the NPCs would do if they see these signals ?
How can i hide these signals ?

I do apologize, as i can´t really relate to this need and i may have made questions just for fun. I fully support people who can´t accept this rulling and hope you find an acceptable solution.

451 to 500 of 756 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Identifying a Spells with Spellcraft All Messageboards