Identifying a Spells with Spellcraft


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 756 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

its not even about corner cases really,

3.5
I am Mr wizard, i want to cast a spell secretly, without drawing attention to my self. Prevoiusly all i needed was to cast a still and silent spell, and no one knows i just cast a spell, sure a spell went off, but unless the spell had an originating thing from me, no one could pin it on me.

Pathifinder
Currently with how pazio did it, it is impossible to cast a spell stealthily. I am Mr wizard i cast a still and silent spell but oh look a whole lot of visual floating stuff around me, might as well be a neon sign above my head flashing "hey look at me im casting a spell".

Guess there's no reason to take still or silent spell anymore, they cant ID my spells from the verbal or somatic components anyway now.


Shadowlords wrote:

its not even about corner cases really, I am Mr wizard, i want to cast a spell secretly, without drawing attention to my self. Prevoiusly all i needed was to cast a still and silent spell, and no one knows i just cast a spell, sure a spell went off, but unless the spell had an originating thing from me, no one could pin it on me.

Currently with how pazio did it, it is impossible to cast a spell stealthily. I am Mr wizard i cast a still and silent spell but oh look a whole lot of visual floating stuff around me, might as well be a neon sign above my head flashing "hey look at me im casting a spell".

Guess there's no reason to take still or silent spell anymore, they cant ID my spells from the verbal or somatic components anyway now.

To be fair, even before the FAQ you couldn't do that.

Allowing for concealed casting was (and in my games, will continue to be) a house rule.

Dark Archive

alexd1976 wrote:

To be fair, even before the FAQ you couldn't do that.

Allowing for concealed casting was (and in my games, will continue to be) a house rule.

Sorry i wasn't talking about FAQ i was talking about change from 3.5 to pathfinder.


Still spell is still useful for being grappled or bound. Silent is still useful for being quiet or casting in a silenced area. There are plenty of uses for those feats.


I'm just amused at the idea that Charm Person without Still & Silent Spell has always been completely useless. Is that how everyone has always run it?
"Since I know you cast a spell, I know you must be a baddie even though you're my friend?"

Sure, it's probably more useful in many situations if the person doesn't know you've cast something, but "only"?

It's a first level spell. It's useful as such.


Draco Bahamut wrote:
But the DC to sense a enchantment isn´t a fixed 25 of sense motive ? Can´t the target sense motive himself ?

With the new FAQ, you don't even have to role, in fact, why would you?

Spell has visual effect, and you suddenly start liking someone. If you can't connect those dots, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with you and you should not be walking around with a weapon or armor.

Cause, you know, you're dumb.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

I'm just amused at the idea that Charm Person without Still & Silent Spell has always been completely useless. Is that how everyone has always run it?

"Since I know you cast a spell, I know you must be a baddie even though you're my friend?"

Sure, it's probably more useful in many situations if the person doesn't know you've cast something, but "only"?

It's a first level spell. It's useful as such.

No, it's not completely useless. You know your best bud cast a spell. So what ? It's only if you identified the spell that you *might* be somewhat concerned.


Shadowlords wrote:

its not even about corner cases really, I am Mr wizard, i want to cast a spell secretly, without drawing attention to my self. Prevoiusly all i needed was to cast a still and silent spell, and no one knows i just cast a spell, sure a spell went off, but unless the spell had an originating thing from me, no one could pin it on me.

Currently with how pazio did it, it is impossible to cast a spell stealthily. I am Mr wizard i cast a still and silent spell but oh look a whole lot of visual floating stuff around me, might as well be a neon sign above my head flashing "hey look at me im casting a spell".

Guess there's no reason to take still or silent spell anymore, they cant ID my spells from the verbal or somatic components anyway now.

You can still use them for their primary purpose - casting when you can't talk or gesture.

Besides that, if you don't take the most extreme interpretation of the current rules and assume all casting comes with flashing neon, you can still cast without people knowing, if you're hidden or otherwise can't be seen. No need for still spell, maybe for silent, depending on what you want.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

Now, to truly have a discreet spell, you ONLY need the following:

- Cunning Caster
- Deceitful
- Eschew Materials
- Silent Spell
- Still Spell
- Min/maxed Bluff skill
- Spell slots 2 higher than the spell you likely want to cast discreetly

Simple, right?

Not even Spell Perfection has that many bloody prerequisites.

Or, you know... walk around a corner before you cast.


alexd1976 wrote:
Draco Bahamut wrote:
But the DC to sense a enchantment isn´t a fixed 25 of sense motive ? Can´t the target sense motive himself ?

With the new FAQ, you don't even have to role, in fact, why would you?

Spell has visual effect, and you suddenly start liking someone. If you can't connect those dots, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with you and you should not be walking around with a weapon or armor.

Cause, you know, you're dumb.

No, because in the words of the spell "You will view the actions of the caster in the most favorable way."

The spell itself shortcircuits that.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Now, to truly have a discreet spell, you ONLY need the following:

- Cunning Caster
- Deceitful
- Eschew Materials
- Silent Spell
- Still Spell
- Min/maxed Bluff skill
- Spell slots 2 higher than the spell you likely want to cast discreetly

Simple, right?

Not even Spell Perfection has that many bloody prerequisites.

Or, you know... walk around a corner before you cast.

Losing both line of sight and line of effect? yeah... that complicates spellcasting a bit.


No, there is a spell in your head altering your perception. It´s a lot like love, there is people with a thousand motives for not loving someone and they still love. Charm person is like that, i might know you charmed me, but i can´t help it, if i didn´t make the save i am still your friend.


Your friend cast a spell. So what? He's your friend, he must have cast a spell for a good reason.

Charm person is only useless if you metagame.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

"Aww man, you ain't gotta charm me, we're already best buds!"

If enchantment spells don't cloud your mind, what DO they do?


Ravingdork wrote:

It's bad because...

...it makes the game far less intuitive.
...raises far more questions and corner cases.
...restricts player options.
...is a clear political move to push their new products, such as Heroes of the Streets with its Cunning Caster feat.
...has only served to divide the Paizo roleplaying community.

THAT is why it was a bad move. It has nothing to do with my personal preferences.

I don't see how it's less intuitive at all.

It does raise question, questions I have been wanting answered for a long time.
It does restrict player options in the sense that they now need to use the feat that exists to cast stealthily, or they can't. Which in my mind is great. Too many players thought spell casting should be carte blanche to run amok with no way of determining the source (under certain circumstance).
I don't think it's a clear move, and certainly not political. Monetary, economic, opportunistic? Maybe. But not political. But I don't think it's even those. I think the rules has been this way in the minds of the devs for a long time, and they finally made it clear that this is how it worked. The amount of threads of this kind popping up made it necessary for them to comment, and the release of Ultimate Intrigue provided a good opportunity to release material to allow players to utilize hidden spell casting (which people erroneously thought they could get before).
And as for dividing the community....well maybe the boards here are divided. But, this isn't the first time this has happened and wont be the last. Pretty much any ruling the devs make turns out to be controversial to what seems like about half the board, mostly because they don't like it. But you know the best part about home games, you can always ignore it if you want.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

"Aww man, you ain't gotta charm me, we're already best buds!"

If enchantment spells don't cloud your mind, what DO they do?

They do what they say they do. Nothing about clouding minds...


Charm person is a mind-effecting spell by definition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Sorry, but spell identification was something that Wizards of the Coast did better in D&D v3.5. Paizo dropped the ball on this one; making the game far less intuitive, raising far more questions and corner cases, and generally restricting player options--all in the name of pushing their new products and bringing casters to heel.
So because you don't like it, it's bad? Got it.

It's bad because...

...it makes the game far less intuitive.
...raises far more questions and corner cases.
...restricts player options.
...is a clear political move to push their new products, such as Heroes of the Streets with its Cunning Caster feat.
...has only served to divide the Paizo roleplaying community.

THAT is why it was a bad move. It has nothing to do with my personal preferences.

People(including me) felt it makes it far more intuitive. you can spellcraft any and all spells and that spellcasting is noticeable. Opposed to having to track or decide if there was something to notice and if it was a SLA or an Occult spell and check what components the spell has.

what questions and corner cases does it raise? The only I'm aware of is the invisibility, which I feel is handled by the "modified by perception" clause.

yep, just like all other classes, feats, and rules. I could do 1000 damage a round if the rules of how to do damage weren't there. Dang restrictions. All this does is clarify that all spellcasting is noticeable and that you have something you can use to spellcraft for any spell effect. Sure you can say it restricts, but I don't feel it's anything major or damaging to a character.

Jason "semi-officially" had answered this years ago. This FAQ just makes it completely "official" that they did indeed mean what he said. This FAQ was answered now because an active thread, easy answer, and the FAQ queue being down. We wouldn't have had a FAQ this week, since Jason was out or busy or something, but this question they already all agreed so it was easy to FAQ it.

The community was already divided on this issue, hence the active thread. Some saying you could only spellcraft some spells and no SLA, other saying you can spellcraft anything. Now we have an official answer saying which it is. If anything it helps because now everyone in the community can know the answer.


and he would know after you'r spell duration end, that you charmed him for sure cuz he made spellcraft check before...


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Charm person is a mind-effecting spell by definition.

Sure is! Doesn't make you stupid though.


alexd1976 wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Charm person is a mind-effecting spell by definition.
Sure is! Doesn't make you stupid though.

Yup. And nobody said it did.


Hey, at least we have an infallible way of seeing what square those invisible casters are in though...

So that's not bad.

There is no roll to SEE the spell, so being invisible doesn't make it harder to determine their square, just to identify the spell itself.

Right?


small Example

GM: guy before you cast slient still spell
ME: ok, since new FAQ i can make my spellcraft check ?
GM: yes
Me: 20 ,yey ! what he cast on me ?
GM: charm person
Me:hmmm since he's some random dude casting this spell on me i can assume he's my enemy yes ?
GM: yes ;/ ?
Me: cool , i feel rly,rly threatened about it soooo according to spell description
"If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw."

Free saving bonus on charm spell after successful spellcraft check :)

Dark Archive

CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Your friend cast a spell. So what? He's your friend, he must have cast a spell for a good reason.

Charm person is only useless if you metagame.

Ok, but anyone else around will be like, he this guy just cast a spell.

How about this scenario.

2 guards at a gate:
"Stop you cant enter here"

Wizard:
Starts casting a spell: magical effect around caster clearly seen by all.

Guard 1:
Oh hey bud didn't see you there (he is charmed)

Guard 2:
this guy cast a spell i'm not trusting anything anyone says and am going to detain these guys until i get some answers or my superiors confirm their story.

Now if it was without the visual magical effects (and a still and silent spell) then the party with guard 1 helping could talk their way through this encounter.


PłentaX wrote:
and he would know after you'r spell duration end, that you charmed him for sure cuz he made spellcraft check before...

Regardless of whether or not the victim made a spellcraft check, they're going to know something weird was going on when the duration wears off. They're going to know that someone they either didn't like before or didn't know before suddenly became their best friend, but now, just a few hours later those feelings are totally gone. They're going to remember doing things for that person that they never would have normally done for that person.

In a world where magic is as common as the default for Pathfinder, the victim won't need a spellcraft check to suspect he/she was under the effects of some sort of magic, and to react accordingly.

One of the limiting aspects of charm person that people (both player and GM) seem to want to ignore is that the subject is going to know something was up when the duration wears off and will almost certainly not be happy about it.


Shadowlords wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Your friend cast a spell. So what? He's your friend, he must have cast a spell for a good reason.

Charm person is only useless if you metagame.

Ok, but anyone else around will be like, he this guy just cast a spell.

How about this scenario.

2 guards at a gate:
"Stop you cant enter here"

Wizard:
Starts casting: a spell magical effect around caster clearly seen by all.

Guard 1:
Oh hey bud didn't see you there (he is charmed)

Guard 2:
this guy cast a spell i'm not trusting anything anyone says and am going to detain these guys until i get some answers or my superiors confirm their story.

Now if it was without the visual magical effects (and a still and silent spell) then the party with guard 1 helping could talk their way through this encounter.

You nailed it. Unless you catch them alone, the spell basically auto-fails at it's intended purpose.


Shadowlords wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Your friend cast a spell. So what? He's your friend, he must have cast a spell for a good reason.

Charm person is only useless if you metagame.

Ok, but anyone else around will be like, he this guy just cast a spell.

How about this scenario.

2 guards at a gate:
"Stop you cant enter here"

Wizard:
Starts casting a spell: magical effect around caster clearly seen by all.

Guard 1:
Oh hey bud didn't see you there (he is charmed)

Guard 2:
this guy cast a spell i'm not trusting anything anyone says and am going to detain these guys until i get some answers or my superiors confirm their story.

Now if it was without the visual magical effects (and a still and silent spell) then the party with guard 1 helping could talk their way through this encounter.

That's what the rest of the party is for.

The Wizard pretends to be casting a spell of some sort on one of his party members, who also pretends to be the willing recipient of the spell. Since the duration of Charm Person is hours per level, the party has plenty of time to play up this act, placing a separation between the apparent spell casting and the interaction with the gate guard.

Might require something like a Bluff check against the un-charmed guard, but as a GM, I'd give it a legitimate chance of working, with potential bonuses to the check if the party made efforts that would seem believable.


if the Guard know that you casting Charm person on him he can feel "threatened" about it +5 to his saving throw

Sald wrote:


That's what the rest of the party is for.

The Wizard pretends to be casting a spell of some sort on one of his party members, who also pretends to be the willing recipient of the spell. Since the duration of Charm Person is hours per level, the party has plenty of time to play up this act, placing a separation between the apparent spell casting and the interaction with the gate guard.

Might require something like a Bluff check against the un-charmed guard, but as a GM, I'd give it a legitimate chance of working, with potential bonuses to the check if the party made efforts that would seem believable.


So again, I take it no one ever used Charm Person except as a 3rd level Silent Stilled spell?

Doesn't match my experience at all.


thejeff wrote:

So again, I take it no one ever used Charm Person except as a 3rd level Silent Stilled spell?

Doesn't match my experience at all.

Pretty much every person in every game that had Charm Person would use it this way at our table.

So... yeah. Pretty common in our group.


or you need to figure out one of the next guards on duty and charm him before his shift, or you charm 2 people, or have 2 people charming 1 each. or you need to get a scroll and UMD it for the other one.

Or use the situation where there's just one person you're needing it to work on.

All these situations let it work at it's "intended purpose"


Why are you casting so much charm person spells anyway ? There aren´t any paladins who could turn a hostile into helpful with a natural 1 at level 1 into your parties ?

Seriouslly. I don´t handle such situations like you do. If in your campaings a sucessful spellcrafted charm person is an auto fail, than you´re right to feel like this.
I don´t put only charmproof guards in my campaing (or even guards with spellcraft ranks), but my kings have someone to verify if they are charmed during any meeting with unknow parties. I don´t think that just because they can, will be there someone spellcrafting everyone all the time, but i also don´t believe that just because you have a silent still charm person, no one should ever discover the trick.


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

Now, to truly have a discreet spell, you ONLY need the following:

- Cunning Caster
- Deceitful
- Eschew Materials
- Silent Spell
- Still Spell
- Min/maxed Bluff skill
- Spell slots 2 higher than the spell you likely want to cast discreetly

Simple, right?

Not even Spell Perfection has that many bloody prerequisites.

Or, you know... walk around a corner before you cast.

Except most spells have verbal components, and the developers have stated again and again that you can't whisper a spell. So unless you have SIlent Spell, no, that's not going to work. The bad guys are going to hear you casting. Not to mention Alex's point of losing line of sight/effect to your targets.

CampinCarl9127 wrote:

There is no assumed language for spellcasting. It can be anything from complete nonsense to growls to OOTS shouting the name of the spell.

I disagree Ravingdork, on all points but the last. It makes the game far more intuitive and I think their wording was fantastic. I am still appealed that an answer of "table variance" had made you so upset. Is that because you want every corner case defined? That's not how the rules work. You must use intuitive reasoning to apply the rules to specific situations.

If you have to make up new rules for it to make sense, than it must not have been terribly intuitive to begin with.

Shadow Lodge

Jeraa wrote:

This entire issue comes up because Paizo decided to change the rules from 3.5. 3.5 clearly stated you needed to see the components of the spell to identify it as it was cast. Pathfinder changes it so it says you need to see the spell as it is cast.

3.5 implies spells have no visual indication, as it is the components that matter for identification.
Pathfinder implies spells do have some sort of visual indication, as the components used (or lack there of) have no bearing on identification.

This is quite possibly the single worst bad decision Pd in the design of this game. Sure Still spell and silent spell are great for casting while bound and gagged, but the only reason I (and I would suspect a great many other caster players) ever took those feats was to conceal spell casting from others. It makes campaign settings where magic use is forbidden nearly impossible to play in as a caster.


Ravingdork wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

There is no assumed language for spellcasting. It can be anything from complete nonsense to growls to OOTS shouting the name of the spell.

I disagree Ravingdork, on all points but the last. It makes the game far more intuitive and I think their wording was fantastic. I am still appealed that an answer of "table variance" had made you so upset. Is that because you want every corner case defined? That's not how the rules work. You must use intuitive reasoning to apply the rules to specific situations.

If you have to make up new rules for it to make sense, than it must not have been terribly intuitive to begin with.

What new rules?

FAQ essentially says - All spells are identifiable (in some manner) while being cast so you can spellcraft them. Since there's something that can be identified by spellcraft then anyone can see that there's some sort of spell going on, just not which one unless they have spellcraft.

Which is what the rules already said:
You can identify a spell as it's being cast to be able to counterspell it using spellcraft. Silent, stilled and the like don't modify the spellcraft checks, thus you still can spellcraft a spell modified by those at no penalty.

And to some it's pretty intuitive that since there's something to spellcraft there's something that anyone can use to notice that a spell is being cast.


Draco Bahamut wrote:

Why are you casting so much charm person spells anyway ? There aren´t any paladins who could turn a hostile into helpful with a natural 1 at level 1 into your parties ?

Seriouslly. I don´t handle such situations like you do. If in your campaings a sucessful spellcrafted charm person is an auto fail, than you´re right to feel like this.
I don´t put only charmproof guards in my campaing (or even guards with spellcraft ranks), but my kings have someone to verify if they are charmed during any meeting with unknow parties. I don´t think that just because they can, will be there someone spellcrafting everyone all the time, but i also don´t believe that just because you have a silent still charm person, no one should ever discover the trick.

LOL we use it so much because our group enjoys non-combat solutions as much as combat.

We haven't used the published rules for Spellcraft/identifying spells AT ALL, and will continue to happily allow stilled/silenced spells to be cast without anyone noticing...

In my game, guards aren't charm proof. According to the RAW and the recent FAQ, they basically should be.

Seriously, guards usually work in pairs, and if guard 1 notices a)a spell being cast and 2)a sudden change in his partners attitude towards the random people talking to them... I would have to be a bad GM to just let that slide.

My guards aren't complete idiots. You don't have to roll to SEE a spell being cast (according to FAQ) and two guards who have worked together for some time are likely to notice sudden and unexpected changes in behaviour.

Pair these two events together, and Charm basically stops being useful (in a situation like the above one described).

Remove the obvious spell visual and you just have one guard being friendly, which may seem odd to the other guard, but won't negate the benefit of Charm (which we use to AVOID combat, generally. As I pointed out, you could just as easily use Fireball to kill both guards with the same spell-slot).

So yeah, you and I probably do play differently. I allow my players to have more options that can help them avoid combat.


Ravingdork wrote:
If you have to make up new rules for it to make sense, than it must not have been terribly intuitive to begin with.

I am making up no new rules whatsoever. Simply deciding how the flavor works.

~~~

Yes, you can rules lawyer and metagame talk your way out of any charm person spell. If you therefore conclude that charm person is a useless spell, you are nothing but a munchkinning powergamer. It's a spell that practically screams roleplay because it makes them "friendly" towards you which is a very loosely defined term.

Let's try to roleplay instead of rollplay a little.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
If you have to make up new rules for it to make sense, than it must not have been terribly intuitive to begin with.

I am making up no new rules whatsoever. Simply deciding how the flavor works.

~~~

Yes, you can rules lawyer and metagame talk your way out of any charm person spell. If you therefore conclude that charm person is a useless spell, you are nothing but a munchkinning powergamer. It's a spell that practically screams roleplay because it makes them "friendly" towards you which is a very loosely defined term.

Let's try to roleplay instead of rollplay a little.

Having someone notice a)a spell being cast and then b) a sudden change in their friends demeanor is in no way metagaming.

It's the opposite. It's them noticing something that has recently been clarified as being noticeable, then making the not too big jump in logic that the SPELL may just be the cause of the change in behaviour of their friend.

I would say anyone with an INT of 6 or higher should be able to make the connection.

Declaring that a guard might *gasp* NOT be an idiot isn't 'Rollplaying' in my opinion...

Maybe you see them as just blocks of stats, but I think about how they would react to things, as people. If I saw a friend suddenly change their attitude immediately after strangers cast a spell... I would be VERY suspicious.


alexd1976 wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
If you have to make up new rules for it to make sense, than it must not have been terribly intuitive to begin with.

I am making up no new rules whatsoever. Simply deciding how the flavor works.

~~~

Yes, you can rules lawyer and metagame talk your way out of any charm person spell. If you therefore conclude that charm person is a useless spell, you are nothing but a munchkinning powergamer. It's a spell that practically screams roleplay because it makes them "friendly" towards you which is a very loosely defined term.

Let's try to roleplay instead of rollplay a little.

Having someone notice a)a spell being cast and then b) a sudden change in their friends demeanor is in no way metagaming.

It's the opposite. It's them noticing something that has recently been clarified as being noticeable, then making the not too big jump in logic that the SPELL may just be the cause of the change in behaviour of their friend.

I would say anyone with an INT of 6 or higher should be able to make the connection.

Declaring that a guard might *gasp* NOT be an idiot isn't 'Rollplaying' in my opinion...

Maybe you see them as just blocks of stats, but I think about how they would react to things, as people. If I saw a friend suddenly change their attitude immediately after strangers cast a spell... I would be VERY suspicious.

What sudden change? Wouldn't you normally cast it before starting to interact with them? Then the "sudden change" is him recognizing his friend as you walk up.

Sure, if you're already in a screaming match with him, then it's a sudden change.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

"Aww man, you ain't gotta charm me, we're already best buds!"

If enchantment spells don't cloud your mind, what DO they do?

They do what they say they do. Nothing about clouding minds...

Seeing the caster as a friend when he really isn't is not an example of a clouded mind?


Your example is irrelevant because you are cherry picking. Just because charm person does not work in one scenario (not even saying that it doesn't in this one) does not mean it does not work in any scenario. Fireball does not work against red dragons. That does not mean fireball is a useless spell.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

"Aww man, you ain't gotta charm me, we're already best buds!"

If enchantment spells don't cloud your mind, what DO they do?

They do what they say they do. Nothing about clouding minds...
Seeing the caster as a friend when he really isn't is not an example of a clouded mind?

And specifically, "perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way" means he's not going to be suspicious of you casting a spell. Because that wouldn't be the most favorable way to perceive your action.


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

There is no assumed language for spellcasting. It can be anything from complete nonsense to growls to OOTS shouting the name of the spell.

I disagree Ravingdork, on all points but the last. It makes the game far more intuitive and I think their wording was fantastic. I am still appealed that an answer of "table variance" had made you so upset. Is that because you want every corner case defined? That's not how the rules work. You must use intuitive reasoning to apply the rules to specific situations.

If you have to make up new rules for it to make sense, than it must not have been terribly intuitive to begin with.
What new rules?

The new rule that states that all spells create an obviously observable phenomena without even being cast yet.

Some people had previously made this assumption, but it was described no where within the rules as written. Therefore it is a new rule.


So if by chance one of guards fall in love on the first sight with your character while the bard cast message, your entire party is turned over to the inquisition ?
In my campaing, just knowing you could be under charm don´t mean anything, or people should suspect any emotion they have ?

Guard 1: Lets arrest that lad over there, i think he chamrmed me because i want to give him flowers.

Guard 2: Sorry, i don´t talk to you because you are my bro and this mean you charmed me while i was asleep.


thejeff wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

"Aww man, you ain't gotta charm me, we're already best buds!"

If enchantment spells don't cloud your mind, what DO they do?

They do what they say they do. Nothing about clouding minds...
Seeing the caster as a friend when he really isn't is not an example of a clouded mind?
And specifically, "perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way" means he's not going to be suspicious of you casting a spell. Because that wouldn't be the most favorable way to perceive your action.

The second guard might wonder why his partner was so friendly to this total stranger though... The reaction of the one being charmed is only relevant in the context of how the second guard sees it.

Charm Person makes you friendly, it doesn't impart KNOWLEDGE about the caster... These are total strangers walking up to the gate, after all...

so...

Guards 1 and 2, lets call them Lester and Frank:

1-PCs approach gate, guards stop them
2-PCs charm Frank (revealing that a spell has been cast, as it has a visual effect)
3-Frank tries to convince Lester to let the group in. Lester, having just witnessed a spell being cast, and seeing his usually professional/competent friend Frank acting VERY out of character, decides these two events might... just might... be connected.
4-Assuming Lester survives the ensuing melee, he likely gets promoted, as he has performed his job of Guard successfully (by identifying a potential threat to the town/castle/whatever).

Run your games how you like, making all spells visible isn't something I like, nor do any of my players like it. We believe concealed casting should be obtainable, so we have made it so.


TOZ wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
The new rule that states that all spells create an obviously observable phenomena without even being cast yet.
You mean the one that's been in the CRB since the first printing?

There has never been text stating that spells all have visual effects.

The FAQ is what has stated that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
(Also, I edited my above post.)

Acknowledged. Question retracted.

351 to 400 of 756 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Identifying a Spells with Spellcraft All Messageboards