Identifying a Spells with Spellcraft


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 756 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1) I disagree.
2) Raises one, which I agree could use an answer.
3) FAQs always do.
4) Disagree.

But this is quickly becoming pointless, so I'm bowing out of this thread. Good day.


Chess Pwn wrote:

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?

That's what I was thinking. Would kinda screw anyone who casts invisibility to get outta the way and cast some defensive spells


Dot. Just want to follow this discussion.


Quote:

1) Doesn't resolve or clear up much of anything.

2) Raises several more questions.
3) At best, leaves everything as it was.
4) Arguably a stealth errata.

1) What do you mean by this? It specifically answers the question on whether spells can be identified during casting when the spell lacks components such as SLA's, Psychic Magic, and metamagic'd spells. How has it not resolved or cleared up anything?

2) As stated above, it raises one question (which is easily answered via several people that spellcraft suffers the penalties that perception checks do, though some people may prefer more than that to base their interpretation upon).

3) Which is what a good FAQ is supposed to do. Answer the frequently asked question without spontaneously doing errata.

4) Arguably an elephant as well.


CBDunkerson wrote:

Semantics.

Logically, a 'rule change' has to include something which changes/contradicts a previous rule. This FAQ doesn't have any text which qualifies. No changes need be made to existing Pathfinder (or v3/3.5) text due to this FAQ... the existing rules text and the FAQ text are complementary rather than contradictory. Ergo, not a 'rules change'. Possibly a rules 'extension' or 'addition' for some, but merely a 'clarification' for others.

Except you're wrong.

In 3.0 and 3.5, you needed to have components (verbal and/or somatic) to identify a spell. If you didn't have them, you couldn't identify the spell at all.

You can check HERE for the actual ruling.
I quote : "Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry."

We also know from several books, including the spell compendium that spells start to have visual effects once the casting is finished ("as you complete the spell", "with the last words of the spell", "as you complete the motions that unleash the spell", ...

Both implies that spells do not have any visual components to identify that someone is casting the spell until the very moment the casting is already complete. Well, not beyond the spell components anyway.
So, in 3.0 and 3.5, there were no runes at all.

In Pathfinder, all we have is Spellcraft (which had some changes : you don't need component(s) but the check is affected by perception modifiers and you must see the "spell as it is being cast").

We also had words from the author/lead developper of Pathfinder, Jason Bulmahn, who said that spellcasting had manifestations beyond spell components. He made some examples : wiggle of a finger and change in breathing, and other.
All of his examples have in common that they are not magical in nature : snapping your fingers, cracking your neck and fingers, or briefly closing your eyes before opening them widely looking at your target could be variants of the examples he gave us.
He also said that those manifestations were enough to use spellcraft to identify the spell. Despite not agreeing with the ruling, I have no real problems with it.

However, what the FAQ and some people in this topic implies is that spellcasting have magical visual aspects during the casting, making it obvious to anyone (even untrained ones) that there is a spell being cast.
They are implying things like : swirling runes, glowing eyes, change in atmosphere, auras, etc..., that are magical in nature.

And THAT, my friends, is why this FAQ entry is a new ruling/errata and not a FAQ.

And not only I firmly disagree with this FAQ entry, but I believe it is very dumb and ruin the mystery about magic in the game world.


Avh wrote:

However, what the FAQ and some people in this topic implies is that spellcasting have magical visual aspects during the casting, making it obvious to anyone (even untrained ones) that there is a spell being cast.

They are implying things like : swirling runes, glowing eyes, change in atmosphere, auras, etc..., that are magical in nature.

Casting magic is magical in nature.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Avh wrote:

However, what the FAQ and some people in this topic implies is that spellcasting have magical visual aspects during the casting, making it obvious to anyone (even untrained ones) that there is a spell being cast.

They are implying things like : swirling runes, glowing eyes, change in atmosphere, auras, etc..., that are magical in nature.
Casting magic is magical in nature.

But the spell is active once the casting is complete. Hence, magic during casting should not be possible.


Avh wrote:
Hence, magic during casting should not be possible.

So if a caster is in an antimagic field he is allowed to start casting a spell that takes several minutes to cast as long as he finishes the spell after the antimagic field ends?


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Avh wrote:
Hence, magic during casting should not be possible.
So if a caster is in an antimagic field he is allowed to start casting a spell that takes several minutes to cast as long as he finishes the spell after the antimagic field ends?

Sure, why not ?


Avh wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Avh wrote:
Hence, magic during casting should not be possible.
So if a caster is in an antimagic field he is allowed to start casting a spell that takes several minutes to cast as long as he finishes the spell after the antimagic field ends?
Sure, why not ?

Well on that note I'm going to bow out. I can see that you're not going to change your mind if your interpretation on that point is such.

Regardless, there is no more discussion to be had. The FAQ was given, we have our official response. If you don't like it, houserule it otherwise. I'm sure your game will be just as fun without this little corner case.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Avh wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Avh wrote:
Hence, magic during casting should not be possible.
So if a caster is in an antimagic field he is allowed to start casting a spell that takes several minutes to cast as long as he finishes the spell after the antimagic field ends?
Sure, why not ?
Well on that note I'm going to bow out. I can see that you're not going to change your mind if your interpretation on that point is such.

Well, you CAN cast a spell inside an antimagic field.

Quote:
An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell's duration.

So, I see no problem to have a spell beginning to be cast in an antimagic field.


I'm perfectly fine with this rulling. Does it have issues? Yes, I'm largely unsure of what the other indicators for spells will be, but at least it makes it easier to explain to my 3.5 player who was playing a Wizard in my last game.

Quote:

Wizard: I cast Dominate Person to have the king order his guards to stand down.

Me: They are an order of Magus, they all have spellcraft trained and can see you casting a spell. If they identify it, they won't listen to you.
Wizard: But I have the spell stilled and silent! They can't see my components!
Me: Not how it works in PF, they get spellcraft regardless. I will apply the distance penalty to their check though.
Wizard: How can they tell though? I'm not doing anything to show that I'm casting.
Me: ... They can see you concentrating? I mean, if a dude was adjacent, you'd still provoke an AoO right? They're just magic too and can tell you're casting.
Wizard: That's stupid.
Me: Maybe, but look at things this way, you get to do the same thing against tricky npcs though.

Knowing that I could have just said, gathering magical energy has some sort of extra cue, would have helped a lot in that scenario. Deciding that cue will be loads harder though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darth Grall wrote:
Me: Not how it works in PF, they get spacecraft regardless.

Ah yes, the technology guide did raise a few questions.


Milo v3 wrote:
Darth Grall wrote:
Me: Not how it works in PF, they get spacecraft regardless.
Ah yes, the technology guide did raise a few questions.

I literally just changed that when I refreshed only to see someone caught that lol.


Hm, good the FAQ re-iterated the basic ruling, too bad it missed the implementing details that are needed.
I get that Paizo doesn't want to "enforce" one specific visualization, but variety in narrative visualization is still possible
while nailing down some mechanical details which are very important in how this "visual spellcasting phenomenon" plays out...

To quote from my own post following Mark Seifter's request for input on this FAQ: (although others also raised the same issues)

I wrote:

Details as I see it:

Glowing or not i.e. does mundane darkness prevent you from seeing visual signature of spellcasting?
'Part of caster' or not? i.e. If caster is invisible, is visual phenomenon of spellcasting still visible?
[if not "part of caster", i.e. concealed by Invis, it probably should be stated to be IN THEIR SPACE if that is the case]
[currently there isn't anything giving an indication of where these visual phenomenon occur... necessary to determine line of sight]

Those are critical issues for this ruling, really, I hope they can be added to the FAQ.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Avh wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
This FAQ doesn't have any text which qualifies. No changes need be made to existing Pathfinder (or v3/3.5) text due to this FAQ... the existing rules text and the FAQ text are complementary rather than contradictory. Ergo, not a 'rules change'. Possibly a rules 'extension' or 'addition' for some, but merely a 'clarification' for others.

Except you're wrong.

In 3.0 and 3.5, you needed to have components (verbal and/or somatic) to identify a spell. If you didn't have them, you couldn't identify the spell at all.

You can check HERE for the actual ruling.
I quote : "Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry."

And this FAQ response contradicts that... how exactly?

Read it again. The FAQ response says NOTHING about identifying the spell. Nothing about spellcraft. Not one word.

So, according to this FAQ, you can tell that a spell is being cast even if it has no components. According to the v3 spellcraft text you quoted, spellcraft can only be used to identify which spell is being cast if the components are observed. There is no conflict between these two things. The FAQ and the v3 text can BOTH be true because they are covering different issues... the ability to determine that some spell is being cast VS the ability to determine which spell.

Quote:
So, in 3.0 and 3.5, there were no runes at all.

And this is in contrast to the FAQ response which says... nothing at all about runes?

Quote:

However, what the FAQ and some people in this topic implies is that spellcasting have magical visual aspects during the casting, making it obvious to anyone (even untrained ones) that there is a spell being cast.

They are implying things like : swirling runes, glowing eyes, change in atmosphere, auras, etc..., that are magical in nature.

And THAT, my friends, is why this FAQ entry is a new ruling/errata and not a FAQ.

So... you're arguing that this FAQ response is a 'new ruling/errata' because of things it does not actually say... but which you feel are 'implied'.

Assume different implications. Problem solved.


Avh is right, theres no magic until the spell is cast. He's also right that you certainly can start casting in an antimagic field, and showed that you can even complete the spell in one.

This is a rule I will be ignoring. A wag of a finger and a change in breathing are not things you can identify a spell by, they are mundane actions that happen all the time.


jimibones83 wrote:
This is a rule I will be ignoring. A wag of a finger and a change in breathing are not things you can identify a spell by, they are mundane actions that happen all the time.

... the rule doesn't say a wag of a finger or a change in breathing... For example, my mesmerist has his royal crest appear when he casts a spell. When one of my players casts Detect Evil as a paladin, his eyes turn bright yellow with no pupils.


jimibones83 wrote:
This is a rule I will be ignoring. A wag of a finger and a change in breathing are not things you can identify a spell by, they are mundane actions that happen all the time.

You can play under any houserules that you like, that is your prerogative. If it makes your game more enjoyable, more the power to you.

The only houserule I would make is that if you have disguised all aspects of your spellcasting (silent spell for verbal, still spell for somatic, eschew materials for material components, etc.) then in that case I would now allow an opposed. If and only if you disguise every aspect of the spell.

But that's purely my take on a houserule I would implement, not RAW by any means.


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

Yeah, I discussed this matter with my group and it looks as though we will be largely ignoring it as well.

I feel for all those who disagree with this turn of events and don't have that option.


Ravingdork wrote:
Yeah, I discussed this matter with my group and it looks as though we will be largely ignoring it as well.

More the power to you. Whatever works well for your group is what you should play by.

Ravingdork wrote:
I feel for all those who disagree with this turn of events and don't have that option.

While I disagree with you on this particular FAQ, I do agree with the general statement, which is why I no longer care for PFS.


jimibones83 wrote:
This is a rule I will be ignoring. A wag of a finger and a change in breathing are not things you can identify a spell by, they are mundane actions that happen all the time.

Er... I take it you are also ignoring that the FAQ specifically references game art as the primary example of this visual manifestation, i.e. 'swirling runes'? The visual manifestation is of the spellcasting itself, i.e. a magical phenomenon, NOT what the caster themself looks like when spellcasting (not all casters have fingers or breathe, yet spells are identifiable regardless of the caster).

Sovereign Court

My take on it is that if an invisible caster casts a spell, the spell will be visible, the caster will not.

Invisibility wrote:

Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible.

...

Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

I believe Invisibility basically paints the subject as he is at that moment; anything he picks up later doesn't get painted invisible. When the subject then casts a new spell, that "new thing" is visible even though the rest of the caster isn't.

So you can use spellcraft to identify spells cast by invisible casters.

This doesn't contradict anything else in the spell; an invisible cleric can Bless and remain invisible for example. However, it does mean that enemies get to momentarily pinpoint where a spell was being cast, so it'd be wise to take at least a 5ft step afterwards.

It also makes it riskier to summon monsters; people will know where to attack. However, since the caster is still invisible he still benefits from total concealment.


I read it the other way: Remember that Perception penalties apply to Spellcraft. That implies that being able to see the caster is important.


The Gods just willed that whenever someone cast a spell, everyone around gets a specific shiver that means a spell was cast, and thats it for me.


Draco Bahamut wrote:
The Gods just willed that whenever someone cast a spell, everyone around gets a specific shiver that means a spell was cast, and thats it for me.

That's a very cool take on it, definitely not one I've heard before!

And the thing I like about this FAQ is that since they leave the effects up to GM discretion, that it totally within RAW.


Draco Bahamut wrote:
The Gods just willed that whenever someone cast a spell, everyone around gets a specific shiver that means a spell was cast, and thats it for me.

Can you use Spellcraft on that shiver to identify exactly which spell was cast? "Hrmmmm, this particular shiver feels like Summon Monster IV to me."

Because, technically, that's how Spellcraft works to identify spells while they're cast - you use it on whatever is perceptible during casting to identify the spell being cast (and therefore this is a necessary prelude to counter-spelling that spell).


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Man the amount of hurt feelings in this thread is massive.

In any event, I consider this a good ruling to prevent spell casters from being completely overpowered, especially outside of combat situations where they would like to manipulate things/people with no one being the wiser. I think this is perhaps one of the best, if not the best FAQ to date.

Grand Lodge

Does the FAQ even answer the question? Maybe it's because I already understand that you can spellcraft a spell regardless, but I don't understand what point the FAQ is trying to get across.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
Does the FAQ even answer the question? Maybe it's because I already understand that you can spellcraft a spell regardless, but I don't understand what point the FAQ is trying to get across.

That everyone notices that you're casting a spell when you cast a spell, regardless of what spell you're casting and regardless of if it has any components.

The Exchange

FAQ wrote:
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.

Now I'm hoping that in over 200 replies and posts that someone has already pointed you to this FAQ but I'm not going to read this whole thread to see so here it is if no one else has posted it


Cerwin wrote:
Now I'm hoping that in over 200 replies and posts that someone has already pointed you to this FAQ but I'm not going to read this whole thread to see so here it is if no one else has posted it

The FAQ itself was posted in this thread. This is the thread that finally got that FAQ to happen.


DM_Blake wrote:

Can you use Spellcraft on that shiver to identify exactly which spell was cast? "Hrmmmm, this particular shiver feels like Summon Monster IV to me."

Because, technically, that's how Spellcraft works to identify spells while they're cast - you use it on whatever is perceptible during casting to identify the spell being cast (and therefore this is a necessary prelude to counter-spelling that spell).

As much as people can tell the weather, by the pain they feel on their bones IRL. Maybe there is a psychic rapport on the shiver that the trained people can interpret the original spell. The gods just made it this way. Or all being evolved a magic gland inside their brain the presence of magic and they just feel the energy shifting. Or maybe magic is caused by immaterial magic spirits and people can feel when they pass to bring the spell.

I don´t question how people spellcraft identify spells that the caster invented himself and never had cast before...


Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQ is back!

FAQ wrote:


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.

I gotta say, I was expecting the same end result but in a really stupid roundabout way; this answer provides a refreshing new perspective, and I'm benignly surprised.


Ascalaphus wrote:

My take on it is that if an invisible caster casts a spell, the spell will be visible, the caster will not.

So you can use spellcraft to identify spells cast by invisible casters.

The fact remains that we are missing information to resolve whether the "visual spellcasting signature" is "part of caster" or separate from caster, and that is what the issue hinges on. Honestly, I can accept it either way... As you pointed out, if Invisibility does NOT cloak the spellcasting signature it isn't the end of the world, there's nothing stopping casters from 5' stepping or Move Action moving away after the spellcasting... Really only Summoning/other 1 round spells are most strongly effected, and they still get Full Concealment.

thejeff wrote:
I read it the other way: Remember that Perception penalties apply to Spellcraft. That implies that being able to see the caster is important.

As per above, I think there is simply no basis to rule one way or the other, although in the absense of information I suppose one can make a default ruling, that would be rather ill informed... But I don't see your reasoning here as at all relevant: YES, Perception penalties apply, but they apply to seeing ANYTHING: a rat turd, a Permanent Image of "floating runes", etc... Nothing particular to imply the personage of the caster is involved here.

Again, besides the Invisiblity/"part of caster OR NOT" issue, there is the issue of "glowing", which many seem to associate to the artwork, although I don't think that is necessarily the case (it could simply be reflecting natural light as normal "object" even if non-material). If it IS glowing, that implies it could be seen thru mundane darkness, as a candle etc. If it is not glowing, it cannot be seen thru mundane darkness.

While we're at it, adding/fixing rules, it seems LOGICAL/PLAUSIBLE that spellcasting could be identified based on components, but per RAW that only applies to MATERIAL components. If you don't have Line of Sight (e.g. Darkness) but CAN *HEAR* Verbal components, should that allow a Spellcraft check (or Know:Arcana check)? What of spells whose SOLE component is a Verbal component, e.g. Power Word spells? Modifying the rule for Know Arcana checks (to allow Verbal components) seems less invasive then modifying Spellcraft here...??? Should Know:Arcana checks to ID spells based on components (RAW: material components) allow Counterspelling? Or is the idea that components are only used at end of spellcasting process, i.e. too late to Counterspell unless you ID'd the spellcasting from the beginning of it's visual manifestation? (still, ID'ing based on Verbal/Somatic components could be useful as well as logical)


DM_Blake wrote:
Draco Bahamut wrote:
The Gods just willed that whenever someone cast a spell, everyone around gets a specific shiver that means a spell was cast, and thats it for me.

Can you use Spellcraft on that shiver to identify exactly which spell was cast? "Hrmmmm, this particular shiver feels like Summon Monster IV to me."

Because, technically, that's how Spellcraft works to identify spells while they're cast - you use it on whatever is perceptible during casting to identify the spell being cast (and therefore this is a necessary prelude to counter-spelling that spell).

Indeed, while Paizo might not want to commit to a specific visualization, the visualization does still need to conform to the rules, as long as one is playing by the rules. In addition to what you mentioned, we must remember that Spellcraft ID'ing depends on VISUAL perception of the spellcasting "signature", it is something that is SEEN, and if you can't SEE it, there is no chance of ID'ing.


Draco Bahamut wrote:
I don´t question how people spellcraft identify spells that the caster invented himself and never had cast before...

Well OK, why not question that?

They can visually recognize the signture of unique/new spells and understand what that spell is.
Perhaps the visual signature / floating runes in fact is a universal 'magical language' describing the spell effects.
So if you ID the signature (Spellcraft check) then you understand what the spell effect is. What's confusing about that?
After all, people in Rahadoum whom have likely never seen a Divine spell being cast can still Spellcraft ID spells that are Divine-only.


Quandary wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
This is a rule I will be ignoring. A wag of a finger and a change in breathing are not things you can identify a spell by, they are mundane actions that happen all the time.
Er... I take it you are also ignoring that the FAQ specifically references game art as the primary example of this visual manifestation, i.e. 'swirling runes'? The visual manifestation is of the spellcasting itself, i.e. a magical phenomenon, NOT what the caster themself looks like when spellcasting (not all casters have fingers or breathe, yet spells are identifiable regardless of the caster).

I suppose so, otherwise invisibility is useless for those who can cast it themselves. I prefer spells without necessary visual effects not have them. I suppose I just liked the 3.5 version of the rule better. First time I believe I've said that.


jimibones83 wrote:
I suppose so [ignoring visual signature aka runes?], otherwise invisibility is useless for those who can cast it themselves.

Useless = Your identity still concealed, Full Concealment still applying and movement needed* to prevent square pin-pointing?

(as Melee need movement to function)
* Although since they don't know if you moved or not, even if you don't, they have no good reason to think you are still in same square.
I guess that depends on one's definition of useless.

Quote:
I suppose I just liked the 3.5 version of the rule better. First time I believe I've said that.

Well more power to you, plenty of people preferred lots of things about 3.x, e.g. compared to CMB.

Funnily enough it was dead obvious from the very beginning that Pathfinder had CHANGED the rules here from 3.x,
so why anybody could still be "fighting" or disputing this issue at this stage is pretty bizarre.

Claxon wrote:
Man the amount of hurt feelings in this thread is massive.

Right, alot of it seems to be similar to above, not being quite upfront about true sentiment.

Honestly, the FAQ here presented basically no new information, beyond a vague affirmation of visuals ala game art AKA runes,
there is no real new information beyond what Mr. Bulmahn previously wrote on the topic...
Yet despite his previous post, people carried on ranting in threads debating the topic, basically refusing to acknowledge said post.
Obviously that behavior isn't an objective stance re: rules, in which case direct designer statement would be welcomed info by all,
but an emotion-driven defense of their preferences, thus ignoring such relevant info was a more convenient stance.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

Well more power to you, plenty of people preferred lots of things about 3.x, e.g. compared to CMB.

Funnily enough it was dead obvious from the very beginning that Pathfinder had CHANGED the rules here from 3.x,
so why anybody could still be "fighting" or disputing this issue at this stage is pretty bizarre.

Well, plenty of changes are hard to classify as intentional or just accidents of editing. But I can say that for every change I like, there is one I dislike. If my players were more savvy I would make a true 3.P hybrid of the rules to use. But ain't nobody got time for that.

Grand Lodge

Chess Pwn wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Does the FAQ even answer the question? Maybe it's because I already understand that you can spellcraft a spell regardless, but I don't understand what point the FAQ is trying to get across.
That everyone notices that you're casting a spell when you cast a spell, regardless of what spell you're casting and regardless of if it has any components.

'

That's exactly how it's always worked...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Well, plenty of changes are hard to classify as intentional or just accidents of editing. But I can say that for every change I like, there is one I dislike. If my players were more savvy I would make a true 3.P hybrid of the rules to use. But ain't nobody got time for that.

Well this alludes to why people behave so hysterically here, denouncing Paizo decisions they don't like... Paizo is just one developer of many, and you can make your own rules if you really prefer. The point is that Paizo has status as predominant "D&D" developer, and many people are comfortable with/default to Paizo rules... So what Paizo's specific choice is re: FAQ/Errata impacts the default rules that you can find many people to play with. Thus people have a wierd relationship trying to derive legitimacy and power from Paizo's stance if they can get Paizo to rule the way they they want to, OR conversely being dejected if Paizo rules otherwise. Ultimately this just feels childish and covering up their own lack of power, or perception of that. Really, if you have a great game idea, rules idea, you should focus on promoting that to others, and you don't have to care what Paizo does with their ruleset. Passive aggressive antics evading that fact are just not likely to succeed as much as one would want them to, so better to face reality.


claudekennilol wrote:
That's exactly how it's always worked...

Yes, but the point is that people who didn't like the answer were ignoring Jason Bulmahn's post explaining the same thing, but now that it's an "Official FAQ" they can't ignore it anymore. Unfortunately the FAQ didn't go further beyond "restating what they already said" into implementing details crucial to not-so-corner cases (Invisiblity, Darkness).

Grand Lodge

Quandary wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
I suppose so [ignoring visual signature aka runes?], otherwise invisibility is useless for those who can cast it themselves.

Useless = Your identity still concealed, Full Concealment still applying and movement needed* to prevent square pin-pointing?

(as Melee need movement to function)
* Although since they don't know if you moved or not, even if you don't, they have no good reason to think you are still in same square.
I guess that depends on one's definition of useless.

Well, it does somewhat neuter the "go invisible, cast summon monsters" tactic.

"Hey guys, he's right there, and he's still casting. I may not know what, but if it takes that long to cast, it is going to be really bad for us, so everyone attack!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

...That's not necessarily a bad thing. XD


I am going to go cry because a Rogue just killed my GodWizard...


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Rednal wrote:
...That's not necessarily a bad thing. XD

Unless it totally disrupts the ongoing narrative of your game.

Kind of hard to explain how a primary tactic of the PCs worked so well before when it no longer does...because...reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, it would be disruptive if my players asked me why I had ignored a several year old designer post that had been quoted in threads I participated in, and was thus fully aware of. Conveniently enough, if anybody has any questions, you can just point to the game art which prominently features "floating runes". If that so conflicted with your narrative, had you ever actually complained how said art conflicted with your narrative?


@Quandary: A true GodWizard is presumably capable of adapting if one strategy is less workable now? XD

@Ravingdork: Unless, of course, your game chooses to keep doing it the old way. Nothing says you HAVE to follow Paizo's FAQs (or, indeed, any of their rules) in a home game.

201 to 250 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