|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They were referring to this FAQ:
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.
Whether you can spot invisible spellcasting is not 100% clear, but since this FAQ says the spell itself, not just your casting, is noticeable, I'd lean towards saying invisibility won't stop people from noticing. Invisibility doesn't hide odd flickering lights, weird noises and "disturbance in the Force". However, it doesn't make you visible. Even if people can figure out your approximate location based on these side effects, they can't see you.
If you really want to hide your casting, you should look into the Concealed Casting feat from Ultimate Intrigue (which is allowed in PFS), Secrets Signs feat (ISWG, allowed in PFS, but of no use to psychic casters because the spell needs to have only Somatic components) or Cunning Caster from Heroes of the Streetss (not allowed in PFS).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The concealment you get is hardly pointless. It gives enemies a miss chance, prevents Attacks of Opportunity and Sneak Attack, to start with. It also stops people from targeting spells at you (they can target your area, but not you; Fireball works but Boneshatter doesn't). And if you need to roll to-hit to deliver your spell, enemies won't get Dex to AC.
But the FAQ makes Invisibility less of an "I win and you don't even know you were under attack" ability.
knowing the general direction the spell casting came from made invisibility pointless. it seems with this faq ruling in effect that invisibility is basically useless for anything other than just walking around invisible and the concealment when you get attacked. :(
Only for PFS, or if your DM says so. You are free to houserule that many spells that don't have glaring visible or audible features can be cast while invisible without giving anything away.
IMHO, it seems entirely reasonable and plausible to make a distinction between different sorts of spells:
- visible effect spells that can be seen to emanate from a source are the most obvious. Things like burning hands, acid arrow, or any ray spell can be seen to start somewhere. Any check to detect this sort of magic shouldn't be that hard.
- other visible effects that don't have a visible source, like walls, pits, summon monster or even open/close, could give a strong hint that magic is taking place, and the nearby astute caster ought to get some sort of check on that.
- audible components, like speaking in a strong and clear voice to cast a spell should carry their own check results.
- spells cast while invisible, without verbal components or using silent metamagic effects, should be the hardest of all to interpret or even detect.
Modifier to spellcraft checks:
* Spell with visible or obvious source = no penalty to spellcraft DC and opponents who succeed know general location of spellcaster (still must pinpoint to target).
* Spell with visible effects, but no obvious source and caster invisible and/or using no somatic, material or focus components = -4 to spellcraft DC
* Spell with no visible effects and caster invisible and/or using no somatic, material or focus components = -8 to spellcraft DC
* Spell with verbal components, and opponents succeeds at relevant perception check = one half listed spellcraft penalties and know general location of spellcaster.
It's a shame the folks at Paizo seem to have glossed over these distinctions, or at least hidden any such distinction behind specific feats. There ought to be a sliding scale of spellcraft penalties imposed depending on some of the above elements, even without the feats like Concealed Casting or Cunning Caster being invoked. Those feats should just make the guy better at it, maybe a lot better at it, but there still ought to be a baseline reference chart depending on circumstances like I outlined above.
Vhok, your example is problematic because, assuming you were using the open/close cantrip, the spell has bother verbal and somatic components. The somatic part (gestures, etc) could easily be hidden by invisibility, but the verbal component would have been more troublesome in your circumstances:
To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice.
Presumably, those tricky feats would allow you to avoid speaking "in a strong voice" and hence being detected. What I object to is that there appears to be no provisions for silent spell metamagic (or even the absence of verbal components on some spells) to allow for some degree of stealth, without needing and tricky feat.
So IMHO your DM let you off the hook too easy. Those pesky verbal components are a b!tch!
Look up the Conceal Spellcasting feat. It lets you make bluff checks to disguise casting as something else.
Sorry. I've read the psychic stuff and found it rather cool (very complex, but cool nonetheless) but have never used it in a game.
So really, being invisible and having no visible or somatic components really *ought* to be undetectable, or at least at a hefty penalty to detection. However, going by the recent art-inspired ruling and the two tricky feats mentioned above, you're still out of luck by the RAW, without those feats. <sigh>
|
|
Open/Close takes only a standard action to cast, so you could cast it and move away immediately afterwards. People will know where you were, but with the stealth bonuses Invisibility gives, it'll be quite hard for them to hear where you went. They may even spend waste time attacking the spot you left.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The FAQ is very much a balancing rule.
Imagine that you're playing a non-caster and there's an invisible NPC psychic caster just hiding out, summoning monsters and hasting them. You're never going to be able to find that guy because you don't even have any idea where to look for him. He could be anywhere in the room.
Paizo decided that wholly undetectable casters would be OP and just plain annoying, and I think they're right.
Since it is up to your DM, you are probably out of luck.
(As I read the Occult handbook, there is no reason, why a psychic caster shouldn't be able to let a door swing open without arrows pointing out the presence of someone invisible.)
I'm playing a sorcerer with the psychic bloodline, and had exactly the same thoughts. I have logical/emotion components not verbal or somatic and have eschew material components. So how am I exactly detectable when casting a spell? But FAQ seem clear that casting a spell triggers a noticeable external effect regardless (outside of the v/s indicators), and you must take a feat to conceal those effects.
The FAQ is very much a balancing rule.
Imagine that you're playing a non-caster and there's an invisible NPC psychic caster just hiding out, summoning monsters and hasting them. You're never going to be able to find that guy because you don't even have any idea where to look for him. He could be anywhere in the room.
Paizo decided that wholly undetectable casters would be OP and just plain annoying, and I think they're right.
One of the encounters in Carrion Crown is exactly that scenario, only worse. There's a Ghost Summoner in one dungeon who's invisible, incorporeal, and hiding in the walls, summoning monsters far enough away from the party to make the spell casting nearly impossible to detect (around corners or in previously explored rooms), and then ordering them to attack.
It's a pretty cool encounter. Very hard. Very memorable. Figuring out what the heck is going on in the first place is a big part of the challenge.
In my games, if someone is invisible, the spell-manifestations they talk about in the FAQ are invisible as well.
Any observer may notice the V and/or S components during the casting (if the caster isn't using the still- and/or silent- metamagic feats), and the obvious visual effect of the fireball ("A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit...") once the casting is done (as well as the caster becoming visible, due to the nature of invisibility and fireball being an attack).
|
|
In my games, if someone is invisible, the spell-manifestations they talk about in the FAQ are invisible as well.
Obviously you have to choose what works for your game. The FAQ is quite open-ended, and intentionally so.
Just for context, let's look at the PDT's reasoning though.
but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast
This is where it all started. Apparently you can see spells. That's why getting rid of visible and audible components (or using SLAs or psychic magic) doesn't stop people from noticing your casting; the spell itself is visible.
That line is the cornerstone upon which the FAQ rests. They could have chosen to change it or interpret it differently, but they liked the implication (that casters can't get away with everything).
As a side note about invisibility obscuring spells;
Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source).
As a GM it's up to you whether that will or won't frustrate hiding spellcasting.
Wow. This is the first time I've seen people on this board saying spells are visible even while you are invisible. Up to now, it's always been posters supporting the opposite notion (that if you are invisible, your spellcasting manifestations are too).
...
As a side note about invisibility obscuring spells;Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source).As a GM it's up to you whether that will or won't frustrate hiding spellcasting.
That is even more open-ended: Nowhere does it say whether those spell-manifestations are glowing/a source of light.
|
|
Wow. This is the first time I've seen people on this board saying spells are visible even while you are invisible. Up to now, it's always been posters supporting the opposite notion (that if you are invisible, your spellcasting manifestations are too).
I've talked about it before in the discussions leading up to and after the FAQ. Not everyone likes it. The FAQ leaves enough wiggle room to rule either without being wrong, so it's really a matter of taste.
That is even more open-ended: Nowhere does it say whether those spell-manifestations are glowing/a source of light....
As a side note about invisibility obscuring spells;Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source).As a GM it's up to you whether that will or won't frustrate hiding spellcasting.
Well, as the FAQ states,
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.
If you start looking for pictures of spellcasting, you'll often see stuff like glowing runes in the air. It's art feeding into rules, if you want it to.
Yeah. As if the art details what it shows us, whether it's the manifestation of the spell, or the spell effect...
Give me an example of an art-piece of the manifestation shedding light. Most of the art in the Core Rulebook that has spells on them is either manifestation that doesn't look like it's shedding more light than maybe a candle, if even that, and the rest doesn't look like manifestation, but the spell effect itself shedding light (like the fireball-effect)
|
|
Give me an example of an art-piece of the manifestation shedding light.
Occult Adventures, front cover - I'm assuming that's some kind of psychic blast spell.
OA, p. 142, from what the flavour text says seems like a Telepathic Bond.
OA, p. 192 - can't quite figure out what spell it is, but the flavour text specifically calls out the glowing purple runes. And the blue stuff is probably some kind of domination.
All of them glowing.
OK, I think that everyone is not looking at the scene as staged. Our psychic here has managed to get himself into a very bad position. He has gotten himself in an enclosed space with a bunch of hyper-alert people, specifically looking for any subtle sign of an invisible person. He cannot even move without betraying his position. They are actively looking for any minute sign to help them find him. His idea is clever, but risky. Of course the hyper-alert searchers get a Spellcraft check, they are already alert and are looking for ..just this kind of thing.. Fortunately for our hero(?), the GM wanted him to get through this one, and there is nothing better than having the writers on your side, just ask McGuyver.
Does this invalidate invisible casting ever being useful? No, it doesn't, if the potential witnesses are not already alerted to the possibility, it should have a good chance of working. Mischance always withstanding. The same goes for Concealed Casting. The point of these tricks are to act without alerting the witnesses. If they are already alert and vigilant, things obviously get trickier for you.
If the campaign setting has everyone aware that magic exists, and there is a fair degree of knowledge of what it does, then there are some basic, easy countermeasures. In another thread a noted a couple cheap and easy ones. Bead curtains, perhaps with bells make it difficult to invisibly slip through doorways or windows. Simple banners, perhaps augmented with bells and fish-hooks, make it more difficult to fly near the ceiling to freely cast your spells.
Do you even want a couple of low level spells or a clever feat to totally trivialize nearly every encounter?
|
|
Do you even want a couple of low level spells or a clever feat to totally trivialize nearly every encounter?
I don't. That would be too much.
I think some spells really should be possible to cast subtly - especially illusion and charm spells are really meant for subtle use on unsuspecting marks, not as a blunt instrument against aware and unwilling enemies.
I think spells such as Charm Person were written with the idea that they'd be useful out of the box, without first having to get multiple feats before they can be used. However, this was not clearly implemented at first, and then as time went on Paizo never really clarified how obvious spellcasting was anyway.
So then you get some spells written clearly with the assumption that they can be cast surreptitiously - like a lot of Diplomacy enhancers. I think most decision-makers when they see someone casting a spell that will make them better able to sway your decision, would not be happy. If you actually see someone spiking your drink, the chances of you going home with them should go down :P
Occult Adventures makes a few offhand comments about how psychic casters are less noticeable and so you can have a "hidden war" kind of game where the PCs and their enemies both hide in sheep's clothing in civil society, battling over the souls of the ordinary unsuspecting people. Cool. But if psychics can really cast without anyone being the wiser, isn't that too abusive?
Then comes Heroes of the Streets with a mechanic for hidden casting. Now there's a mechanic for hiding casting, which implies that without it, it's not hidden. At that point I started agitating for Paizo to clarify it's position. They did, shortly before releasing UI, which also has another feat to hide casting - probably some crossed wires between developers of two books.
I think UI takes the best approach, by firmly capping just how high your bonus to conceal casting can go (bluff RANKS, not BONUS, which could easily be 10 higher).
I'm not a fan of the Deceitful prerequisite though, because it doesn't apply to the Concealed Casting roll because it's a bonus to Bluff. Feels like Combat Expertise all over again.
Agree that some spells are likely to be subtler than others. With a friend, or even a familiar providing a small distraction, you should have a reasonable chance of casting undetected. To cast when attention is focused on you, not so much. Then you need feats, Metamagic or class skills to give you a chance.
As psychic casters, they are ..less.. noticeable, not unnoticeable. There still needs to be some level of distraction and subterfuge to go unnoticed.
For what it's worth, this very similar instance occurs in a PFS Scenario, and you cannot locate the invisible spellcaster (casting silent spells).
See final combat scenario in: Pathfinder Society Scenario #6–98: Serpents Rise
Spellcasting only creates visible effects when the spell itself has a visible effect (burning hands, bead from a fireball, etc.). A spellcaster casting a silent, stilled, confusion (or a spell-like ability of confusion) creates no such effect. The caster, would, however be looking intently at the target, and a Sense Motive check should be able to determine the intent, and that he's using magic (as the target feels the tingle or hair stand up on the back of his neck - associated with making a saving throw (per PF Core Rules).
As the rules stand, I'm not aware of a visible effect from an invisible spellcaster from just any old spell. It would largely defeat the purpose of greater invisibility.
YIDM
According to the FAQ, all spells have visible effects regardless of their components.
Greater invisibility lets you cast offensive and still be invisible. Cast and move and they all they know is you are within 1 move distance from that square. And you keep the 50% miss chance even if they know which square.
So we need some RAI aka Dev input to let us know if invisibility is MEANT to make spells invisible or not. Otherwise we have no idea and the no idea at the official purpose, as it still does what it says it does.
What I guess I find irritating is that you need so many things to accomplish hiding casting of a spell.
Take logical/intuitive/conceal, add being invisible, and you're still not sure you're going to get away with it. 15 + ranks in Bluff + Charisma bonus vs their check + the level of spell your casting. And you needed to take Deceitful, as well as ranks in Bluff, Disguise and Sleight of Hand just to qualify for conceal. And then add improved conceal to remove the bonus of the level of your spell. Seems like too much work for too little gain.
I would have thought that the two metamagic feats of logical/intuitive or silent/still for non-psychic would have been enough of a tax to accomplish the task. Further, using those other feats, doesn't actually help with conceal on the base check. Nor does being invisible. Seems broken to me.
Spellcasters are good enough as it is. Just block line of sight(obscuring mist is a good way) and then they can't see the manifestations.
|
|
For what it's worth, this very similar instance occurs in a PFS Scenario, and you cannot locate the invisible spellcaster (casting silent spells).
See final combat scenario in: Pathfinder Society Scenario #6–98: Serpents Rise
I'm looking at it. The person you're talking about doesn't actually have any Silent spells at his disposal. He has the feat, but hasn't used it on any of his prepared spells.
Spellcasting only creates visible effects when the spell itself has a visible effect (burning hands, bead from a fireball, etc.). A spellcaster casting a silent, stilled, confusion (or a spell-like ability of confusion) creates no such effect. The caster, would, however be looking intently at the target, and a Sense Motive check should be able to determine the intent, and that he's using magic (as the target feels the tingle or hair stand up on the back of his neck - associated with making a saving throw (per PF Core Rules).
Contradicted by the FAQ we've been talking about.
As the rules stand, I'm not aware of a visible effect from an invisible spellcaster from just any old spell. It would largely defeat the purpose of greater invisibility.
GI lets you move around and cast spells without provoking and cast rays against people denied their Dex to AC. It's hardly pointless.
Give me an example of an art-piece of the manifestation shedding light.Occult Adventures, front cover - I'm assuming that's some kind of psychic blast spell.
Spell effect, not manifestation.
OA, p. 142, from what the flavour text says seems like a Telepathic Bond.
Again, seems like the spells effect, though looking at the psychics spell list, I couldn't say which spell.
OA, p. 192 - can't quite figure out what spell it is, but the flavour text specifically calls out the glowing purple runes. And the blue stuff is probably some kind of domination.
All of them glowing.
Okay, yeah, those purple runes seem to be manifestations. (The blue stuff i don't know.)
And even though they appear to be, and are described as glowing, they don't illuminate (or if they do, it's not more than a candle's worth of light).-------
So for me that is back to square 1, in my games:
- Manifestations for all spells (divine, arcane, psychic, psionic, ritual, sphere of power....). Bright as a text-marker, highlighter, neon-marker (or how those are called), i.e. not shedding light.
- if caster is invisible, the manifestations are as well.
Feel free to disagree with me and rule it another way, the RAW is inconclusive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Pathfinder ever gets redesigned, this is a new component they need to add to the spell blocks if you ask me.
Something like a new spell line that says:
or
It will grant them another tool to better balance some of the spells as well. For those spells that are generally meant to be sneaky (such as charm person, illusions, etc.), they could have it say something like the following instead:
I really dislike the manifestations FAQ. I think its pretty unnecessary and the concealed casting rules needlessly clunky. It feels to me like Paizo added a bunch of rules to support intrigue instead of using the emergent properties of existing rules, I think that is sort of lazy.
Compare
If there are no manifestations, and just somatic/verbal components, then your archetypal subtle magic might look like this:
A sorcerer wants to charm the baron at a masquerade. He is level 3 and knows Silent Spell, so he goes out an buys a still glove (new item in Knight Magenta's intrigue!). It lets the wielder replace somatic components with a sleight of hand check.
The sorcerer makes his slight of hand check and spends a full round action charming the baron. At this point, the baron's guards get to make a spellcraft check vs the sorcerer's bluff to notice that he is concentrating as if he is casting a spell (new rule, that codifies an existing fact. We know we can recognize spellcasting because it provokes though this does not require manifestations, just being distracted).
Finally, the baron fails his save and the sorcerer moves up to him to extract information. The baron's head guard gets to make a sense motive check to realize that the baron is charmed, with a DC of 25 or the sorcerer's bluff check (new rule, to expand DC scaling of sense enchantment). If the head guard succeeds, he realizes that the baron is charmed and applies an oil of suppres charms and compulsions. Before hustling the baron away to the wizard's tower for an emergency dispel magic.
In this case, a character can participate in an infiltration even if it is not built for it. Characters that already have sneaky skills can use them to be good at doing sneaky things.
If instead we use Ultimate Intrigue, the story goes more like this: Do you have the 2-3 feats needed to cast subtly? If yes, you might succeed, if no then you can't even try. It means that in a mixed social/combat campaign the sorcerer just can't participate using his class features. In a social focused campaign he has to pay a feat tax instead.
...new rule, that codifies an existing fact. We know we can recognize spellcasting because it provokes though this does not require manifestations, just being distracted...
Prior to the FAQ, that was not stated anywhere at all, actually. An assailant recognized the sudden drop in your defenses, not necessarily that you were in the middle of the act of spellcasting.
...new rule, that codifies an existing fact. We know we can recognize spellcasting because it provokes though this does not require manifestations, just being distracted...Prior to the FAQ, that was not stated anywhere at all, actually. An assailant recognized the sudden drop in your defenses, not necessarily that you were in the middle of the act of spellcasting.
That's what I'm talking about. Clearly, spell casting is distracting enough that you drop your defenses. If an enemy can notice that in the thick of combat, then a guard should be able to notice that even if you don't have glowing sigils. I mean, It won't let them know exactly what you did, but maybe they notice your fingers twitch in a certain way or something.
My point was that a general rule like this is much more inclusive than the manifestations ruling and does not require a reworking of the whole system. It feels like it was already a thing. At least it does to me.
It feels to me like Paizo added a bunch of rules to support intrigue instead of using the emergent properties of existing rules, I think that is sort of lazy.
Except that many people have been saying the rule worked in the manner of the FAQ since the Core Rule Book because of how they altered Spellcraft in the conversion between 3.5e and PF, which removes the reference to components.
If Pathfinder ever gets redesigned, this is a new component they need to add to the spell blocks if you ask me.
That would just make it so every spell is "Manifestation: Yes (Visual)" though, so it'd just be a waste of space.
It feels to me like Paizo added a bunch of rules to support intrigue instead of using the emergent properties of existing rules, I think that is sort of lazy.Except that many people have been saying the rule worked in the manner of the FAQ since the Core Rule Book because of how they altered Spellcraft in the conversion between 3.5e and PF, which removes the reference to components.
If Pathfinder ever gets redesigned, this is a new component they need to add to the spell blocks if you ask me.That would just make it so every spell is "Manifestation: Yes (Visual)" though, so it'd just be a waste of space.
Not if they put some forethought into it, like people tend to do with new editions.
If you did a direct conversion of what we basically have now, then yes, you'd be right, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Not if they put some forethought into it, like people tend to do with new editions.
And that does not contradict having all spells visible.
But if the designers thought ahead, not all spells would have a visible manifestation component. Many would, but many would have other types of manifestations, or none at all.
I'm not going to accept "they would all end up the same" just because you said so.