For example, the most common interpretation is a visual effect.
seems to be
And yet, people still allow stealth and invisibility to apply, for example DM_Blake and his Halo.
Why "and yet?" Why would you expect the visual manifestation to be any more visible than somatic components? Or the caster themself, for that matter.
Yet the rules quite clearly say that invisible things can't be seen. They can be perceived with a higher DC if they affect other senses, but they can't be seen. Period. This means no detecting the spell being cast, no identification using spellcraft, nothing.
Right. Exactly. You can't see it so you can't identify it. You might suspect a spell is being cast, but you don't know where or what.
So no, not any and all interpretations are 'valid by RAW' since some of them directly contradict the rules.
Well yeah. Any interpretation that says spell casting isn't obvious by default is contradicted by the rules.
By the way, ignoring 'Specific trumps general' to judge an interpretation may not be a strawman, but it certainly isn't arguing in good faith.
I also once again repeat my request that someone expound on how this ruling could possibly make the game MORE complicated. Literally every question we have about this ruling already existed preFAQ.
I did. How could you forget; you even quote-mined me on it. Remember? That was in this June 2010 post. My response to your quote-mining is here.
So why are you still carrying on like this?
The lead developer gave his opinion years ago. At least some forum posters have understood it and used it for years. There are even posts that you yourself have found to prove it (though you seem to want to sweep that under the rug so you can keep sounding the alarms for some reason).
Yeah, sure, many people have posted that they didn't think it worked this way. Many people have posted that they don't like it. Great. Everybody should play it the way they want. House Rules and Rule-0 for the win - for everybody. Even you. Even me.
But what I don't get is why you are beating this dead horse into the ground?
Who cares?
You didn't know. Now you know. Move on and use the FAQ or ignore the FAQ however you like.
But why keep rallying the troops or fanning the flames when you could just let it drop and enjoy the game?
I have found, including your post and one post from Jason Bulmahn that foes toward what I called the "Second interpretation", or the "Jason Bulmahn 2010 spell can be identified beyond components" interpretation.
Until yesterday, where someone did actually quoted a post where he did said he used magical manifestations during spellcasting (it was Mythic Evil Lincoln), I didn't find any post using the Magical manifestations (what I call the 3rd interpretation, or the FAQ).
Actually, on the only single post that I could read where someone used magical manifestations (glowing runes), someone actually answered to him that everyone is free to add houserules if they want but that is not how the rules are written. And not even Mythic Evil Lincoln (the one that wrote about the magical manifestation) corrected him at the time, no more than any one else.
In the actual written rules (so, Jason Bulmahn post aside), spellcasting can be identified if you can see the spell as it is being cast. And the only written things that happen when you cast a spell are the components. Nowhere in the book you will find something that indicates that there is something else (mundane or magical).
So, I'll repeat again : the FAQ goes againt how most people interpreted the rule and how the book is written.
I expect this FAQ to be deleted or seriously modified.
I doesn't go against how the book is written. No one has been able to state any manner that the rule goes against the Core Rules.
I doesn't go against how the book is written. No one has been able to state any manner that the rule goes against the Core Rules.
Quote one rule indicating that there are manifestations during spellcasting.
There is none.
People try to interpret the spellcraft rule "you must be able to see the spell as it is being cast" to imply that there must be something beyond components to identify it, but nowhere in the rule you will find that there is actually something beyond those components.
THAT, is what is written in the rules.
I doesn't go against how the book is written. No one has been able to state any manner that the rule goes against the Core Rules.Quote one rule indicating that there are manifestations during spellcasting.
There is none.
People try to interpret the spellcraft rule "you must be able to see the spell as it is being cast" to imply that there must be something beyond components to identify it, but nowhere in the rule you will find that there is actually something beyond those components.THAT, is what is written in the rules.
I think you misread what I said. I'm saying, there is nothing that goes against the FAQ in the core rules. It is a valid interpretation.
I find it hard to believe no one uses mind blank in Milo's game, which makes invisibility good again. Or no one summoned a monster, or did anything??? At like, level 3. Casting while invisible is pretty common.
*shrug* Simply never came up. Don't know what else I can say other than that.
Edit:
If manifestations are purely visual, can creatures that are naturally blind know when spells are being cast?
Honestly curious, why does this keep being asked. It has been answered since the origin of Pathfinder, "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast" it's right there in spellcraft.
There is no reason to assume blind people can see visual manifestations. Also, I don't see why you would have to know they are casting a spell for it to provoke. When someone stops dodging for a second in battle, they provoke. You notice they aren't as well defended and can take advantage of that regardless of whether you can detect a spell hologram thing.
Also, this FAQ is partially in response to taking AoOs against someone casting a spell without any components.
To be honest I think it's more the whole "We just released a book full of casters who have no somatic or verbal components".
If psychic casters have no verbal or somatics, it makes sense there would be no visuals. Uh, do they?
All spells have visuals, that's the point of the FAQ -.-
Change? What do you mean, this is how it's always been...
;)
Just like how we've always been at was with East Asia and allied with Eurasia.
Haha psychic spells having a visual makes even less sense, how can you defend this.
What are you talking about? How doesn't it make sense for psychic spells having a visual manifestation? How does it make less sense? There is no reason why they spells would or wouldn't from a flavour perspective.
The visual thing isn't "nothing happens but you can still tell that they cast something, because reasons". A visual manifestation occurs when you cast a spell... there is no reason why psychic spells wouldn't have one.
Its such a weird videogamey change, man
I honestly don't understand why people say videogamey rather than movie or tv show... or book.... or... any visual medium.... Magic being visible is common in all of them.
Haha psychic spells having a visual makes even less sense, how can you defend this.
Its such a weird videogamey change, man
I 'defend' this with Occult Adventures page 103, the chapter 4 splash (page 142), page 168, page 178*, page 191*, and the chapter 5 splash (page 193).
*No runes but definitely some sort of visible manifestation of spellcasting going on.
Here's some history on the idea of Glowing Runes. Though it is something seen in video games, that's not where it got its origins and it has a presence in many forms of media, notably much of the artwork for roleplaying games such as Pathfinder and Dungeons & Dragons.
So, what do those sources do when the caster is invisible?
The FAQ doesn't answer this.
How many times does it need to be said? That has already been acknowledged many, many times. I'm fairly certain that everyone, myself included, agrees that that particular point needs clarification. There's no point in asking it here again. Go to this thread and hit the FAQ button (if there is a different thread asking the same question with more FAQ hits, then use that one). No user here outside of the Paizo Dev team can answer this question as it has not been addressed. I agree that is important.
Poop face?
This is actually a really good reason to put the manifestations in your game. No poop faces :P
So, what do those sources do when the caster is invisible?
I'm not even sure why you need an answer. Does any invisibility effect state it affects the spells you cast? No. So it doesn't affect them.
Many people seem to disagree with you.
The issue is they haven't stated any mechanical text that supports their interpretation. The lack of text on the otherhand does support my interpretation. If the text doesn't say x, then there is no reason to assume x is true.
Also, I should clarify, I have had spellcasters that are invisible and they have casted spells, but those were spells that automatically end that invisibility so it is moot to a degree. They've never tried to cast a spell undetected via invisibility basically.
So, what do those sources do when the caster is invisible?
For some reason that is impossible to guess, none of the artwork shows invisible casters. Hmmmm, wait, I have a guess: maybe painting an invisible man is about a useful and/or meaningful, visually, as trying to paint the SOUND of one hand clapping. Maybe, just maybe, the artists didn't have the inclination to use VISUAL media to GRAPHICALLY portray something that cannot be seen.
As for actual rules about invisible casters in the various sourcebooks, everybody already agreed, right here in this thread, about 600 posts ago, give or take (maybe closer to a thousand posts if you count both threads), that the question of invisible casters is a good one and needs some clarification, so instead of continuing to ask it like this one question is the incontrovertible proof that the recent FAQ is bad-wrong-fun, why not start a new thread requesting a FAQ on this question?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also once again repeat my request that someone expound on how this ruling could possibly make the game MORE complicated. Literally every question we have about this ruling already existed preFAQ.Also, why exactly are these manifestations invisible when they are neither part of you nor part of your gear?
Can you choose manifestations that are non-visual and/or non-targeting, like an area-wide sequence of chimes, or runes that appear over a 100' diameter area? If not, would choosing an auditory manifestation that identifies the locations of the caster auto-pinpoint a caster if he was casting in darkness or while invisible?
If manifestations emit light, do they follow the normal invisibility rules and emit light while invisible, thus, once again, pinpointing the caster?
If the visual manifestations are 'skin-tight', such as magical runes that appear on the person's flesh, can they be hidden with clothing?
If manifestations are purely visual, can creatures that are naturally blind know when spells are being cast?
For a start anyways...
Right, these are all valid questions. But literally every one of them existed before the FAQ to people who assumed, for whatever reason they had, that there was something obvious about spell casting, whatever it was.
There are also a bucket load of questions that come up if you assume that you need to perceive the components. Some of them are even the same.
Can i spellcraft a spell with V components that's being cast by a wizard hiding in a bush/who's invisible? If so, do I have a penalty and how much?
If I am recently deafened, can I identify a spell with S and V components at all, or at some penalty? What's the penalty? What if I can lip read (assuming there is a mechanic to lip read)?
What's my penalty to identify a VSM Silent Still spell? Slient and Eschew Mats? What if it's a focus spell?
My basic point against the "the game is more complicated now" idea is that pre-FAQ the question was "do you need to see the components or is spell casting itself obvious? Either way, I have several follow up questions." The pool of potential questions has been cut in half, give or take. And one question in particular has been definitely (if also vaguely) answered.
The way I see it, the FAQ answered one question, and precluded an unknown number of others. That people who played the way that turned out to be contrary to the FAQ hadn't considered the questions being raised here doesn't mean they didn't exist prior to the FAQ, it simply means they hadn't considered them.
For example, according to the wiki, casting buffs and non-offensive spells in DDO while invisible does not automatically have the enemies spot you, maybe someone who plays could describe what the casting manifestations look like if anything.
Do not use DDO as an example, 1. computer games of RPG's do not necessarily follow the RPG's rules. 2. it's based on a game that uses the rules opposite to the FAQ.... -.-
I think you misread what I said. I'm saying, there is nothing that goes against the FAQ in the core rules. It is a valid interpretation.I doesn't go against how the book is written. No one has been able to state any manner that the rule goes against the Core Rules.Quote one rule indicating that there are manifestations during spellcasting.
There is none.
People try to interpret the spellcraft rule "you must be able to see the spell as it is being cast" to imply that there must be something beyond components to identify it, but nowhere in the rule you will find that there is actually something beyond those components.THAT, is what is written in the rules.
And there is nothing in the rules that goes in favor either (as nothing in the rules is written that deals with manifestations, mundane or otherwise).
The only written change in Pathfinder from 3.5 is the fact that you have to apply perception modifier on your Spellcraft check to identify spellcasting.
THAT is the only modification concerning spellcasting : counterspell mechanics didn't change, AO mechanics didn't change, no manifestations are written in the rules.
I don't have a problem with the fact that some people want to have sparkly things that happen during spellcasting, or otherwise, for example when the character has strong emotions, at their table, depending on the character. I am, however, opposed to the fact that all spellcasters has obvious manifestations during spellcasting, every time.
How about material components for that matter? Would my character know bat guano produces fiery death?
*brings popcorn to peanut gallery*
The only written change in Pathfinder from 3.5 is the fact that you have to apply perception modifier on your Spellcraft check to identify spellcasting.
THAT is the only modification concerning spellcasting : counterspell mechanics didn't change, AO mechanics didn't change, no manifestations are written in the rules.
um... I think your forgetting a pretty major change.... pathfinder removed the line "You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components" from the spellcraft skill.
The only written change in Pathfinder from 3.5 is the fact that you have to apply perception modifier on your Spellcraft check to identify spellcasting.
THAT is the only modification concerning spellcasting : counterspell mechanics didn't change, AO mechanics didn't change, no manifestations are written in the rules.
um... I think your forgetting a pretty major change.... pathfinder removed the line "You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components" from the spellcraft skill.
But didn't add other things that happen during spellcasting beyond components.
But didn't add other things that happen during spellcasting beyond components.
I never said it did (please stop rebutting with irrelevant stuff). You said that was the only change. That was completely false. There was a change, a change that implies that you don't need to see the components to identify a spell (the foundation of the FAQ).
But didn't add other things that happen during spellcasting beyond components.I never said it did (please stop rebutting with irrelevant stuff). You said that was the only change. That was completely false. There was a change, a change that implies that you don't need to see the components to identify a spell (the foundation of the FAQ).
That wasn't a real change, because Pathfinder rules didn't add anything beyond components (nowhere in the CRB anyway).
"See the spell as it is being cast", when components are the only thing that happen when spellcasting, is not a real change.
Taking into account perception modifiers IS a change.
It depends on what your definition of 'is' is...
This is why I am house ruling this issue. I don't take the rule "clearly see the spell" as meaning only VISUALLY see the spell, but as Perceive (sight, sound, etc.) the spell as it is being cast.
To claim that Verbal components don't matter (you can't identify a spell by hearing it being cast) is absurd, and yet totally RAW.
And I take "Perceive" to need something to perceive. So, if there is no material, somatic, and no verbal, there's nothing to perceive and therefore no way to Spellcraft and identify the spell.
FAQ or no FAQ, this is how I run it. It's a house rule, and I acknowledge that I am not running it "per the rules."
How about material components for that matter? Would my character know bat guano produces fiery death?
*brings popcorn to peanut gallery*
Apparently not. Spellcraft identifies the anomolies of spellcasting, not the components.
*rolls eyes*
It depends on what your definition of 'is' is...
This is why I am house ruling this issue. I don't take the rule "clearly see the spell" as meaning only VISUALLY see the spell, but as Perceive (sight, sound, etc.) the spell as it is being cast.
To claim that Verbal components don't matter (you can't identify a spell by hearing it being cast) is absurd, and yet totally RAW.
And I take "Perceive" to need something to perceive. So, if there is no material, somatic, and no verbal, there's nothing to perceive and therefore no way to Spellcraft and identify the spell.
FAQ or no FAQ, this is how I run it. It's a house rule, and I acknowledge that I am not running it "per the rules."
Same here; and I totally agree that it's absurd. I never thought that the uptight rules lawyers could take the game this far down the rabbit hole with their rules minutia.
I still don't see why spells having manifestations is such a weird idea... I mean, it's in every image where someone casts a spell in 3.5e or Pathfinder, in most movies with magic, most tv shows with magic, most games with magic.....
Same here; and I totally agree that it's absurd. I never thought that the uptight rules lawyers could take the game this far down the rabbit hole with their rules minutia.
It's really an oversimplification. "I cast a spell. Spells can be identified. Therefore, you can always identify a spell as it is being cast." When you ask that next question of: "How? What is being perceived to allow you to identify it?" that you then have to make the leap into: "Every spell has a manifestation of some kind" in order to maintain that logic.
I still don't see why spells having manifestations is such a weird idea... I mean, it's in every image where someone casts a spell in 3.5e or Pathfinder, in most movies with magic, most tv shows with magic, most games with magic.....
And if this were radio, we'd hear a sound for something magical happening. In a visual medium, you'll represent it with a visual image. In a book, there's usually no such thing happening until the effect occurs.
Nor is it really that hard to understand those of us who disagree with the FAQ. We don't try to make up something to see just to keep Spellcraft able to identify a spell no matter what.
Nor is it really that hard to understand those of us who disagree with the FAQ. We don't try to make up something to see just to keep Spellcraft able to identify a spell no matter what.
Yeah, the "something that we won't clarify is being seen" aspect of this is the most aggravating to me. If it's glowing runes away from your body then certain assumptions follow and the invisibility/stealth thing is a burning issue that needs to be addressed ASAP. If it's inky temporary tattoos that swirl across your skin and then there's no problem.
Except that many of those who disagree with the FAQ also don't think you can identify a spell no matter what. Or that it's obviously casting, even if you don't have the spellcraft to id it.
I don't see anyone saying you can't identify a spell no matter what. Only that you shouldn't be able to identify a spell that has no material, somatic, and verbal components.
Please try not to confuse the spell's casting manifestations with the effects of the spell itself, after it is cast.
The way some of you guys are wording your posts, it sometimes makes me wonder if we're even on the same page in regards to this essential discussion point.
And if this were radio, we'd hear a sound for something magical happening.
In radio, what we'd likely hear is the chanting of the spell, followed by a big boom or something.
And if this were radio, we'd hear a sound for something magical happening.In radio, what we'd likely hear is the chanting of the spell, followed by a big boom or something.
Unless is was a Silent spell.