Not logically. This is one of those "just because" kinds of rulings; it doesn't make any sense.Only in the sense that Everything in the game is a "just because". If it wasn't true then abilities like the warlock vigilante's ability to hide spellcasting wouldn't exist, psychic magic would be much much much more powerful in an intrigue game, counterspelling wouldn't function.... etc.
It makes sense. When you cast a spell, there is some sort of effect that can be sensed. Whether that's a glow or swirly fire in your palms or spirits twisting around you or whatever, it is able to be sensed.
Just because you do not like it doesn't mean the ruling doesn't make sense. Of course, you're free to continue your houserule, it's a tabletop game. I just want this discussion to end since.... it was answered ages ago.
You are right, but your houserules are just as far away from the rules as ours are.
Declaring that spells ALL have visible effects _still_ hasn't been published. Unless someone has an actual, factual rule/quote they have been sitting on...
If something states they all have visible effects, I will do a total 180 on my point of view, because I try to stay within the rules (easy to adjudicate, instead of houserules...).
You are right, but your houserules are just as far away from the rules as ours are.
Declaring that spells ALL have visible effects _still_ hasn't been published. Unless someone has an actual, factual rule/quote they have been sitting on...
If something states they all have visible effects, I will do a total 180 on my point of view, because I try to stay within the rules (easy to adjudicate, instead of houserules...).
I quoted a dev already that stated that all spells (including SLA's) have a sensory element (didn't specifically say visual so I suppose it could be audible or aromatic or some sort of vibration in everything nearby or whatever as well). So it's not really a houserule.
I quoted a dev already that stated that all spells (including SLA's) have a sensory element (didn't specifically say visual so I suppose it could be audible or aromatic or some sort of vibration in everything nearby or whatever as well). So it's not really a houserule.You are right, but your houserules are just as far away from the rules as ours are.
Declaring that spells ALL have visible effects _still_ hasn't been published. Unless someone has an actual, factual rule/quote they have been sitting on...
If something states they all have visible effects, I will do a total 180 on my point of view, because I try to stay within the rules (easy to adjudicate, instead of houserules...).
I must have missed that. Which book is that in?
LazarX, I would rather it never be answered. I can't imagine any ruling they end up making being a good one. Somebody somewhere is going to totally hate it. However, I don't like the current state of affairs* either.
Milo, one dev stating his opinion on a forum is hardly an official ruling.
I must have missed that. Which book is that in?
None. It's assumed knowledge, but has been answered by dev's multiple times.
edit: not one dev either. For example.
This topic has been answered by the dev's. Deal with it. It's fine if your game opperates under a different line of thought, but doing so is a houserule.
I must have missed that. Which book is that in?None. It's assumed knowledge, but has been answered by dev's multiple times.
Fair enough.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just try to stick to the actual rules as much as possible.
Anyway, sorry if I'm getting you all riled up, this is clearly something that isn't getting put to bed until Paizo actually issues errata/publishes something official.
An extreme corner case basically being anyone who ever wants to cast stealthily, or illusionists, or enchanters.
*rolls eyes*
An extreme corner case basically being anyone who ever wants to cast stealthily, or illusionists, or enchanters.
*rolls eyes*
As long as we have fun, that's the important part. :D
We have 2 dev statements that ALL spells and ALL spell-like abilities have visible effects that HAVE NOTHING to do with components.
So can we agree now:
1. That's the rule.
2. If you don't then its your house's rule (and that is OK.)
If you want to treat it as a rule, that is your right in the games that you run, but make sure your players are aware of it, because it isn't in the books they own.
Alex, you know what else isn't? That Still Spell/Silent Spell equals stealth casting. Not in a single book as NOTHING in Pathfinder indicates that components matter with Spellcrafting.If you want to treat it as a rule, that is your right in the games that you run, but make sure your players are aware of it, because it isn't in the books they own.We have 2 dev statements that ALL spells and ALL spell-like abilities have visible effects that HAVE NOTHING to do with components.
So can we agree now:
1. That's the rule.
2. If you don't then its your house's rule (and that is OK.)
Except for, you know, the Spellcraft skill, which indicates you take all the same penalties to the check as Perception. This indicates that you do see something, and since their are now rule ANYWHERE stating that casting spells creates a light show, the only thing to witness (RAW) are the components themselves.
But hey, you guys are just going to totally ignore that just as fervently as we are likely to ignore the developers' house rules.
Per the PDT themselves, Developer/Designer statements on the forums aren't rules. That's what FaQratta are for.
...and since their are now rule ANYWHERE stating that casting spells creates a light show...
Meant to say "no rules ANYWHERE"--an unfortunate typo that timed out. And yes, just because a developer says it, doesn't make it a rule.