Identifying a Spells with Spellcraft


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 756 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

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

No doubt ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:
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!"

I already answered this a couple pages back.

Your point is valid - if it works this way, then summoning monsters while invisible is a broken tactic.

Except...

The invisibility spell explicitly states that it's a valid tactic that doesn't break invisibility. It would be a huge lack for foresight for the developers to say "Hey, do this, it works" when really what they meant to say was "Hey, DON'T do this, it won't break invisibility but it's still a useless and broken tactic that will get you killed."

So, the only sensible interpretation is that the magic of Invisibility also hides the effects that this FAQ is talking about.

No other interpretation makes sense, unless you think developers are sadistic and duplicitous and want players to fail. I don't, so I will stick with sensible interpretations.

Grand Lodge

DM_Blake wrote:
FLite wrote:
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!"

I already answered this a couple pages back.

Your point is valid - if it works this way, then summoning monsters while invisible is a broken tactic.

Except...

The invisibility spell explicitly states that it's a valid tactic that doesn't break invisibility. It would be a huge lack for foresight for the developers to say "Hey, do this, it works" when really what they meant to say was "Hey, DON'T do this, it won't break invisibility but it's still a useless and broken tactic that will get you killed."

So, the only sensible interpretation is that the magic of Invisibility also hides the effects that this FAQ is talking about.

No other interpretation makes sense, unless you think developers are sadistic and duplicitous and want players to fail. I don't, so I will stick with sensible interpretations.

I could see a case for it either way honestly


Well, specifically, I think the Invisibility spell says that summoning does not break your invisibility and render you fully visible. Even if they can see you cast while invisible, you still have the advantages of being invisible and will still be hard to localize/hit, etc.

Breaking invisibility is a specific effect within the game, and it is not the same thing as doing something noticeable.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
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.

So, if the players misread a rule, but had already used that rule to clobber someone, you would say "Hey guys, I realized we misread that rule, but since it's now part of the story, we have to keep playing the rule wrong."


No offence, but I don't think you know what "explicitly states" means, Blake.
Nor what "valid tactic" means. It doesn't mean "does exactly what I want it to".
Invisibility is not dropped by Casting Summons (or Enlarge Person on ally),
you get Full Concealment benefit of it, the "runes" just happen to pin-point you during casting,
you are likely enough to still be alive once Casting is complete and continue to benefit from full effects of Invisibility.
(and can walk away, etc, without being pin-pointed anymore)
It may no longer be exactly what you wanted, but it still offers a benefit which may be tactically viable/exploitable.

That said, ultimately we LACK THE INFO NEEDED to determine if the visual signature of casting should be concealed by Invisiblity or not.
At this point I would DEFAULT to saying it is not concealed, since nothing SAYS it is "part of the caster", but that is based on no real information about the "runes". (by same token, we don't actually know the runes are in the caster's square, except by example of game art)
It's trivially easy to say "the runes course over your body, and are concealed by Invis just as Polymorph effects are".
So it all depends on specific implementing details which Paizo has not shared yet. (same for "glowing or not" which affects Darkness scenarios)


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

So on the flip-side, many people have been running it exactly as per the FAQ (based on implications of RAW, and/or being informed by designer's statement). Let's say the FAQ went the other way... It would then impact these people in exactly the manner you claim to be affected yourself. So exactly what importance does your sob story have? And exactly how do you expect people to take your own conduct, directly ignoring the word of designers in order to further your "debate"/pathetic request for having your preferences fulfilled? Just doesn't seem like you want to partake in discourse with full honesty and full information.


Quandary wrote:
I don't think you know what "explicitly states" means, Blake.

Sorry, I should have anticipated that I would need to spell it out more clearly for the argumentative crowd.

The Invisibility spell explicitly states that you can remain invisible while casting Summon Monster. It mentions that spell specifically (hence "explicitly").

What it doesn't say is "However, trying to cast Summon Monster or other spells that don't break invisibility will still get you killed because everyone can immediately pinpoint your square due to visible casting - so actually, trying to use these spells will, essentially, make your invisibility useless except for the total concealment it provides when they all attack you."

Now, maybe they just figured we'd all play it that way. Our players think they have a good tactic, the wizard casts invisibility and then carefully approaches the room full of ogres. The invisible wizard then begins casting Summon Monster, thinking it will work because this spell is explicitly mentioned in the Invisibility description as not breaking invisibility. But now the sadistic GM gleefully rums his hands together and shouts triumphantly "Hahhahahaha! Your invisibility is not broken, but 8 ogres are within reach and they all take AoOs against you because this explicitly mentioned tactic is actually suicide and the developers wanted you to FAIL! Hahahahaha!"

No, I don't think that is what the developers intended. At all. Hency my previous post (now spelled out more clearly for the arguers).


OK, what it comes down to is all we have to go on right now is game art, which is hardly ideal.
Hopefully Paizo rectifies that, especially because the Glowing issue is even less certain, even based on the art.

Not sure why this has to devolve into imaginary sadistic GMs shouting "Muahahaha!!!",
it's a rules issue which can/should be trivially clarified one way or the other, as with all FAQs,
some people will like it, some people won't, the point is just to have clarity re: rules functionality,
the folks at Paizo play the game themself so they are just as aware as the rest of us to game implications,
so no need to play the "Woe is me" sympathy/victim card, just deal with the rules issue as such.


This FAQ literally states "Yes spellcasting is noticeable, but what makes it noticeable is up to however you want to run it". They purposely left it vague and up to interpretation yet there is still such an insane amount of butt hurt going on. Here are your options.

1) Play it by what RAW and what this FAQ states.

2) Houserule it otherwise.

Pick whatever option makes your happier and run with it. Any GM who always runs 100% by RAW and never deviates is, in my experience, a bad GM. If this houserule makes your game more enjoyable, use it. Stop arguing with the developers to make it RAW because they've already given their stance and why.


DM_Blake wrote:
Quandary wrote:
I don't think you know what "explicitly states" means, Blake.

Now, maybe they just figured we'd all play it that way. Our players think they have a good tactic, the wizard casts invisibility and then carefully approaches the room full of ogres. The invisible wizard then begins casting Summon Monster, thinking it will work because this spell is explicitly mentioned in the Invisibility description as not breaking invisibility. But now the sadistic GM gleefully rums his hands together and shouts triumphantly "Hahhahahaha! Your invisibility is not broken, but 8 ogres are within reach and they all take AoOs against you because this explicitly mentioned tactic is actually suicide and the developers wanted you to FAIL! Hahahahaha!"

No, I don't think that is what the developers intended. At all. Hency my previous post (now spelled out more clearly for the arguers).

You can't take AoOs against someone with full concealment.

Invisibility hides you and your gear, why would it hide floating runes that are neither?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Invisibility hides you and your gear, why would it hide floating runes that are neither?

The FAQ allows for the possibility that the manifestations of the spell ARE actually you, and not floating runes. Maybe your skin changes color or something. Thus, FAQ allows for the possibility that invisibility hides runes. It also allows for invisibility not hiding runes, if you interpret the manifestations to neither be part of the caster's body nor equipment.


Excuse me, please don't interrupt others' sadism fantasies with rules discussion.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:


Not sure why this has to devolve into imaginary sadistic GMs shouting "Muahahaha!!!",

Because this is the rules forum, and this thread has over 50 posts?

imaginary sadistic gms are the godwin equivelent on the paizo rules forum.

hides my sadistic GM badge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
Invisibility hides you and your gear, why would it hide floating runes that are neither?
The FAQ allows for the possibility that the manifestations of the spell ARE actually you, and not floating runes. Maybe your skin changes color or something. Thus, FAQ allows for the possibility that invisibility hides runes. It also allows for invisibility not hiding runes, if you interpret the manifestations to neither be part of the caster's body nor equipment.

Since it allows for the possibility that the manifestation is not glowing or separate from you or any such effect that would reveal you and since the game mechanics should not depend on which kind of manifestation you go with, the safe assumption is that however you choose to describe the manifestation it is obvious if someone can see you, but doesn't automatically reveal anything if they can't.

Since that conforms with the only actual rule we've got.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
Invisibility hides you and your gear, why would it hide floating runes that are neither?
The FAQ allows for the possibility that the manifestations of the spell ARE actually you, and not floating runes. Maybe your skin changes color or something. Thus, FAQ allows for the possibility that invisibility hides runes. It also allows for invisibility not hiding runes, if you interpret the manifestations to neither be part of the caster's body nor equipment.

That works for me. Actually, I rather like the idea of temporary runic tattoos appearing and crawling over your body.

Of course, then you have the issue with a player trying to cover his body with clothing to prevent people from knowing when/what he is casting.


The FAQ doesn't say what has to make the spell obvious. Just that it has to be obvious. If your player hides their glowing runes with clothes, say they glow too bright to be hidden, or that his face glows too.


Quote:
since the game mechanics should not depend on which kind of manifestation you go with

Why not? I think the FAQ plainly says that they should depend on exactly that.

Obviously you can't change your mind about how they work every other combat... it's a campaign long GM decision ideally. The rules still work consistently situation to situation.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
The FAQ doesn't say what has to make the spell obvious. Just that it has to be obvious. If your player hides their glowing runes with clothes, say they glow too bright to be hidden, or that his face glows too.

Or the runes crawl over the clothes instead.

But if they glow brightly, he can be spotted in Darkness. But they don't have to glow brightly.


thejeff wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
The FAQ doesn't say what has to make the spell obvious. Just that it has to be obvious. If your player hides their glowing runes with clothes, say they glow too bright to be hidden, or that his face glows too.

Or the runes crawl over the clothes instead.

But if they glow brightly, he can be spotted in Darkness. But they don't have to glow brightly.

Yup, both are completely valid.

I think this FAQ was fantastic, because it established just enough of a baseline to keep casters from running amok while allowing you to insert whatever flavor you want. Well done dev team.


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
since the game mechanics should not depend on which kind of manifestation you go with

Why not? I think the FAQ plainly says that they should depend on exactly that.

Obviously you can't change your mind about how they work every other combat... it's a campaign long GM decision ideally. The rules still work consistently situation to situation.

I think the FAQ says no such thing. The FAQ even suggests they could vary from caster to caster.

Which means everyone would pick the effect with the best mechanical advantage.
So it's best if the special effects remain just special effects and don't have mechanical effects.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
The FAQ doesn't say what has to make the spell obvious. Just that it has to be obvious. If your player hides their glowing runes with clothes, say they glow too bright to be hidden, or that his face glows too.

I don't think it even says that. It says they are "obviously magical" not "obviously visible", i.e. if you can see them, you can tell that they are magical in origin, doesn't make them super easy to see.

The other relevant text is that people should have "some sort of chance" to see them. Which I don't read to imply that it should be impossible to cover up at all, necessarily. Nobody would argue that a stone wall between you shouldn't completely obscure it, even if the magic is acting around the wall. So should portable obstructions, "chicanery" etc. In my interpretation, you do still have some chance--your chance is by removing the obstructions / bypassing the chicanery. Not just a guaranteed chance no matter what... that would also require being able to see manifestations through solid walls, etc.


Crimeo wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
The FAQ doesn't say what has to make the spell obvious. Just that it has to be obvious. If your player hides their glowing runes with clothes, say they glow too bright to be hidden, or that his face glows too.
I don't think it even says that. It says they are "obviously magical" not "obviously visible", i.e. if you can see them, you can tell that they are magical in origin, doesn't make them super easy to see.

Yup, another valid interpretation. I wouldn't make them easily hidden (like, when I cast magic one skin cell changes color), but you don't have to make it attract the attention of the entire town.

Crimeo wrote:
The other relevant text is that people should have "some sort of chance" to see them. Which I don't read to imply that it should be impossible to cover up at all, necessarily. Nobody would argue that a stone wall between you shouldn't completely obscure it, even if the magic is acting around the wall. So should portable obstructions, "chicanery" etc. In my interpretation, you do still have some chance--your chance is by removing the obstructions / bypassing the chicanery. Not just a guaranteed chance no matter what... that would also require being able to see manifestations through solid walls, etc.

Yup. Well said.


Quote:
Which means everyone would pick the effect with the best mechanical advantage.

COULD vary from caster to caster. Don't have to allow that at all by FAQ.

And even if you do allow that, it's still affecting mechanics... in your example of total freedom, it affects mechanics by always giving the caster a significant mechanical advantage by being able to choose things advantageous to him.


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
Which means everyone would pick the effect with the best mechanical advantage.

COULD vary from caster to caster. Don't have to allow that at all by FAQ.

And even if you do allow that, it's still affecting mechanics... in your example of total freedom, it affects mechanics by always giving the caster a significant mechanical advantage by being able to choose things advantageous to him.

Unless the mechanics stay the same.


Yup. And that's all left up to GM interpretation, so rule it however you like.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Spellcraft is subject to the perception modifiers. Let's say that noticing spellcasting has the same difficulty of "Notice a visible creature DC 0" ans spellcasting that attack someone has the same difficulty of "Hear the sound of battle DC -10".
Those seem reasonable assumption to me.

Invisibility add +20 to the DC, +40 if the spell has no somatic gestures and no components (you have to manipulate the components, so you are moving).

Then you add range and other effects.

That give us some number we can use to perceive a spell when it is cast.

Until we have more precise rules it seem a acceptable solution.


Quote:
Invisibility adds +20

Only to invisible things. The FAQ does not require that the spell manifestations ever become invisible in the first place just because the caster does.

Things that don't become invisible to begin with don't get +20 for invisibility.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
DM_Blake wrote:
FLite wrote:
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!"

I already answered this a couple pages back.

Your point is valid - if it works this way, then summoning monsters while invisible is a broken tactic.

Except...

The invisibility spell explicitly states that it's a valid tactic that doesn't break invisibility. It would be a huge lack for foresight for the developers to say "Hey, do this, it works" when really what they meant to say was "Hey, DON'T do this, it won't break invisibility but it's still a useless and broken tactic that will get you killed."

So, the only sensible interpretation is that the magic of Invisibility also hides the effects that this FAQ is talking about.

No other interpretation makes sense, unless you think developers are sadistic and duplicitous and want players to fail. I don't, so I will stick with sensible interpretations.

LOL, what?

Summon monster already had "Components V, S, F/DF (a tiny bag and a small candle)", so you were speaking for 1 full round. Noticing the location of the invisible caster has always been easy. I don't see how "using magic is noticeable" change that.

On the other hand being invisible give you a 50% miss chance even if you location has been pinpointed. And pinpointing your location is still difficult.


I like Diego Rossi's take on it.


Diego Rossi wrote:


Spellcraft is subject to the perception modifiers. Let's say that noticing spellcasting has the same difficulty of "Notice a visible creature DC 0" ans spellcasting that attack someone has the same difficulty of "Hear the sound of battle DC -10".
Those seem reasonable assumption to me.

Invisibility add +20 to the DC, +40 if the spell has no somatic gestures and no components (you have to manipulate the components, so you are moving).

Then you add range and other effects.

That give us some number we can use to perceive a spell when it is cast.

Until we have more precise rules it seem a acceptable solution.

Those are modifiers to stealth to detect the presence of a creature, it doesn't mean that someone with a high perception can actually ignore invisibility and see what can't be seen.

If the runes are invisible, then you can't see them even with a perception bonus of +100.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
Invisibility adds +20

Only to invisible things. The FAQ does not require that the spell manifestations ever become invisible in the first place just because the caster does.

Things that don't become invisible to begin with don't get +20 for invisibility.

Very well, we get some floating runes. Where are they? In front of the wizard? Before his outstretched hands? Over his head?

Wait, he is pointing toward me, to the left or to the right?

So we have a general area, but the wizard can still be in any of at least 9 squares, more if he is large.


^ Oh that's true actually, since the spellcraft says "SEE the spell" specifically, if the manifestations are ruled to be invisible, then you should have 0% chance of success, not +20 DC. (the +20 is normally accounting for other senses, but you're only allowed to use sight here.)


Diego Rossi wrote:

LOL, what?

Summon monster already had "Components V, S, F/DF (a tiny bag and a small candle)", so you were speaking for 1 full round. Noticing the location of the invisible caster has always been easy. I don't see how "using magic is noticeable" change that.

On the other hand being invisible give you a 50% miss chance even if you location has been...

Feat: Silent Spell

or a deaf creature, etc...

Grand Lodge

Diego Rossi wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
FLite wrote:


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!"

I already answered this a couple pages back.

Your point is valid - if it works this way, then summoning monsters while invisible is a broken tactic.

Except...

The invisibility spell explicitly states that it's a valid tactic that doesn't break invisibility. It would be a huge lack for foresight for the developers to say "Hey, do this, it works" when really what they meant to say was "Hey, DON'T do this, it won't break invisibility but it's still a useless and broken tactic that will get you killed."

So, the only sensible interpretation is that the magic of Invisibility also hides the effects that this FAQ is talking about.

No other interpretation makes sense, unless you think developers are sadistic and duplicitous and want players to fail. I don't, so I will stick with sensible interpretations.

LOL, what?

Summon monster already had "Components V, S, F/DF (a tiny bag and a small candle)", so you were speaking for 1 full round. Noticing the location of the invisible caster has always been easy. I don't see how "using magic is noticeable" change that.

On the other hand being invisible give you a 50% miss chance even if you location has been...

Good points all. I admit, I was thinking more of SLA summons, but yes, verbal will give it away too. (Running a Wayang Summoner with the alternate racial trait to vanish)


Ok, just got to say that if Paizo Design Team decides not to nail down the mechanical details, then PFS will need to independently do so. Which is fine enough on its own.

But not having mechanical details in the Core Rules means that we won't see auxiliary rules options designed to modify/ deal with those specific mechanics either. PDT themself have already indicated interest in visiting this subsystem in Ultimate Intrigue, and if this specific sub-area of the rule is to be modified, then it needs to be specified first, at least in terms of mechanics if not EXACT visual form.


Quote:
if this specific sub-area of the rule is to be modified, then it needs to be specified first, at least in terms of mechanics if not EXACT visual form.

Why?

X = "whatever manifestation GM wants"
You could then totally add a feat that says "Character can obscure X"

Whether or not it's a good worthwhile feat would depend on that GM's interpretation for X, but the rules would be clear.


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
if this specific sub-area of the rule is to be modified, then it needs to be specified first, at least in terms of mechanics if not EXACT visual form.

Why?

X = "whatever manifestation GM wants"
You could then totally add a feat that says "Character can obscure X"

Whether or not it's a good worthwhile feat would depend on that GM's interpretation for X, but the rules would be clear.

I'm willing to concede that for PFS, it would be nice.

One GM wants one manifestation and rules that it's not noticeable when in darkness or invisible.
The next session under a different Judge you try the same thing and are instantly spotted. The Judge doesn't bother warning you, because it's obvious that it works that way.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quandary wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Kind of hard to explain how a primary tactic of the PCs worked so well before when it no longer does...because...reasons.
So on the flip-side, many people have been running it exactly as per the FAQ (based on implications of RAW, and/or being informed by designer's statement). Let's say the FAQ went the other way... It would then impact these people in exactly the manner you claim to be affected yourself. So exactly what importance does your sob story have? And exactly how do you expect people to take your own conduct, directly ignoring the word of designers in order to further your "debate"/pathetic request for having your preferences fulfilled? Just doesn't seem like you want to partake in discourse with full honesty and full information.

Prior to the initial Dev posting, I honestly don't believe people played it that way due solely because of the RAW (which, by the way, does not indicate any such displays anywhere whatsoever*), but rather because they were accustomed to "video-game magic" in their anime and games.

*:
Somebody on the forums made the point that BECAUSE Spellcraft didn't cover the corner-case of a componentless spell, that, that MUST mean there is something besides the spell components to give it away (rather then thinking the usual--that the rules don't clearly cover everything). The idea was pushed enough that it reached the developers, who just so happened to agree with that logic. So they made up new rules to support it. That doesn't mean it was ever RAW. It just means someone's opinion became prevalent enough to affect the game.


Ravingdork wrote:
Prior to the initial Dev posting, I honestly don't believe people played it that way due solely because of the RAW (which, by the way, does not indicate any such displays anywhere whatsoever*), but rather because they were accustomed to "video-game magic."

Well I know that wasn't the reason for my group. Videogame magic is boring aesthetically. Too generic.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Prior to the initial Dev posting, I honestly don't believe people played it that way due solely because of the RAW (which, by the way, does not indicate any such displays anywhere whatsoever*), but rather because they were accustomed to "video-game magic."
Well I know that wasn't the reason for my group. Videogame magic is boring aesthetically. Too generic.

But you did subscribe to the idea that Spellcraft could identify a spell even if there was nothing to identify; even before it was ever brought up on these forums?

If so, please explain your group's reasoning behind playing that way. It doesn't sound like you added anything identifiable to spells (too boring), so if not the spell components, what exactly allowed for this in your games?

Until you can explain that to me in a logical manner, I simply don't believe you. I think you're just jumping onto the "support Paizo" bandwagon.


Ravingdork wrote:
But you did subscribe to the idea that Spellcraft could identify a spell even if there was nothing to identify; even before it was ever brought up on these forums?

No we did not, since we never thought that were would be nothing to identify, because we expected the spells to have manifestations.

Quote:
If so, please explain your group's reasoning behind playing that way. It doesn't sound like you added anything identifiable to spells (too boring), so if not the spell components, what exactly allowed for this in your games?

We did, just didn't do it based on videogames. I mean, those tend to just be a generic glow. Noooo, you need to make it personal. For example, when my mesmerist casts a spell, his family crest appears around him. Just doing something generic like glyphs or a glow is boring.

Quote:
Until you can explain that to me in a logical manner, I simply don't believe you. I think you're just jumping onto the "support Paizo" bandwagon.

Impossible for us to just be jumping onto the "support Paizo" bandwagon, we were doing this back in 3.5e (mistakenly back then though, didn't even know we were playing it wrong in 3.5e until I saw people arguing about this in PF). Still, when those arguments happened I looked stuff up and decided on my interpretation before I saw Dev posts on the subject.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Prior to the initial Dev posting, I honestly don't believe people played it that way due solely because of the RAW (which, by the way, does not indicate any such displays anywhere whatsoever*), but rather because they were accustomed to "video-game magic."
Well I know that wasn't the reason for my group. Videogame magic is boring aesthetically. Too generic.

But you did subscribe to the idea that Spellcraft could identify a spell even if there was nothing to identify; even before it was ever brought up on these forums?

If so, please explain your group's reasoning behind playing that way. It doesn't sound like you added anything identifiable to spells (too boring), so if not the spell components, what exactly allowed for this in your games?

Until you can explain that to me in a logical manner, I simply don't believe you. I think you're just jumping onto the "support Paizo" bandwagon.

Static energy that you can feel gathering

Eerie sounds
Lights around the caster hands
etc.

Depending on the spell you can have different effects (most necromantic spells can have spirits of dead people floating around, fireballs can steal the heat from the area and so on).

The way the rules are worded is that spellcasting is recognizable if you can perceive it, and perceiving it is easy. Seeing how the game work I would prefer something more defined but the existence of a few abilities to conceal spellcasting was already a clear indication that it normally is obvious.

And I am 55 years old, so video games with visible spellcasting came after I started playing D&D.


Except all of those things have mechanical effects that logically would alter the ability to both perceive them, as well as use them to identify the spell being cast.

Invisibility, Silence, distance, non-locality, etc...

Perceiving is easy unless it isn't, such as in the dark.


Ravingdork wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Prior to the initial Dev posting, I honestly don't believe people played it that way due solely because of the RAW (which, by the way, does not indicate any such displays anywhere whatsoever*), but rather because they were accustomed to "video-game magic."
Well I know that wasn't the reason for my group. Videogame magic is boring aesthetically. Too generic.

But you did subscribe to the idea that Spellcraft could identify a spell even if there was nothing to identify; even before it was ever brought up on these forums?

If so, please explain your group's reasoning behind playing that way. It doesn't sound like you added anything identifiable to spells (too boring), so if not the spell components, what exactly allowed for this in your games?

Until you can explain that to me in a logical manner, I simply don't believe you. I think you're just jumping onto the "support Paizo" bandwagon.

Honestly, never even really considered it. You could roll Spellcraft if someone was casting. Never even came up what the components were or if there was some other manifestation.

Casting was obvious. Spellcraft worked. (I think I remember one time when a NPC was trying to hide that he was casting. I got a Perception roll and then Spellcraft to ID it. Alter Self, it was.)

There was no specific reasoning behind it. We didn't stop and debate the (to us) obvious rule.


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

Invisibility add +20 to the DC, +40 if the spell has no somatic gestures and no components (you have to manipulate the components, so you are moving).

I've always interpreted the "no moving" part to mean "not moving from your square."


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
And I am 55 years old, so video games with visible spellcasting came after I started playing D&D.

"Video-game magic" is my own short-hand slang, and shouldn't be limited to video games. Comic books or other visual media could easily have had a similar impact on the way you envision spellcasting in your games.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
And I am 55 years old, so video games with visible spellcasting came after I started playing D&D.
"Video-game magic" is my own short-hand slang, and shouldn't be limited to video games. Comic books or other visual media could easily have had a similar impact on the way you envision spellcasting in your games.

Leiber, Tolkien, De Camp and other fantasy writers, not visual media.

There were as many different ways of describing magic as there were authors.

Grand Lodge

Quandary wrote:

Ok, just got to say that if Paizo Design Team decides not to nail down the mechanical details, then PFS will need to independently do so. Which is fine enough on its own.

But not having mechanical details in the Core Rules means that we won't see auxiliary rules options designed to modify/ deal with those specific mechanics either. PDT themself have already indicated interest in visiting this subsystem in Ultimate Intrigue, and if this specific sub-area of the rule is to be modified, then it needs to be specified first, at least in terms of mechanics if not EXACT visual form.

Actually, we already have auxiliary rules elements (see cunning caster in hero of the streets.)

Grand Lodge

Diego Rossi wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
And I am 55 years old, so video games with visible spellcasting came after I started playing D&D.
"Video-game magic" is my own short-hand slang, and shouldn't be limited to video games. Comic books or other visual media could easily have had a similar impact on the way you envision spellcasting in your games.

Leiber, Tolkien, De Camp and other fantasy writers, not visual media.

There were as many different ways of describing magic as there were authors.

And plenty of paper and pencil game systems.

Hero System (All powers that do not pay extra are visible to at least three senses)

And of course any number of works of fiction where the physical manifestations turn out later to be unnnecessary, either added to convince the gulible that you really are doing something, or the mark of an novice who hasn't learned to work clean.

And how many works of fiction depict clerical casters as surrounded by the sign of their god when envoking their power? (Or forget fiction, how many real world religious artworks depict the holy manifesting halos, or stigmata or other manifestations when invoking divine power.)

I admit, I have always visualized it as having a manifestation, but I didn't want to push it in PFS where it would result in rules arguments.

251 to 300 of 756 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Identifying a Spells with Spellcraft All Messageboards