|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have a much different view of Readied actions than I. Yes, readied actions happen before the action that triggered it... sort of.
A readied action can literally go back in time to before the triggering event occurs in order to, among other things, prevent the triggering event from happening in the first place.No sort of. They do. As per rule: "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it."
Here is a break down of what happens really...Not according to the rules, no.
For the dynamite example... if you readied versus the dynamite exploding you are really readying versus the resolution of the dynamite exploding, not it exploding. Thus you could put up fire resistance, but not put out the now exploded dynamite.Nope. I can put out the yet-to-be-exploded dynamite, because "the [readied] action occurs just before the action that triggers it." That's how, for example, I can prevent a spell from being cast with a readied arrow. The fireball doesn't go off, meaning no one takes damage.
I prefer "just say yes to reading comprehension."
Just say no to time travel.
Okay... say you are right. Then you attack someone BEFORE they cast. So they don't lose their spell, right? Since you didn't hit them while casting.
And how would counterspelling work? You determine the spell they are casting... when they aren't casting?
As for reading comprehension, my view still fits in the 'happens before' text. It happens before the resolution. Between initiation and resolution. Where normally there is no time and the line between initiation and resolution is so small as to not be noticeable. But you are focusing on one tiny part and not the whole picture. Do you really want it to be time travel? Or are you picking on it because it seems ridiculous to you? Because either way does not lead to a meaningful conversation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that immediate actions are intrinsically metagaming and require communication between GM and player.
GM goes saying: The devil looks at you whispering something and raising his hand towards you...
Player goes: Wow wow wait a moment! I´m doing a spellcraft on this. Rolls dice: 34. GM: Enervation
Player: As an immediate action Woodcuff the wizard casts EFS.
Here the minds split.
Some GMs will say, ok, but only after it hit you, since you were already targeted. In my eyes this is GM fiat, rule 0.
Others will say ok and the enveration hits the EFS. That´s the way i think it should be.
Still others will say ok, the devil will see this and target someone else. Surely discussable.
|
My only area where I feel fuzzy is if there is any time between targeting a spell and the spell coming into full effect. Some spells make it clear that there is, indeed, time. Fireball is a bead flying through the air; magic missile is magical energy that "darts forth"; acid arrow "speeds to its target"; bull's strength requires you to touch a target; shocking grasp requires you to attack a target. In all of these, there's a defined period of time after the spell is targeted but what about hold person? There's no ray or missile or dart of energy. You're just held. Is there any time between targeting and the effect?
All of your examples of when there is obviously time between casting and spell effect are spells that include or can be understood to include an attack roll (harmless touch spells included; fireball is a special case; magic missile is an attack that never misses). You can make an immediate action before an attack roll.
Hold Person is an example of a targeted spell, not an attack roll. From the rules in the Magic chapter, we know that a target is chosen when the spell comes into effect. There isn't a time to take an immediate action in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any logically existing point in time. A time machine would let me travel to see the asteroid take out the dinos or see the signing of the declaration of indepence. It would not let me travel to see the dinosaurs signing the declaration of indepndence, or a time when there were flowering plants but no mammals.Flowering plants came after mammals? Did you have that backwards or did I just learn something super awesome today?
Angiosperms evolved during the late Cretaceous Period, about 125-100 million years ago.
The first mammals appeared in the Late Triassic epoch (about 225 million years ago)
People forget mammals are just about as old as the dinosaurs. We didn't evolve after the dinos got taken out, we were just staying small to avoid big sharp pointy teeth.
|
Okay... say you are right. Then you attack someone BEFORE they cast. So they don't lose their spell, right? Since you didn't hit them while casting.
To be fair that one is an example of using a special type of readied action which has its own rules.
You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell." If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result).
Others will say ok and the enveration hits the EFS. That´s the way i think it should be.
As a matter of rules it needs some backing.
As a matter of gameplay it seems horribly unfair to automatically deny someone their action. The game takes place in turns for a reason. Most interupt actions modify (or are) die rolls.
As a matter of fantasy realism, how are you pulling that fake out? Why can you perfectly time the end of the spell with the emergence of the force shield WITHOUT the demon having any idea what you're doing?
|
|
My only area where I feel fuzzy is if there is any time between targeting a spell and the spell coming into full effect. Some spells make it clear that there is, indeed, time. Fireball is a bead flying through the air; magic missile is magical energy that "darts forth"; acid arrow "speeds to its target"; bull's strength requires you to touch a target; shocking grasp requires you to attack a target. In all of these, there's a defined period of time after the spell is targeted but what about hold person? There's no ray or missile or dart of energy. You're just held. Is there any time between targeting and the effect?All of your examples of when there is obviously time between casting and spell effect are spells that include or can be understood to include an attack roll (harmless touch spells included; fireball is a special case; magic missile is an attack that never misses). You can make an immediate action before an attack roll.
Hold Person is an example of a targeted spell, not an attack roll. From the rules in the Magic chapter, we know that a target is chosen when the spell comes into effect. There isn't a time to take an immediate action in.
You can't just say there is no time. There is between zero and 6 seconds of time occurring during any action. It is all a big guess to us. How fast does a fireball bead travel? It could be faster than sound. Any illusions to knowing how fast actions are are just that, illusions. And it doesn't matter anyway. The games is largely abstract. If your character sees a fireball, the game allows you to use a prepared readied action or an immediate action to do something about it. Only GM fiat can prevent that, as the rules allow it as they are.
But I can tell you this... a spell which has no obvious effect will not allow you to put an EFS up as you can not see it coming to know to put it up. You have to guess while they are casting. "Do I think he's targeting me? Do I think I survive a phantasmal killer? Is it worth chancing it?" So it doesn't matter how fast a hold person is as you won't know it is targeting you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with the interpretation that an immediate action cannot interrupt another action unless the ability specifically says so is that it is saying an immediate action cannot interrupt another action, except when it can. It's saying that it's impossible for an immediate action to go back in time, except when it's possible.
To me that makes no sense. If Wave Shield can be cast after you're targeted with Fireball, then EFS can be cast after you're targeted with fireball. Or whatever other spell. EFs is not stopping the spell from being cast. It's stopping the effect after it has been cast.
The issue people seem to be pointing to is how do you know you're targeted before the spell takes effect? Well, I think we can point to the FAQ on Spellcraft and Spell-like Abilities for a possible reason.
What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
While it is not explicit in that FAQ, it is not at stretch to think that that "manifestation" might also reveal the target of the spell. I don't have Ultimate Intrigue, but I know there are abilities in it to help conceal the casting of a spell. It seems entirely possible that the intent is that without using those abilities, the target of your spell will be aware they are being targeted.
I do very much see using an immediate action as the equivalent of using an ability that lets you perform an action before the results are revealed. So if the GM says you've been targeted by a spell, and to roll a save, you can cast EFS. If you have already rolled the save, it's too late.
Fantasy literature, TV, and film is full of examples of the "protective dome" spell. EFS is Pathfinder's version. Whether it's overpowered or not for its level is debatable. But trying to redefine how immediate actions work based on one spell is not productive. I agree having clarity on when an immediate action can be used would be helpful. I also think there are far too many examples on an immediate action happening in the middle of another action to claim that they can't be used in that way.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would not allow casting of EFS (or any other immediate action that doesn't provide explicit rules to allow it) to take place between the two. Just like I would not allow an immediate action between being hit by a weapon and taking damage from said weapon without a specific rule allowing it.
But would you allow an immediate action, in response to being attacked, and before seeing that the attack were a hit?
GM: "The orc chief turns from his last victim, sees you, and steps over the corpse with a huge grin on his face. He lifts his axe with a bloodcurdling yell..."
Player: "***! Time to throw up my forcefield!"
GM: "Just in time, your barrier springs up between you...<rolls>...and it prevents the axe from cleaving your skull, as the orc screams in frustration."
As opposed to:
GM: "The orc chief turns from his last victim, sees you, and steps over the corpse with a huge grin on his face. He lifts his axe with a bloodcurdling yell..."
Player: "Yeah. What. Ever."
GM: <rolls> "He swings and hits..oh it's a threat <roll> confirms...<rolls> for 88 damage!"
Player "HOW ***ING MUCH? I'm not having that! I wouldn't have just let him hit me; I'd have put up a forcefield!"
GM: "But you didn't. So, take 88 damage."
That's the crux of the matter, GMs don't want players rewinding time.
You can't say you're blase about being attacked, wait for the damage or effect to be rolled, then decide that was more crippling than you expected, so you'd rather not suffer it.
But you absolutely should be able to interrupt the attack at any point up to the attack roll, or the caster level check, or any other roll that determines a yes/no success, or the grade of success.
The problem, as has been mentioned already, is that many players and GMs fast-forward to the attack or damage rolls, without giving people with immediate actions the opportunity to declare.
In some cases, people are snatching up the dice, rolling them, without even describing what they're rolling for, whose action it is, or who it's against. Then declaring the result as a fait accompli.
GM: <rolls> "Oh yeah! Natural 14! Soooo...<looks around table. Picks player> ..what's your AC?"
Player: "Well, it's normally 20, but if I have my personal force field..."
GM: "NO TAKEBACKS! No coulda whoulda shoulda, at THIS table!"
Player: "But..you never gave me a chance to speak. If I'd seen him choose me as a target, I'd have put up the force field..."
GM: "NO TAKEBACKS! YOOOOOU'RRRRE DEAD MEAT!"
My only area where I feel fuzzy is if there is any time between targeting a spell and the spell coming into full effect. Some spells make it clear that there is, indeed, time. Fireball is a bead flying through the air; magic missile is magical energy that "darts forth"; acid arrow "speeds to its target"; bull's strength requires you to touch a target; shocking grasp requires you to attack a target. In all of these, there's a defined period of time after the spell is targeted but what about hold person? There's no ray or missile or dart of energy. You're just held. Is there any time between targeting and the effect?All of your examples of when there is obviously time between casting and spell effect are spells that include or can be understood to include an attack roll (harmless touch spells included; fireball is a special case; magic missile is an attack that never misses). You can make an immediate action before an attack roll.
Hold Person is an example of a targeted spell, not an attack roll. From the rules in the Magic chapter, we know that a target is chosen when the spell comes into effect. There isn't a time to take an immediate action in.
But all targets are chosen after the spell is cast. This is equally true for hold person, magic missile, fireball, enervation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Others will say ok and the enveration hits the EFS. That´s the way i think it should be.
As a matter of rules it needs some backing.
As a matter of gameplay it seems horribly unfair to automatically deny someone their action. The game takes place in turns for a reason. Most interupt actions modify (or are) die rolls.
As a matter of fantasy realism, how are you pulling that fake out? Why can you perfectly time the end of the spell with the emergence of the force shield WITHOUT the demon having any idea what you're doing?
And what would he do if he knew? He can see you casting. So if he had something to do that would interrupt, he could.
And the game is full of automatic escapes, and nearly automatic escapes. So what if there is one more?
Or are you one to say "It's horribly unfair that more GMs don't get to kill players with fall damage due to feather fall interrupting falls"?
|
|
The thing is that immediate actions are intrinsically metagaming and require communication between GM and player.
GM goes saying: The devil looks at you whispering something and raising his hand towards you...
Player goes: Wow wow wait a moment! I´m doing a spellcraft on this. Rolls dice: 34. GM: Enervation
Player: As an immediate action Woodcuff the wizard casts EFS.Here the minds split.
1.Some GMs will say, ok, but only after it hit you, since you were already targeted. In my eyes this is GM fiat, rule 0.
2.Others will say ok and the enveration hits the EFS. That´s the way i think it should be.
3.Still others will say ok, the devil will see this and target someone else. Surely discussable.
Enervation is a ray, and thus an attack roll is necessary. Very few GMs will argue for Option 1.
Option 2 has the overwhelming support that I've seen from this discussion with regard to ray attacks.
Option 3 is what would happen if the devil cast hold person or another targeted spell instead. The choice of target is made when the spell comes into effect.
|
|
My issue with the interpretation that an immediate action cannot interrupt another action unless the ability specifically says so is that it is saying an immediate action cannot interrupt another action, except when it can. It's saying that it's impossible for an immediate action to go back in time, except when it's possible.
To me that makes no sense. If Wave Shield can be cast after you're targeted with Fireball, then EFS can be cast after you're targeted with fireball. Or whatever other spell. EFs is not stopping the spell from being cast. It's stopping the effect after it has been cast.
The issue people seem to be pointing to is how do you know you're targeted before the spell takes effect? Well, I think we can point to the FAQ on Spellcraft and Spell-like Abilities for a possible reason.
...What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok
Actually, it is a pretty big stretch. The inclusion of 'manifestation' was so that NPCs and PCs will know someone is casting. But if you include targeting information you not only destroy the viability of certain spells, not only make worthless certain feats and abilities designed to hide your casting but you also deny any ability which prevents someone from knowing they were hit with a spell(in cases of succeeding or failing the save). There are plenty of tangent rules and systems that either no longer work or function poorly or are obsolete the moment you say spell manifestation show who they are targeting.
You've got to see all the little parts and how they are connected, see the big picture.
|
|
My only area where I feel fuzzy is if there is any time between targeting a spell and the spell coming into full effect. Some spells make it clear that there is, indeed, time. Fireball is a bead flying through the air; magic missile is magical energy that "darts forth"; acid arrow "speeds to its target"; bull's strength requires you to touch a target; shocking grasp requires you to attack a target. In all of these, there's a defined period of time after the spell is targeted but what about hold person? There's no ray or missile or dart of energy. You're just held. Is there any time between targeting and the effect?All of your examples of when there is obviously time between casting and spell effect are spells that include or can be understood to include an attack roll (harmless touch spells included; fireball is a special case; magic missile is an attack that never misses). You can make an immediate action before an attack roll.
Hold Person is an example of a targeted spell, not an attack roll. From the rules in the Magic chapter, we know that a target is chosen when the spell comes into effect. There isn't a time to take an immediate action in.
But all targets are chosen after the spell is cast. This is equally true for hold person, magic missile, fireball, enervation.
Where are you reading that?
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.
If the effect is an attack roll, you can take an action before the roll. If the effect is that you are paralyzed, there isn't a space of time to act.
While it is not explicit in that FAQ, it is not at stretch to think that that "manifestation" might also reveal the target of the spell.
1)To start with it is a stretch. Its unevidenced. Its not a horrible stretch, but its not a conclusion, and its certainly not a conclusion you can base other rules adjudication on.
2), and it keeps coming back to this, the Target is chosen at the END of casting when the spell comes into effect. I don't have to havet a target before then. If i start casting a disintegrate at the fighter, and the invisible rogue pops into visibility taking his AoO swing at me and misses, i can turn my hand a little to the left and blast him instead.
.What are you trying to accomplish with a change in AC post-hit?A miss. That is the whole debate here. With no timing restrictions, one should be able to turn a hit into a miss.
I can't say I agree.
I would say that you could use the immediate action in response to someone swinging at you, but once that result is revealed, the consequence of that result should follow, unless the power indicates the ability to interrupt.
I'll click on your FAQ, but I stand in disagreement with making all immediate actions perform interrupts.
Snorter: Well, that's why the game generally works in stop motion turns. Try to imagine keeping the game going with the alternative where you have to ask permission to attack the player every. single. time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it is not explicit in that FAQ, it is not at stretch to think that that "manifestation" might also reveal the target of the spell.1)To start with it is a stretch. Its unevidenced. Its not a horrible stretch, but its not a conclusion, and its certainly not a conclusion you can base other rules adjudication on.
2), and it keeps coming back to this, the Target is chosen at the END of casting when the spell comes into effect. I don't have to havet a target before then. If i start casting a disintegrate at the fighter, and the invisible rogue pops into visibility taking his AoO swing at me and misses, i can turn my hand a little to the left and blast him instead.
This is true. AOOs happen during casting. But an EFS should be reactive to the spell coming into existence as well. So if you see the black lance of enervation heading for your levels, you EFS and he can't target anyone else. For the same reason it can be called into existence before rocks hit your head or featherfall can save you while you are falling.
|
|
You can't just say there is no time. There is between zero and 6 seconds of time occurring during any action. It is all a big guess to us. How fast does a fireball bead travel? It could be faster than sound. Any illusions to knowing how fast actions are are just that, illusions. And it doesn't matter anyway. The games is largely abstract. If your character sees a fireball, the game allows you to use a prepared readied action or an immediate action to do something about it. Only GM fiat can prevent that, as the rules allow it as they are.
But I can tell you this... a spell which has no obvious effect will not allow you to put an EFS up as you can not see it coming to know to put it up. You have to guess while they are casting. "Do I think he's targeting me? Do I think I survive a phantasmal killer? Is it worth chancing it?" So it doesn't matter how fast a hold person is as you won't know it is targeting you.
I am not "just saying" that there is no time, I am reading it from the rules on spells.
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.
Fireball is a unique case in that it is specifically described as a bead of light, and can result in an attack roll if you are trying to "thread the needle" in a tight space.
I think we are agreeing for different reasons at this point. I think that attack rolls (e.g. enervation) can be prevented with EFS, but not targeted spells (e.g. hold person).
|
|
If Wave Shield can be cast after you're targeted with Fireball, then EFS can be cast after you're targeted with fireball. Or whatever other spell. EFs is not stopping the spell from being cast. It's stopping the effect after it has been cast.
Am I the only one who thinks you would cast the wave shield before the area of the spell is declared and during the casting portion of the spell just like EFS would? I don't agree it can be used after you know you are going to be in the area though it is probably a safe guess and worth casting anyway.
It would be exactly consistent with how I think EFS works.
|
|
... SNIPPED - quote too long to include everything.
Actually, it is a pretty big stretch. The inclusion of 'manifestation' was so that NPCs and PCs will know someone is casting. But if you include targeting information you not only destroy the viability of certain spells, not only make worthless certain feats and abilities designed to hide your casting but you also deny any ability which prevents someone from knowing they were hit with a spell(in cases of succeeding or failing the save). There are plenty of tangent rules and systems that either no longer work or function poorly or are obsolete the moment you say spell manifestation show who they are targeting.
No, it's explaining why those abilities and feats need to exist. If, by default, you don't know you were targeted with a spell, then why would you need an ability that prevents the target from knowing they were targeted with a spell? If, by default, no one knows you are casting a spell, then why would you need an ability to hide that you are casting a spell? If you hide the casting, you presumably (again, I don't own Ultimate Intrigue) are concealing the manifestation. That would, I imagine, also conceal who the targets are.
To flip it around, what spells are invalidated if the targets are obvious? It might make some harder to use, but I can't think of any that it invalidates.
I'm not saying that the FAQ says part of the manifestation is knowing who was targeted. And I'm not saying that it should be used as a justification to say that is the case. What I'm saying is, it is not a stretch to think that a response to the question, "When do you know you are the target of a spell" might come back, "The spell has a manifestation, so it is obvious who the targets are unless the caster has an ability to conceal the casting or prevent the targets from knowing they have been targeted." That would be consistent with the FAQ, and so it is not a stretch to think that might be the case. Note, might. I am not saying that it definitely is the case.
|
|
You can't just say there is no time. There is between zero and 6 seconds of time occurring during any action. It is all a big guess to us. How fast does a fireball bead travel? It could be faster than sound. Any illusions to knowing how fast actions are are just that, illusions. And it doesn't matter anyway. The games is largely abstract. If your character sees a fireball, the game allows you to use a prepared readied action or an immediate action to do something about it. Only GM fiat can prevent that, as the rules allow it as they are.
But I can tell you this... a spell which has no obvious effect will not allow you to put an EFS up as you can not see it coming to know to put it up. You have to guess while they are casting. "Do I think he's targeting me? Do I think I survive a phantasmal killer? Is it worth chancing it?" So it doesn't matter how fast a hold person is as you won't know it is targeting you.
I am not "just saying" that there is no time, I am reading it from the rules on spells.
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.Fireball is a unique case in that it is specifically described as a bead of light, and can result in an attack roll if you are trying to "thread the needle" in a tight space.
I think we are agreeing for different reasons at this point. I think that attack rolls (e.g. enervation) can be prevented with EFS, but not targeted spells (e.g. hold person).
You're making up time again. Re-read that several more times, you'll pick up on it eventually. The spell coming into effect is the same thing as 'at the end of casting'. There are tons of spell descriptions which continue after the point of end of casting. Unless you are arguing that you don't actually target your Phantasmal Killer until after it has caused someone to make their saves? Certainly not.
Fireball is not unique in the slightest. There are plenty of spells that give visual stimuli as part of their description.
The thing is that immediate actions are intrinsically metagaming and require communication between GM and player.
GM goes saying: The devil looks at you whispering something and raising his hand towards you...
Player goes: Wow wow wait a moment! I´m doing a spellcraft on this. Rolls dice: 34. GM: Enervation
Player: As an immediate action Woodcuff the wizard casts EFS.Here the minds split.
1.Some GMs will say, ok, but only after it hit you, since you were already targeted. In my eyes this is GM fiat, rule 0.
2.Others will say ok and the enveration hits the EFS. That´s the way i think it should be.
3.Still others will say ok, the devil will see this and target someone else. Surely discussable.Enervation is a ray, and thus an attack roll is necessary. Very few GMs will argue for Option 1.
Option 2 has the overwhelming support that I've seen from this discussion with regard to ray attacks.
Option 3 is what would happen if the devil cast hold person or another targeted spell instead. The choice of target is made when the spell comes into effect.
You can change enervation with any spell, was just an example, maybe not well chosen. The same effects would count for hold person in my eyes. Immediate actions are abstract actions, nothing to be counted in real time. Same is true for swift actions or free actions. There is no realtime time in this game.
|
|
You're making up time again. Re-read that several more times, you'll pick up on it eventually. The spell coming into effect is the same thing as 'at the end of casting'. There are tons of spell descriptions which continue after the point of end of casting. Unless you are arguing that you don't actually target your Phantasmal Killer until after it has caused someone to make their saves? Certainly not.
Why are you so aggressively agreeing with me? You should try to read my position more closely, you'll pick up on it eventually.
|
|
... SNIPPED - quote too long to include everything.
Actually, it is a pretty big stretch. The inclusion of 'manifestation' was so that NPCs and PCs will know someone is casting. But if you include targeting information you not only destroy the viability of certain spells, not only make worthless certain feats and abilities designed to hide your casting but you also deny any ability which prevents someone from knowing they were hit with a spell(in cases of succeeding or failing the save). There are plenty of tangent rules and systems that either no longer work or function poorly or are obsolete the moment you say spell manifestation show who they are targeting.
No, it's explaining why those abilities and feats need to exist. If, by default, you don't know you were targeted with a spell, then why would you need an ability that prevents the target from knowing they were targeted with a spell? If, by default, no one knows you are casting a spell, then why would you need an ability to hide that you are casting a spell? If you hide the casting, you presumably (again, I don't own Ultimate Intrigue) are concealing the manifestation. That would, I imagine, also conceal who the targets are.
To flip it around, what spells are invalidated if the targets are obvious? It might make some harder to use, but I can't think of any that it invalidates.
I'm not saying that the FAQ says part of the manifestation is knowing who was targeted. And I'm not saying that it should be used as a justification to say that is the case. What I'm saying is, it is not a stretch to think that a response to the question, "When do you know you are the target of a spell" might come back, "The spell has a manifestation, so it is obvious who the targets are unless the caster has an ability to conceal the casting or prevent the targets from knowing they have been targeted." That would be consistent with the FAQ, and so it is not a stretch to think that might be the case. Note, might. I am not saying that it...
Please don't be so obtuse. You're obviously not thinking this through. Do a bit more thinking on it and then get back to me.
I'll start you off... you know you've been targeted because you made a save. If you succeed, you know you've been targeted. That's part of the rules. There is an ability which allows you to prevent someone from gaining that knowledge even if they make their save.
We aren't talking about knowing you are casting. That is clear and obvious. Others know you are casting unless you have an ability which says it can hide it. And we have a direct statement saying that they will not add an ability that automatically succeeds at hiding casting.
It is a stretch. A big one. You are adding information which is not even indicated and is counter to other parts of the game. That will tell you something about your idea.
|
|
You're making up time again. Re-read that several more times, you'll pick up on it eventually. The spell coming into effect is the same thing as 'at the end of casting'. There are tons of spell descriptions which continue after the point of end of casting. Unless you are arguing that you don't actually target your Phantasmal Killer until after it has caused someone to make their saves? Certainly not.
Why are you so aggressively agreeing with me? You should try to read my position more closely, you'll pick up on it eventually.
heh "You should try to read my position more closely, you'll pick up on it eventually." Nice try. But if you think we are agreeing... well, you're not reading very closely.
I never said targeted non-attack spells can not be prevented. I only said you can't know for sure it is targeting you. But if, say, you had arcane sight up you could possibly know, depending on the GM. Or you could guess that it will target you.
|
|
You can change enervation with any spell, was just an example, maybe not well chosen. The same effects would count for hold person in my eyes. Immediate actions are abstract actions, nothing to be counted in real time. Same is true for swift actions or free actions. There is no realtime time in this game.The thing is that immediate actions are intrinsically metagaming and require communication between GM and player.
GM goes saying: The devil looks at you whispering something and raising his hand towards you...
Player goes: Wow wow wait a moment! I´m doing a spellcraft on this. Rolls dice: 34. GM: Enervation
Player: As an immediate action Woodcuff the wizard casts EFS.Here the minds split.
1.Some GMs will say, ok, but only after it hit you, since you were already targeted. In my eyes this is GM fiat, rule 0.
2.Others will say ok and the enveration hits the EFS. That´s the way i think it should be.
3.Still others will say ok, the devil will see this and target someone else. Surely discussable.Enervation is a ray, and thus an attack roll is necessary. Very few GMs will argue for Option 1.
Option 2 has the overwhelming support that I've seen from this discussion with regard to ray attacks.
Option 3 is what would happen if the devil cast hold person or another targeted spell instead. The choice of target is made when the spell comes into effect.
I'm not arguing from any realtime sense. I'm arguing from a sense of divisible actions. For hold person, there is no difference between being targeted and being affected, they are the same action (see Magic chapter). Once you are the target, you must roll the save. You can't split those up, because they are the same thing.
This does not apply to any spell that has an attack roll or effect that travels through space (conjuration or evocation schools, usually).
|
|
You're making up time again. Re-read that several more times, you'll pick up on it eventually. The spell coming into effect is the same thing as 'at the end of casting'. There are tons of spell descriptions which continue after the point of end of casting. Unless you are arguing that you don't actually target your Phantasmal Killer until after it has caused someone to make their saves? Certainly not.
Why are you so aggressively agreeing with me? You should try to read my position more closely, you'll pick up on it eventually.
heh "You should try to read my position more closely, you'll pick up on it eventually." Nice try. But if you think we are agreeing... well, you're not reading very closely.
I never said targeted non-attack spells can not be prevented. I only said you can't know for sure it is targeting you. But if, say, you had arcane sight up you could possibly know, depending on the GM. Or you could guess that it will target you.
So, like I said. We are reaching similar conclusions for differing reasons. You, from some vague "can't know for sure," position, and I from the "target chosen when spell comes into effect" rules citation.
You can change enervation with any spell, was just an example, maybe not well chosen. The same effects would count for hold person in my eyes. Immediate actions are abstract actions, nothing to be counted in real time. Same is true for swift actions or free actions. There is no realtime time in this game.
Its a problematic example. There IS time in this game. Its incredibly important in this game. Its just relative rather than timed.
A ray has two things that make a better argument for blocking it mid attack better.
The ray happens after the spell is cast.(because its two seperate AoOs)
You can see a ray coming to block it.
The first one is explicitly not the case for Dominate person (dominate person is explicitly not coming at you until the spell is done) , and there's no listed harry potter esque stunner bolt flying at you to let you know to blodk, or that takes time to come into effect.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can change enervation with any spell, was just an example, maybe not well chosen. The same effects would count for hold person in my eyes. Immediate actions are abstract actions, nothing to be counted in real time. Same is true for swift actions or free actions. There is no realtime time in this game.The thing is that immediate actions are intrinsically metagaming and require communication between GM and player.
GM goes saying: The devil looks at you whispering something and raising his hand towards you...
Player goes: Wow wow wait a moment! I´m doing a spellcraft on this. Rolls dice: 34. GM: Enervation
Player: As an immediate action Woodcuff the wizard casts EFS.Here the minds split.
1.Some GMs will say, ok, but only after it hit you, since you were already targeted. In my eyes this is GM fiat, rule 0.
2.Others will say ok and the enveration hits the EFS. That´s the way i think it should be.
3.Still others will say ok, the devil will see this and target someone else. Surely discussable.Enervation is a ray, and thus an attack roll is necessary. Very few GMs will argue for Option 1.
Option 2 has the overwhelming support that I've seen from this discussion with regard to ray attacks.
Option 3 is what would happen if the devil cast hold person or another targeted spell instead. The choice of target is made when the spell comes into effect.
I'm not arguing from any realtime sense. I'm arguing from a sense of divisible actions. For hold person, there is no difference between being targeted and being affected, they are the same action (see Magic chapter). Once you are the target, you must roll the save. You can't split those up, because they are the same thing.
This does not apply to any spell that has an attack roll or effect that travels through space (conjuration or evocation schools, usually).
That is wholly made up. There is nothing either concrete or even indicated that says that. It could take a whole second from the end of casting Charm Person and when it actually causes a will save. Or it could be instantaneous. We know one thing for sure. It takes less than 6 seconds.
|
|
While it is not explicit in that FAQ, it is not at stretch to think that that "manifestation" might also reveal the target of the spell.1)To start with it is a stretch. Its unevidenced. Its not a horrible stretch, but its not a conclusion, and its certainly not a conclusion you can base other rules adjudication on.
2), and it keeps coming back to this, the Target is chosen at the END of casting when the spell comes into effect. I don't have to havet a target before then. If i start casting a disintegrate at the fighter, and the invisible rogue pops into visibility taking his AoO swing at me and misses, i can turn my hand a little to the left and blast him instead.
See my response to Lorewalker. I'm not saying that it should be treated as a rule. I'm saying given that the FAQ created the idea of a manifestation, it is not a stretch to think that an FAQ on when you know you are targeted might expand on that idea. I'm an not suggesting that is RAW currently or that it should be ruled that way.
Re 2) That is the crux of the question. Are you allowed to take an immediate action between being told that you have been targeted by a spell, and that spell actually affecting you. My contention is that there are enough example where the answer to that question is yes, that saying it is impossible except when explicitly stated is not fair or obviously true. Your example with the rogue is true, but it is also not the situation under discussion here. The question here is, once the spell is finished being cast, and the fighter has been chosen as a target, can the fighter (or a Wizard in his pocket) as EFS to interrupt the line of effect of the disintegrate? I understand your argument for no. I understand the argument for yes. It is not clear which is correct, and it is big enough that it needs an FAQ.
|
|
So, like I said. We are reaching similar conclusions for differing reasons. You, from some vague "can't know for sure," position, and I from the "target chosen when spell comes into effect" rules citation.You're making up time again. Re-read that several more times, you'll pick up on it eventually. The spell coming into effect is the same thing as 'at the end of casting'. There are tons of spell descriptions which continue after the point of end of casting. Unless you are arguing that you don't actually target your Phantasmal Killer until after it has caused someone to make their saves? Certainly not.
Why are you so aggressively agreeing with me? You should try to read my position more closely, you'll pick up on it eventually.
heh "You should try to read my position more closely, you'll pick up on it eventually." Nice try. But if you think we are agreeing... well, you're not reading very closely.
I never said targeted non-attack spells can not be prevented. I only said you can't know for sure it is targeting you. But if, say, you had arcane sight up you could possibly know, depending on the GM. Or you could guess that it will target you.
Then you agree that you can't know timing unless the game tells you? You agree that the time between casting completion and when its effects take hold is unknown? Agree that you can prevent a non-attack targeting spell with EFS? That Interruption between casting and the spell hitting you is entirely possible?
If agree to all those points, then yes, we agree. Though that goes counter to what you've said.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My contention is that there are enough example where the answer to that question is yes
The examples given are not for things happening in between the spell finishing and the target being chosen. All of the examples you've given have been during the resolution phase, after you have already been affected. Normally thats not a big deal but thats a huge difference here.
|
|
Ranged Touch Attack Spells and AOOs: When you cast a spell that allows you to make a ranged touch attack (such as scorching ray), and an enemy is within reach, do you provoke two attacks of opportunity?
Yes, you provoke two attacks of opportunity: one for casting the spell and one for making a ranged attack, since these are two separate events.
(Note that at spell that fires multiple simultaneous rays, such as scorching ray, only provokes one AOO for making the ranged attack instead of one AOO for each ranged attack. It still provokes for casting the spell.
Clearly there are 2 events happening as noted by the FAQ. The casting of the spell and then the ranged attack roll. If you were to cast EFS during the casting portion the target hasn't been chosen yet. If you cast it during the attack there is now a target of the spell.
Spells which do not have a separate event like rays do not have an additional opportunity afterward to cast EFS and still be protected because the effect and targeting have occurred.
1) How fast is an immediate action? Can it interrupt things?
That is one of the primary gimmicks of the Mesmerist so yes it can operate that way.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Spells which do not have a separate event like rays do not have an additional opportunity afterward to cast EFS and still be protected because the effect and targeting have occurred.
This isn't satisfactorily settled in the rules for some, so please click the FAQ on this post.
|
|
Thanks for outlining your position, finally. It's been a lot of vague assertions, but now might be cleared up.
Then you agree that you can't know timing unless the game tells you?I agree.
You agree that the time between casting completion and when its effects take hold is unknown?Disagree. I and others have cited the rule that says completion, effect and targeting are all contemporaneous.
Agree that you can prevent a non-attack targeting spell with EFS?
Mixed. You can prevent it from targeting you if you EFS before the spell completes. You cannot prevent effect if you've already been targeted, as those two things are semantically equivalent.
But, you have been arguing that you cannot know the target in these cases?That Interruption between casting and the spell hitting you is entirely possible?By "casting" do you mean when the spell completes (as opposed to begins casting)? It's certainly possible when attack rolls or evocation are involved.
If agree to all those points, then yes, we agree. Though that goes counter to what you've said.
No, we don't agree. All the response you've made the rules I and others have been citing amounts to "but, we can't really knowwwww anything." That, I challenge you to defend. We can know how spell completion, targeting, and effect are related. The rules tell us.
|
|
Please don't be so obtuse. You're obviously not thinking this through. Do a bit more thinking on it and then get back to me.
I'll start you off... you know you've been targeted because you made a save. If you succeed, you know you've been targeted. That's part of the rules. There is an ability which allows you to prevent someone from gaining that knowledge even if they make their save.
We aren't talking about knowing you are casting. That is clear and obvious. Others know you are casting unless you have an ability which says it can hide it. And we have a direct statement saying that they will not add an ability that automatically succeeds at hiding casting.
It is a stretch. A big one. You are adding information which is not even indicated and is counter to other parts of the game. That will tell you something about your idea.
You're ignoring the part where I'm saying it is not currently the rule. All I'm saying is that it is not a stretch to think that a response to the question, "When do I know I've been targeted by a spell?" might include reference to the manifestation. I'm not saying anyone should rule that way right now. You are free to believe otherwise, but please refrain from insults. If you want to call it a stretch, that's fine. I'm not going to argue word choice.
More on point for an actual rules discussion, are you saying if you fail a save, you don't know you've been targeted by a spell? Citation? I think that is only the case if the spell specifically says so. All I see is this:
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you* sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.
* This is referring to the caster of the spell, from my reading. Not the target.
That says nothing about what happens when a creature fails a save. I see the sequence as something like this:
1. Wizard casts a spell. The spell finishes, and they choose enemy Investigator as the target.
2. Investigator feels a tingle. Makes his saving throw. Ross low. Decides to use an Immediate Action to add Inspiration. Succeeds!
3. The Investigator does not know what the spell would have been, unless he had previously Spellcrafted it.
Alternately:
1. Wizard casts a spell. The spell finishes, and he chooses enemy Sorcerer as the target.
2. Sorcerer feels a tingle. She uses an Immediate Action to cast Emergency Force Sphere. Line of Effect is broken. The spell fails.
3. The Sorcerer does not know what the spell would have been, unless she had previously Spellcrafted it.
An example question at the heart of this debate is why can the Investigator use an Immediate Action after the spell has been cast, but the Sorcerer can't? The common answer seems to be, because the Inspiration ability says so. That's fair, and might even be true. But I think it's also fair to think that the Sorcerer could take that action.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spells which do not have a separate event like rays do not have an additional opportunity afterward to cast EFS and still be protected because the effect and targeting have occurred.This isn't satisfactorily settled in the rules for some, so please click the FAQ on this post.
I don't think that question is really what I'm looking for to be answered. It isn't even a spell so it doesn't carry the "casting a spell" rules with it. Why not ask a question which is more direct instead of a roundabout one?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My contention is that there are enough example where the answer to that question is yesThe examples given are not for things happening in between the spell finishing and the target being chosen. All of the examples you've given have been during the resolution phase, after you have already been affected. Normally thats not a big deal but thats a huge difference here.
The only example I gave was Wave Shield (and now Inspiration in my last message). Serisen gave a long list earlier in the thread:
I don't see much of a difference, and here's why. Games are not GM'd by computers. A GM is less likely to run down a series of steps every time a spell is cast. They are more likely to say something like, "He casts a spell, give me a Will save." "Wait, can I spellcraft that?" "Oh, yeah, sure. It's Phantasmal Killer." "I want to cast EFS." "Too late, I already asked for your saving throw. You have to do that before I ask for your saving throw." "But..."
To me, it's just not practical at a table to split hairs on when actions happen as finely as you are. I can see the justification for it, and for those GMs that really dislike EFS, I wouldn't argue it at the table. I can also see an argument against it.
All I can find in the rules is that the target isn't chosen until after the spell is cast. I don't see anything in the rules that explicitly says that the target is chosen at the same time the spell takes effect. I see no ordering of events after a spell is cast, just a list of things that don't happen until the casting is finished. So that leaves it up to GM interpretation.
So, again, I support the need for an FAQ on the issue. Ultimately, it doesn't matter to me which of us is right. I'd just like a clear answer so that conflicts at the table can be avoided.
|
|
The rule says you make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect. That is pretty explicitly at the same time. It doesn't say you make them "before the spell comes into effect" or "after the spell comes into effect" it is exactly as it does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feather Fall: something is falling
-Happens during a lot of individual actions: Falling squares.
Liberating Command: someone is bound, grappled, or restrained
Happens at any point during the six seconds you're in a headlock. Or 20 years for stealing a load of bread in cheliax.
Stone Shield: while not explicitly stated as a condition, the effect portion mentions "if the opponent's attack misses you..."
Happens while you are rolling a die
Wave Shield: you are being affected by a physical or fire attack
Happens during damage
Windy Escape: "You respond to an attack..."
Happens during the damage
Bouyancy: someone or something is in water at least 1 foot deep
Happens while swimming.
Bleed for your Master: "When you would be hit by an attack that requires an attack roll"
That ones a little weird for rewinding time, but still doesn't split the spell completion and targeting.
Collaborative Thaumaturgy: "Cast this spell when an ally casts a spell at least 1 level lower than the highest-level spell she can cast."
During casting.
Deflect Blame: "You can cast this spell immediately after attacking a creature"
After an attack. *points* "No, he did"
Conjuration Foil: Not explicitly stated, but its effects revolve around teleportation or summoning effects.
If you could tag someone with it as they're teleporting out without them being able to stop is the whole issue here. It has a lot of other uses and lasts a round, so its not as if the spell HAS to be able to do that. Might make a better trap question on the whole issue for James to try with.
Energy Hack: "You can cast this spell only when you take 10 or more points..."
During damage phase.
Open Arms: "You cast this spell in response to..."
After an ability has been used, before an attack roll even.
Nothing here is even close to splitting the atom.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see much of a difference, and here's why. Games are not GM'd by computers. A GM is less likely to run down a series of steps every time a spell is cast. They are more likely to say something like, "He casts a spell, give me a Will save." "Wait, can I spellcraft that?" "Oh, yeah, sure. It's Phantasmal Killer." "I want to cast EFS." "Too late, I already asked for your saving throw. You have to do that before I ask for your saving throw." "But..."
That's totally on the GM there. GM already backed up to allow Spellcraft, they can allow EFS on the casting. That said, the BBEG should be allowed to target someone who is not protected from EFS.
GM really should not skip as much.
"He casts a spell, any Spellcrafts?."
"Oh, yeah, sure." *rolls*
"It's Phantasmal Killer."
"I cast EFS."
"Fighter, give me a Will save."
Alternatively,
"It's Phantasmal Killer."
"I bet he targets the fighter, no response."
"Sorry, give me a Will save."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule says you make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect. That is pretty explicitly at the same time. It doesn't say you make them "before the spell comes into effect" or "after the spell comes into effect" it is exactly as it does.
Ok, nevermind. I found the rule being referenced now. I was looking at a different section that said after the spell is cast, not when it comes into effect. For reference:
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
And what you're referencing (because I couldn't find it quoted in this thread)
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.
So I can see a stronger argument that the caster should be able to change targets. I still disagree, from a practicality standpoint, that once a saving throw has been asked for, it is too late to activate EFS. I would now see a situation something like this:
GM: "He casts a spell. Give me a Will save.
Sorcerer: I cast EFS.
GM: Ok. Then he targets the Rogue instead.
Rogue: Me? Why me? *Looks at Sorcerer* I hate you.
That work?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Why not ask a question which is more direct instead of a roundabout one?
I couldn't find one for a spell in APG/ARG/ACG/Core/UM/UC/UI that had a spell with little or no timing restrictions. So I found a feat with the same "no timing restrictions" and the possibility of "wait, I'll add some more AC - now it misses" thing. The same issue with spells "wait, I'll EFS so the attack misses".
If you find one, I'm sure we can write one up.
|
|
I don't see much of a difference, and here's why. Games are not GM'd by computers. A GM is less likely to run down a series of steps every time a spell is cast. They are more likely to say something like, "He casts a spell, give me a Will save." "Wait, can I spellcraft that?" "Oh, yeah, sure. It's Phantasmal Killer." "I want to cast EFS." "Too late, I already asked for your saving throw. You have to do that before I ask for your saving throw." "But..."That's totally on the GM there. GM already backed up to allow Spellcraft, they can allow EFS on the casting. That said, the BBEG should be allowed to target someone who is not protected from EFS.
GM really should not skip as much.
"He casts a spell, any Spellcrafts?."
"Oh, yeah, sure." *rolls*
"It's Phantasmal Killer."
"I cast EFS."
"Fighter, give me a Will save."Alternatively,
"It's Phantasmal Killer."
"I bet he targets the fighter, no response."
"Sorry, give me a Will save."
Yeah, I see the rule BNW and others are looking at now, so I can understand their viewpoint better. As to what a GM really should do, it's rare that they even start with "He casts a spell." Usually they just look at the relevant player and say, "Give me a save." As long as the GM is not playing gotcha with the players to stop a spell they don't personally like, I don't have a problem with ruling the way you are here.
EDIT: I should add that while I understand this ruling better, I personally would still rule that if there is enough time between making a roll and announcing the results of a roll to take an action (Investigator and others), then there's enough time between announcing the target and the target being effected to take an action. So I still think an FAQ would be best. If we can ever come up with a post that asks the right question.
I don't see much of a difference, and here's why. Games are not GM'd by computers.
"I want to cast EFS." "Too late, I already asked for your saving throw. You have to do that before I ask for your saving throw." "But..."
Nope.
"He casts a spell, give me a Will save."
"Wait, can I spellcraft that?"
"Oh, yeah, sure. It's Phantasmal Killer."
"I want to cast EFS."
"Too late, I already asked for your saving throw.
Ok Jim, Leafytree is off the hook. BOB! Will save for Bitey!
You have to remember there's two (or possibly three) schools of why EFS isn't able to block Phantasmal Killer and waste the other guys spell.
1) Is that immediate actions can't interrupt things at all. I don't hold to this.
2) Is that it can block things, but it does so in linear time. I'm not the one breaking down steps here. You're insisting that those steps exist to wedge the shield in between. The less those steps exist the less places there are to put the shield in.
|
|
Ok, nevermind. I found the rule being referenced now. I was looking at a different section that said after the spell is cast, not when it comes into effect. For reference:
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
I must have quoted that line 3 or 4 times in the other thread. I didn't realize it had only been directly quoted once in this one (and way back on the first page). I think your examples are fair if your GM style is not one to explicitly narrate those discrete actions. I prefer to be explicit, but it can be a bit slow for some folks.