Identifying a Spells with Spellcraft


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 756 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

DM_Blake wrote:
Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:
Again I ask. On what page is the general rule stating that all spells are visible? You say this again and again, ad yet no RAW exists to support this. If you cannot supply a rule that explicitly states "all spells are visible", then your argument fails.

There is no page. I never said there was. You know there's no page.

This general rule is extrapolated from the Counterspell rules and the Spellcraft rules (you cannot counterspell without Spellcraft so the two sets of rules are inextricable, therefore parsing them into an extrapolation is relevant).

I also cannot supply a rule that explicitly stats that humans generally cannot fly. But I sure can extrapolate it from the movement rules and the Fly skill.

(please don't begin a multi-page and multi-thread debate about why you think humans can generally fly)

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:
As to your contention that "You can use any spell as a counterspell" means that "all spells are visible," there is no support for that in the rules. That line simply means that it is possible to use any spell to counter itself. It does not mean that you can always see a spell in order to identify it as it is being cast. The specific rule for spellcraft trumps the general rule for countering spells. It really isn't rocket surgery, and I have no idea how you have reached an obviously erroneous conclusion, and argued it this long, especially since it requires twisting reason into knots to achieve your desired outcome.

I've spelled it out for you again and again. You don't want to listen. You just want to tell me I'm wrong.

I'm going to stop posting. I've made my points and rebutted the points of others. I've posted, as have others, that the designers agree that spells are visible.

The RAW and the designers and simple logic are all lined up and fully in agreement, yet you (and a few others) continue to dispute.

Fine.

I'm prepared to agree to disagree.

I read Harry Potter and conclude that Hogwartz is a school...

Your conclusion requires facts not present in evidence. My conclusion does not.

You have repeatedly spelled out ideas not supported by RAW, no matter how often you claim that they are. I have read your statements, assessed them against the rules, and determined that they are wrong. Until you can show explicit support for your position, which requires supposition not provided for in the rules, it is directly against RAW.

I have reached the only possible logical conclusion based on the strict wording of the spellcraft rule. The counterspell rules are, in the end, irrelevant to the spellcraft rule. The fact that it is possible to use any spell to counterspell has no bearing on the fact that you must see the spell being cast in order to identify it, and that no provision is made in the rules for all spells to be visible as the default.

You are explicitly wrong in every particular, no matter how hard you insist you are not. By your own admission, you are not using RAW to argue your position, as you have no written rules to reference. You know that your position does not have support in the rules, and yet you insist that it is RAW. You are, in fact, no different from the person who insists that humans can fly, despite there being no rules which permit it. You accuse me of the exact same behavior you exhibit, again and again. Show the rule, or concede the argument, full stop.


Quote:
I read Harry Potter and conclude that Hogwartz is a school for wizards.

Harry Potter says Hogwarts is a school of witchcraft and wizardry. They explicitly say this like 50 times. And you see everything in it. They describe wizards going to school in it, etc. for hundreds of pages...

They do not obliquely imply it only via a line of convoluted logic which itself only works if you arbitrary ignore any other equally technical lines of logic that refute it. And without any explicit descriptions anywhere of something that's supposed to be visible in every fricckin spell. Seems sort of relevant to say, you know, ever, if it's so obbbbvvviiously intended. And not just write out in a pig latin riddle upside down in a mirror under the corner of somebody' desk.

But yes other than that, totally not reaching for anything, Rules-as-Intended-crystal-clear-no-doubt-about-it-you're-an-obtuse-idiot-if -you-don't-agree-with-me yup yup.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
alexd1976 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
I put myself firmly in the camp of all spellcasting creating visual effects (I made a document all about it here). I would also be just fine with someone who wanted to cast 'sneakily' using Spellcraft effectively like a Stealth check for the visual effects created by spellcasting.
I REALLY like this idea.

Neat, how would you adjudicate stealthy spellcasting?

Opposed trained-only Spellcraft checks. If the discreet caster succeeds, the spellcasting goes undetected (floaty runes and magical auras and emanations were suppressed). If the detector succeeds, he knows a spell is being cast despite the lack of a visual element.

For every component the discreet caster's spell lacks, he gains a small bonus on his opposed check.

This would leave commoners and others not terribly familiar with magic totally screwed against a competent discreet caster (as they should be), while allowing those with the proper training to have a "sixth sense" in regards to magical manifestations.

The exact nature of the detectable manifestations and others' ability to detect it would remain vague, to better fit table preference.

This will allow all the current RAW to continue on as written, would allow characters in Pathfinder novels and other literature to cast spells discreetly when they otherwise shouldn't have been able to, would not obsolete other abilities in the game that already allow for concealed spellcasting, and likely would fit in well with most peoples' concept of magic. It would also allow for the addition of more fun rules for concealed casters, such as a new feat or two that adds a large bonus to your opposed roll to conceal casting, or to detect concealed castings more easily.

The Exchange

Im not to keen on the floating runes or such. Do think that this thread has gotten a little heated, cause the rule says spell where it would be better if had said spellcaster casting.
I like the idea of DM_Blake of using 30 + and reducing it from there. this could work for SLA. Always irked me that full casting a VMS spell and SLA has same chance.


Ravingdork wrote:

This has come up a lot in other threads and has clearly created a schism in the gaming community, so I'm starting this thread for FAQing purposes.

The Spellcraft skill clearly states the following:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

Does the act of spellcasting even have an observable stimuli, such as magical energies or floating runes? If so, what are they precisely? Or is it the intent that the above passage actually refer to the spell's material, somatic, and verbal components, or perhaps the casters themselves?

RD I think you opened this up before when asking could a silenced, stilled, eschew material(the feat) using spell be identified.

Jason said there was no rule against it identifying such a spell. Hopefully this time they give an answer, officially.

I think that such spells and SLA's(since they are only mental and have no components) should not be subject to identification via spellcraft. <--I am not saying this is the rule. I am saying it makes more sense that way.

PS: Since the perception penalties for distance apply to the spellcraft DC they must have something observable, but I would not expect for that to be hardcoded into the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

This has come up a lot in other threads and has clearly created a schism in the gaming community, so I'm starting this thread for FAQing purposes.

The Spellcraft skill clearly states the following:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

Does the act of spellcasting even have an observable stimuli, such as magical energies or floating runes? If so, what are they precisely? Or is it the intent that the above passage actually refer to the spell's material, somatic, and verbal components, or perhaps the casters themselves?

RD I think you opened this up before when asking could a silenced, stilled, eschew material(the feat) using spell be identified.

I'm pretty sure that was ShallowSoul who did that.


Since there was interest, I made a thread detailing my particular house rule: New Spellcraft Usage - Suppressing a Spell's Aura


Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

This has come up a lot in other threads and has clearly created a schism in the gaming community, so I'm starting this thread for FAQing purposes.

The Spellcraft skill clearly states the following:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

Does the act of spellcasting even have an observable stimuli, such as magical energies or floating runes? If so, what are they precisely? Or is it the intent that the above passage actually refer to the spell's material, somatic, and verbal components, or perhaps the casters themselves?

RD I think you opened this up before when asking could a silenced, stilled, eschew material(the feat) using spell be identified.
I'm pretty sure that was ShallowSoul who did that.

I stand corrected, but I did FAQ this topic. Hopefully we can get an official answer.


Goodness, you rules folk are prolific.

Apologies, Blake, if I was a bit rude in response. It was late and these types of discussions sometimes frustrate me.

As for why I'm here, I sometimes click through "popular threads" here when I'm bored. Sadly, that often leads me into the rules forum.

More relevant, I assume components are needed to identify a spell because SLAs lack all components and can't be identified during casting/counter-spelled. Seems logical, and that's how I approach the rules - common sense over strict reading. I definitely trend towards the "chaotic" end of the spectrum, and would probably make a terrible lawyer. :P

On PFS, it's actually a misconception that it's run via strict "RAW." I don't think the game would even be playable if it were. The guide to organized play even states that GMs should use common sense when making judgements and running the game. Not to say that they don't strive for consistency, though.

That's all I got. I'll let you folks get back to your thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

In the new "Heroes of the Streets", there is a feat called "Cunning Caster" with a prerequisite of Deceitful. It allows a caster to make a Bluff check (opposed by observer's Perception checks) to conceal her casting actions from onlookers. For each variety of component, there is a minus to the Bluff check. If the spell produces an obvious affect (a summoned creature is given as one example) an additional minus applies, and even if the check is still successful, observers still see the effect, but fail to notice that you were responsible.

If spellcasting is not observable by default (even without components), then why do feats like this one and Spellsong exist ?


For the same reason that the metamagic feat lingering magic says "A lingering spell with a visual manifestation... " indicating this isn't always assumed. Essentially, they didn't have a clear consensus on spell visuals when creating rules, and now we have abilities on either side of that divide.


Ravingdork wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
I put myself firmly in the camp of all spellcasting creating visual effects (I made a document all about it here). I would also be just fine with someone who wanted to cast 'sneakily' using Spellcraft effectively like a Stealth check for the visual effects created by spellcasting.
I REALLY like this idea.

Neat, how would you adjudicate stealthy spellcasting?

Opposed trained-only Spellcraft checks. If the discreet caster succeeds, the spellcasting goes undetected (floaty runes and magical auras and emanations were suppressed). If the detector succeeds, he knows a spell is being cast despite the lack of a visual element.

For every component the discreet caster's spell lacks, he gains a small bonus on his opposed check.

This would leave commoners and others not terribly familiar with magic totally screwed against a competent discreet caster (as they should be), while allowing those with the proper training to have a "sixth sense" in regards to magical manifestations.

The exact nature of the detectable manifestations and others' ability to detect it would remain vague, to better fit table preference.

This will allow all the current RAW to continue on as written, would allow characters in Pathfinder novels and other literature to cast spells discreetly when they otherwise shouldn't have been able to, would not obsolete other abilities in the game that already allow for concealed spellcasting, and likely would fit in well with most peoples' concept of magic. It would also allow for the addition of more fun rules for concealed casters, such as a new feat or two that adds a large bonus to your opposed roll to conceal casting, or to detect concealed castings more easily.

Sounds well though out. I like it.


SlimGauge wrote:

In the new "Heroes of the Streets", there is a feat called "Cunning Caster" with a prerequisite of Deceitful. It allows a caster to make a Bluff check (opposed by observer's Perception checks) to conceal her casting actions from onlookers. For each variety of component, there is a minus to the Bluff check. If the spell produces an obvious affect (a summoned creature is given as one example) an additional minus applies, and even if the check is still successful, observers still see the effect, but fail to notice that you were responsible.

If spellcasting is not observable by default (even without components), then why do feats like this one and Spellsong exist ?

Spellcasting is by default observable.

All spells have at least one component (V/S/M). There is something to see.

Additionally, some spells also produce visible effects (fireball etc).

There are plenty of visible effects.

Spells like Charm Person, however, describe NO visible effects.


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

In the new "Heroes of the Streets", there is a feat called "Cunning Caster" with a prerequisite of Deceitful. It allows a caster to make a Bluff check (opposed by observer's Perception checks) to conceal her casting actions from onlookers. For each variety of component, there is a minus to the Bluff check. If the spell produces an obvious affect (a summoned creature is given as one example) an additional minus applies, and even if the check is still successful, observers still see the effect, but fail to notice that you were responsible.

If spellcasting is not observable by default (even without components), then why do feats like this one and Spellsong exist ?

Unless you've min/maxed Bluff AND have taken the Eschew Materials, Silent Spell, and Still Spell feats, the penalties basically make Cunning Caster useless.

They must have thought discreet casting to be EXTREMELY powerful to have warranted that kind of investment/penalties.


Paulicus wrote:

Goodness, you rules folk are prolific.

Apologies, Blake, if I was a bit rude in response. It was late and these types of discussions sometimes frustrate me.

As for why I'm here, I sometimes click through "popular threads" here when I'm bored. Sadly, that often leads me into the rules forum.

More relevant, I assume components are needed to identify a spell because SLAs lack all components and can't be identified during casting/counter-spelled. Seems logical, and that's how I approach the rules - common sense over strict reading. I definitely trend towards the "chaotic" end of the spectrum, and would probably make a terrible lawyer. :P

On PFS, it's actually a misconception that it's run via strict "RAW." I don't think the game would even be playable if it were. The guide to organized play even states that GMs should use common sense when making judgements and running the game. Not to say that they don't strive for consistency, though.

That's all I got. I'll let you folks get back to your thing.

How about not using "you rules folk" because many of us do have the common sense to know that PFS does not follow RAW.

I guess you "non-rules folk" wouldn't have the common sense to have noticed that though.


...Wait, what? I thought PFS' thing was that it did follow RAW, except as otherwise noted in its specific rules.


Paulicus wrote:
On PFS, it's actually a misconception that it's run via strict "RAW." I don't think the game would even be playable if it were. The guide to organized play even states that GMs should use common sense when making judgements and running the game. Not to say that they don't strive for consistency, though.

I agree, but you don't seem to quite understand what that entails. As an umpire I am very familiar with the distinction between following the rules as written and knowing when to insert your own judgement. You follow the rules to the letter until a situation arises that is not covered in the rules (or is at least ambiguous enough that the answer isn't clear). For instance, I remember once that 2nd base was so covered in the dirt that the runner literally couldn't find the bag. Not exactly a situation covered in the rulebook, so I had to insert my own judgement on what call to make. PFS GMs don't run "Use the RAW unless common sense disagrees". They run "Use RAW unless a situation isn't covered, then use common sense".

And I'm not much of a fan of PFS because of that, but I digress.

The Exchange

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Paulicus wrote:
On PFS, it's actually a misconception that it's run via strict "RAW." I don't think the game would even be playable if it were. The guide to organized play even states that GMs should use common sense when making judgements and running the game. Not to say that they don't strive for consistency, though.

I agree, but you don't seem to quite understand what that entails. As an umpire I am very familiar with the distinction between following the rules as written and knowing when to insert your own judgement. You follow the rules to the letter until a situation arises that is not covered in the rules (or is at least ambiguous enough that the answer isn't clear). For instance, I remember once that 2nd base was so covered in the dirt that the runner literally couldn't find the bag. Not exactly a situation covered in the rulebook, so I had to insert my own judgement on what call to make. PFS GMs don't run "Use the RAW unless common sense disagrees". They run "Use RAW unless a situation isn't covered, then use common sense".

And I'm not much of a fan of PFS because of that, but I digress.

As a PFS GM. I like this.


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

Can we get someone to fix the plurality typo in the topic title? Should be either "Identifying a Spell with Spellcraft" or Identifying Spell with Spellcraft".


Ravingdork wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:

In the new "Heroes of the Streets", there is a feat called "Cunning Caster" with a prerequisite of Deceitful. It allows a caster to make a Bluff check (opposed by observer's Perception checks) to conceal her casting actions from onlookers. For each variety of component, there is a minus to the Bluff check. If the spell produces an obvious affect (a summoned creature is given as one example) an additional minus applies, and even if the check is still successful, observers still see the effect, but fail to notice that you were responsible.

If spellcasting is not observable by default (even without components), then why do feats like this one and Spellsong exist ?

Unless you've min/maxed Bluff AND have taken the Eschew Materials, Silent Spell, and Still Spell feats, the penalties basically make Cunning Caster useless.

They must have thought discreet casting to be EXTREMELY powerful to have warranted that kind of investment/penalties.

I would be inclined to say that discreet casting CAN be extremely powerful, Charm Person is nice, Dominate Person is better...

If you can pull off something like Summon Monster VII while at, say, a coronation... What fun!

Shadow Lodge

Just a point that was brought up earlier:
When it says in the rules about saving throws that you "feel a tingle" when you save against a spell that "has no physical manifestation", it means the spell's effect, not its casting.
So, for example, if you make a save against Charm Person or Cat's Grace, your Saving Throw Sense tingles; if you made your save against Fireball or Stinking Cloud, you don't feel it because you got to shield your face from the fire or the cloud in time.
Really, it's a way to know that you just resisted a spell that wasn't immediately obvious. Whether or not the caster was behind cover or something has no bearing on it.


The Shifty Mongoose wrote:

Just a point that was brought up earlier:

When it says in the rules about saving throws that you "feel a tingle" when you save against a spell that "has no physical manifestation", it means the spell's effect, not its casting.
So, for example, if you make a save against Charm Person or Cat's Grace, your Saving Throw Sense tingles; if you made your save against Fireball or Stinking Cloud, you don't feel it because you got to shield your face from the fire or the cloud in time.
Really, it's a way to know that you just resisted a spell that wasn't immediately obvious. Whether or not the caster was behind cover or something has no bearing on it.

Indeed.

Nothing about that statement in any way identifies a caster.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

11 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQ is back!

FAQ wrote:

What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?

Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQ is back!

FAQ wrote:

What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?

Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.

A big question about this. does Invisibility hide this as well or is the spellcraftable part still fully perceivable?

Does it have audible and visual components?


Good questions, Chess Pwn.


Hooray, a FAQ on the issue! Much appreciated. ^^


Hmmm. If these unspecified effects glow at all, then casting even silent spells in a dark room would risk revealing your party. But no such risk is ever mentioned in the magic rules. So I'm going to assume that they don't glow despite the artwork that suggests otherwise.


Yessssssssssssss


Gisher wrote:
Hmmm. If these unspecified effects glow at all, then casting even silent spells in a dark room would risk revealing your party. But no such risk is ever mentioned in the magic rules. So I'm going to assume that they don't glow despite the artwork that suggests otherwise.

That's basically my take. If you can see the caster, you can see the effects.

Quote:
you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

That strongly implies to me that not only would penalties apply, but so would anything that would visual perception. Like Darkness. Or cover/concealment.


Guess I'm waiting for the FAQ change in 2 weeks.


Avh wrote:
Guess I'm waiting for the FAQ change in 2 weeks.

Considering they've been saying the thing the FAQ says for years I doubt that.

Liberty's Edge

FAQ wrote:
this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation

Huh. All SLAs have noticeable manifestations now.

Really dislike this FAQ, but at least they finally ruled on it.


DrSwordopolis wrote:
Huh. All SLAs have noticeable manifestations now.

They always have had them. It's just been clarified now.


They're actually going with the swirling runes thing? That's super corny.


Serghar Cromwell wrote:
They're actually going with the swirling runes thing? That's super corny.

No need for it to be swirly runes, the faq says "The choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details"


Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
No need for it to be swirly runes, the faq says "The choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details"
Missed that sentence on my first read. Not as bad as it could be, then.

That's not the swirling rune that is the problem. It's that casting is obvious for everyone.


Avh wrote:

That's not the swirling rune that is the problem. It's that casting is obvious for everyone.

I still don't see how that's a problem


Avh wrote:
That's not the swirling rune that is the problem. It's that casting is obvious for everyone.

There is something about casting that is obvious to everyone. It is whatever causes spellcasting to trigger an attack of opportunity from any enemy within reach, even those with no magical knowledge at all.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Avh wrote:

That's not the swirling rune that is the problem. It's that casting is obvious for everyone.

I still don't see how that's a problem

Same. I've always run it as spellcasting being obvious, even if the characters don't know WHAT is being cast.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Basically, what I always thought.

Good FAQ.

No unwritten rules, or anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Avh wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
No need for it to be swirly runes, the faq says "The choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details"
Missed that sentence on my first read. Not as bad as it could be, then.
That's not the swirling rune that is the problem. It's that casting is obvious for everyone.

I'm actually okay with that, all things considered. While I think every spell having obvious visual cues is silly, it's technically a caster nerf, which is a step in the right direction.

101 to 150 of 756 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Identifying a Spells with Spellcraft All Messageboards