Identifying a Spells with Spellcraft


Rules Questions

701 to 750 of 756 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

_Ozy_ wrote:
For example, the most common interpretation is a visual effect.

seems to be

_Ozy_ wrote:
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.

_Ozy_ wrote:
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.

_Ozy_ wrote:
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.


DM_Blake wrote:

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'd be shocked if it was seriously changed. I wouldn't mind a clarification on invisibility, which is the only real question I see.

The basic intent of "casting is obvious" and "spellcraft isn't based on components" will stand.


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.


Milo v3 wrote:
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.


Dallium wrote:
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.

I already explained it. In fact I explained it multiple times. Visual effects are undetectable if they are made invisible. So you have two options, allow those effects to also be invisible, which seems to be the common option, but then spellcasting can't be detected through the visual manifestation when invisible. Or, as at least one other person plays it, the visual effects can't be made invisible because it is neither part of the caster, nor is it 'gear', and therefore it is not covered by the spell.

Quote:
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.

That's not what people are saying, they are saying that if you succeed in your perception roll, modified for stealth/invisibility then you have 'perceived' that a spell is being cast as per what is described in the FAQ. This is inconsistent with the rules governing invisibility.

Quote:

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 have no idea what you are talking about. I was responding specifically to the claim that any manifestation choice is 'valid by RAW' when there are clear examples that are not. Furthermore, I don't get what you mean 'by default', you mean unless someone uses stealth or invisibility? Or unless they use feats from the upcoming Paizo product placement?

Quote:
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.

Sure, if manifestation during casting are invisible when you are invisible, does that mean spell effects themselves are invisible if you are invisible? If not, what's the difference?

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...


I'm actually more concerned about spell likes having manifestations.

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.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Yes, it is a trick question. Or more accurately, you're trying to get ammunition to set up a strawman argument.

The FAQ very specifically left the manifestations up to interpretation. That means any and all manifestations that your table runs are valid by RAW. Asking somebody for their personal take on it is meaningless for this question, so I can only fathom that you ask so that you can rip it apart to try to devalue the oppositions argument.

So no, despite having a very clear interpretation that I run that my table is very familiar with (and that has not changed at all after the FAQ and is still RAW), I will not tell you my interpretation, because it means nothing for this question.

It's not a strawman argument, it's pointing out that people who think they are following the rules, and always have followed the rules actually aren't and haven't been.

For example, the most common interpretation is a visual effect.

And yet, people still allow stealth and invisibility to apply, for example DM_Blake and his Halo.

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.

So no, not any and all interpretations are 'valid by RAW' since some of them directly contradict the rules.

Ozy, I literally said "No, I'm not giving you anything to work with" so you went ahead and set up my argument for me just to tear it down. You set up a strawman against an opponent who didn't even state a position. You cannot propose a position, claim it to be somebody else's, tear it down, then say that it proves your position is correct.

Dude, other people provided their positions, such as Milo and DM_Blake, it's not just about you.

I recognize that you haven't stated how you have handled any of this, and my critiques may or may not apply to your handling it. If the shoe fits, wear it, otherwise don't worry about it. Since you don't care to share what you did, you don't even have to respond to my posts since I'm more interested in hashing it out with people who take a stake rather than people who try and play coy.


Avh wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
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.

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.


Well, we're not talking about spellcraft, we're talking about knowing when a spell is being cast, which is something different, though related.

Additionally, spellcraft is useless with SLAs, and yet this FAQ applies to them too. Also, this FAQ is partially in response to taking AoOs against someone casting a spell without any components.

A blind creature with echolocation could presumably take an AoO vs. someone casting a spell, and yet wouldn't be able to see a visual manifestation of that spellcasting. How do they manage this if it has nothing to do with noticing a spell or SLA manifestation? Does this need yet another FAQ since this one wouldn't apply?

That's why this keeps getting asked, various interpretations of the FAQ are inconsistent with the Pathfinder rules, and yet this seems to be largely ignored.


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.

Quote:
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".


Milo v3 wrote:

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.

Quote:
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".

Well, we're talking about the FAQ, and the FAQ is what presents a reason for why SLAs and non-component spellcasting allow AoOs and readied actions to interrupt: (visual) manifestations that identify a spell as being cast

The fact that this explanation raises all sorts of questions and inconsistencies with the rules is exactly the point that I and others have been trying to point out for pages now.

I certainly can buy into your explanation, that AoOs have nothing to do with manifestations and instead are related to pausing or otherwise shifting your concentration during battle which opens you up to attack, in fact that's generally how our group plays it.

Of course, if that blind person was using a readied action to disrupt a spell/SLA, he would be out of luck.


I'm fine with slas provoking, you drop battle concentration. You don't need visuaks to see that.

If psychic casters have no verbal or somatics, it makes sense there would be no visuals. Uh, do they?


CWheezy wrote:
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 -.-


Haha psychic spells having a visual makes even less sense, how can you defend this.

Its such a weird videogamey change, man


Change? What do you mean, this is how it's always been...

;)


_Ozy_ wrote:

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.


CWheezy wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.


CWheezy wrote:

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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
CWheezy wrote:

Haha psychic spells having a visual makes even less sense, how can you defend this.

Its such a weird videogamey change, man

Poop face?


Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
CWheezy wrote:

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?


_Ozy_ wrote:
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.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Poop face?

This is actually a really good reason to put the manifestations in your game. No poop faces :P

Quote:
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.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Glowing Poop Face?


Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
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.

You provided some extra information that I thought might weigh in on the issue. It doesn't, and that's fine. I've played D&D video games with invisibility and spell casting, and I can't remember how they handled it.

Furthermore, invisibility is only one of the many questions I had regarding these manifestations. Similarly and at least as importantly, do manifestations have to be 'caster targeting', that is, can people always figure out that visible manifestations are associated with the specific creature doing the casting.

For example, in some shows and anime, magic circle manifestations can be huge, especially for high power effects, literally a mile in diameter, and being able to identify a spell with spellcraft says nothing about seeing or identifying the caster.


Milo v3 wrote:
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. I believe they think the 'modified by perception' qualification of the FAQ means that both concealment and invisibility modifiers apply.

I also doubt any of them made casting a spell while invisible an automatic pinpointing for the enemies.

They might very well be wrong, but given your complete lack of experience with invisible spellcasters in game play, I'm not sure if you're the best authority on the subject. ;)


_Ozy_ wrote:
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.


_Ozy_ wrote:
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.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Dallium wrote:
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.


Quote:
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.

No need to be like that, the sources he mentioned also include video games and shows like anime. People might have some experience with those and be able to comment.

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.

Furthermore, I have asked plenty of other questions if you prefer to weigh in on those instead.

Are manifestations visual only?

Are they necessarily targeting?

If they are close-fitting/skin-tight can they be hidden by clothing?

Edit: to clarify quote for response


Dallium wrote:
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.

Ah, I think I slightly misunderstood your point. I agree that some of these questions exited pre-FAQ, which is maybe why the FAQ was issued in the first place.

But I don't think, pre-FAQ, most people worried about using spellcraft to identify a spell cast by an invisible caster since they assumed invisible caster==invisible spell. The specific line in spellcraft

Quote:
but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast

seemed almost custom tailored to exclude invisible casters.

Except now, post-FAQ, maybe it doesn't.

Furthermore, I think most people assumed that when you identified a spell being cast, you necessarily knew who/where was casting it. Again, maybe post-FAQ this isn't the case.

Before the FAQ, there were no Spellcraft identification modifiers for lack of V/S/M, so you didn't apply them. The 'why' of this was one question which maybe didn't even need an answer. Now the FAQ'ed answer to this 'why' has multiplied this question by at least a factor of 3, IMO, and these questions actually have impact on game mechanics, and therefore actually need an answer.


_Ozy_ wrote:
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.... -.-


Milo v3 wrote:
Avh wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
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.

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.


While this is probably a bit of a tangent, how do people feel about identifying spells based on their verbal components?

I kinda feel this should be possible, but spellcraft only talks about sight...


How about material components for that matter? Would my character know bat guano produces fiery death?

*brings popcorn to peanut gallery*


Avh wrote:

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.


Milo v3 wrote:
Avh wrote:

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.


Avh wrote:
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).


Milo v3 wrote:
Avh wrote:
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.


Avh wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Avh wrote:
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.

So, you're saying that the rules didn't change, except for the Perception modifiers.

That, despite the lack of any reference to components and despite the change from "see or hear" to "clearly see", anyone reading that skill with no prior knowledge of the 3.5 rules should have played it exactly the same way as in 3.5?
At the very least, "clearly see" strongly implies that verbal components are no longer sufficient.


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."


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

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*

Otherwhere wrote:

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.....


Ravingdork wrote:
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.

Milo v3 wrote:
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.


Otherwhere wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
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.

Milo v3 wrote:
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.

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.


Otherwhere wrote:


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.


thejeff wrote:
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.


Slithery D wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:


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.

I'd much rather they didn't nail down the exact manifestations, but just clarify the questions about how they work mechanically and let you use whatever visual effects you're happy meeting those mechanics.

If they say, for example, that invisibility means they can't be seen and don't pinpoint the caster, and that you need to be able to see the caster, so Stealth will hide them unless a perception check is made, but that they also can't be hidden just by normal clothing, then that covers the mechanical issues and still leaves a wide range of visuals to use.

(They could, of course, choose a different set of mechanics. )


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

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.

Otherwhere wrote:
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.


Ravingdork wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
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.

701 to 750 of 756 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Identifying a Spells with Spellcraft All Messageboards