Identifing a spell as it is being cast

[Thewms]

My search-fu may be weak today. I am searching for something that specifically says or otherwise eludes to the fact that you can't use spellcraft to identify a spell being cast from a wand? Everything I have found so far are old threads stating that because there are no verbal/somatic/material components then there is nothing to identify.

This FAQ goofs with all of that:

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.

1. Does this FAQ extend to spells cast from Wands?

2. Does this FAQ extend to spells cast from Scrolls?

3. Does this FAQ extend to spells cast from items such as a Ring of Invisibility?

I hope I am just missing something? can anyone enlighten me?

[Saethori]

The FAQ mentions spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and "the like". While broad, I think that this applies to wands and scrolls too.

At the very least, the physical act of retrieving and utilizing a wand or scroll should be a giveaway.

As for spells cast from items, I think if you are causing the item to use a spell via an Item Mastery feat, then there is a clear manifestation. Activating that ring also applies, as the way it's worded implies the ring is similar to s spell trigger item.

[Thewms]

Saethori wrote:

The FAQ mentions spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and "the like". While broad, I think that this applies to wands and scrolls too.

At the very least, the physical act of retrieving and utilizing a wand or scroll should be a giveaway.

As for spells cast from items, I think if you are causing the item to use a spell via an Item Mastery feat, then there is a clear manifestation. Activating that ring also applies, as the way it's worded implies the ring is similar to s spell trigger item.

Oof da! Then maybe this changes more than I thought! So, for example, a Hat of Disguise when Activated creates a physical manifestation that can then be spellcraft-ed?

[Saethori]

Correct. Note, however, that the manifestation exists only at the moment you use the ability to cast the spell. At all other times, you appear normal to most onlookers (though special senses, such as Detect Magic, can still notice a spell on you).

[Thewms]

There goes time-honored tradition of renewing a Hat of Disguise every 9.5mins to run around a dinner party looking like someone else :(

Edit: What about items that produce an effect similar to a spell but is not a spell itself? Does that allow for spellcraft?

[Squiggit]

Thewms wrote:

There goes time-honored tradition of renewing a Hat of Disguise every 9.5mins to run around a dinner party looking like someone else :(

You can do that as long as you can find somewhere inconspicuous to re-activate the spell still. Personally that's how I've always seen it run.

[Thewms]

Squiggit wrote:

Thewms wrote:

There goes time-honored tradition of renewing a Hat of Disguise every 9.5mins to run around a dinner party looking like someone else :(

You can do that as long as you can find somewhere inconspicuous to re-activate the spell still. Personally that's how I've always seen it run.

I enjoyed the interpretation of someone using the Command word every so often to activate it while walking around.

"What a charming gentleman!"
"Indeed. But I believe he is a bit touched. He continues to shout 'Pinapple' every few minutes."

[ckdragons]

Thewms wrote:

What about items that produce an effect similar to a spell but is not a spell itself? Does that allow for spellcraft?

Anything producing a spell or spell-like effect (creature or item) can be Spellcraft'ed when it's casted/activated. Only supernatural and extraordinary abilities cannot. Further, spells already in effect cannot be Spellcraft'ed; the onlooker must then use Knowledge (arcana) to identify the active spell (at least that's how our group understands the skills).

(EDITED for grammar)

[thejeff]

I would only allow it to be identified if the item specifically casts a spell - or allows the user to do so. "benefit from invisibility, as the spell" is not the same as "command his ring to cast a shield other spell" or the staff "allows the use of the following spells".

There is no indication in the Spellcraft skill that it lets you id magic items in use - just with detect magic.

The Item Mastery feats I can see - you're not using the item normally, but using the magic in it to cast a spell. That makes sense.

[thejeff]

ckdragons wrote:

Thewms wrote:

What about items that produce an effect similar to a spell but is not a spell itself? Does that allow for spellcraft?

Anything producing a spell or spell-like effect (creature or item) can be Spellcraft'ed when it's casted/activated. Only supernatural and extraordinary abilities cannot. Further, spells already in effect cannot be Spellcraft'ed; the onlooker must then use Knowledge (arcana) to identify the active spell (at least that's how our group understands the skills).

(EDITED for grammar)

There's no such thing as a "spell-like effect" in the PF rules set. There are "spell like abilities", but effects from magic items are not spell like abilities, even if they work like spells. Among other differences, using a spell like ability provokes, activating most magic items does not.

Some magic items let you cast spells. Those I would say can be identified as spells.

[Thewms]

ckdragons wrote:

Thewms wrote:

What about items that produce an effect similar to a spell but is not a spell itself? Does that allow for spellcraft?

Anything producing a spell or spell-like effect (creature or item) can be Spellcraft'ed when it's casted/activated. Only supernatural and extraordinary abilities cannot. Further, spells already in effect cannot be Spellcraft'ed; the onlooker must then use Knowledge (arcana) to identify the active spell (at least that's how our group understands the skills).

(EDITED for grammar)

Would you, for example, allow a player a spellcraft check to identify the activation of Boots of Speed?

Boots of Speed:

As a free action, the wearer of boots of speed can click her heels together, letting her act as though affected by a haste spell for up to 10 rounds each day. The haste effect’s duration need not be consecutive rounds.

Edit: Or even Hat of Disguise to continue with that theme.

Hat of Disguise:

This apparently normal hat allows its wearer to alter her appearance as with a disguise self spell. As part of the disguise, the hat can be changed to appear as a comb, ribbon, headband, cap, coif, hood, helmet, or other headwear.

[Daw]

If you use an invisibility ring in front of witnesses, they would hardly need a Spellcraft roll to notice you vanishing from sight. I would certainly allow a Spellcraft check to rule out teleportation effects, etc.
Ring of Invisibility says:
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.

I would definitely allow a Spellcraft roll to identify activation as an invisibility effect.

[thejeff]

Daw wrote:

If you use an invisibility ring in front of witnesses, they would hardly need a Spellcraft roll to notice you vanishing from sight. I would certainly allow a Spellcraft check to rule out teleportation effects, etc.

Ring of Invisibility says:
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.

I would definitely allow a Spellcraft roll to identify activation as an invisibility effect.

You can definitely notice they've vanished.

But can you identify the spell that made them vanish, even though it wasn't a spell and came from an item.

Does item activation have the visual manifestation cues spells do? That's the question.

The follow on question is the same one that's been raised with casting: How always visible are the manifestations? Do you get to spot the invisible person when she reactivates the ring after being invisible for 2 and half minutes? Do you see the manifestation and realize someone is casting invisibility even though you can't see them?

[Thewms]

thejeff wrote:

Daw wrote:

If you use an invisibility ring in front of witnesses, they would hardly need a Spellcraft roll to notice you vanishing from sight. I would certainly allow a Spellcraft check to rule out teleportation effects, etc.

Ring of Invisibility says:
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.

I would definitely allow a Spellcraft roll to identify activation as an invisibility effect.

You can definitely notice they've vanished.

But can you identify the spell that made them vanish, even though it wasn't a spell and came from an item.

Does item activation have the visual manifestation cues spells do? That's the question.

The follow on question is the same one that's been raised with casting: How always visible are the manifestations? Do you get to spot the invisible person when she reactivates the ring after being invisible for 2 and half minutes? Do you see the manifestation and realize someone is casting invisibility even though you can't see them?

Absolutely agree with this.

[Thewms]

bump

looking for further input

[QuidEst]

Activation also requires saying the command word, so it's not like it was particularly inconspicuous to begin with.

[Vatras]

To your question: no, I would not allow spellcraft checks to identify what an item like boots of speed does. As the skill itself says, you need at least 3 rounds of examining and handling an item to get an idea, what it does. And now I should allow someone to do that in 1 round by seeing that someone clicks his heels together?

Maybe to recognize something out of the ordinary going on, but not to identify what exactly. Players are of course free to draw their own conclusions from what they observe. If someone vanishes without casting a spell, some item like the ring is likely. Many items are kinda obvious, but some are not.
Contrary to Daw, with whom I agree, I would probably shift the check to knowledge arcana when it comes to items.

[Thewms]

QuidEst wrote:

Activation also requires saying the command word, so it's not like it was particularly inconspicuous to begin with.

I agree it's obvious, though that's not really what is being asked here!

Vatras wrote:

To your question: no, I would not allow spellcraft checks to identify what an item like boots of speed does. As the skill itself says, you need at least 3 rounds of examining and handling an item to get an idea, what it does. And now I should allow someone to do that in 1 round by seeing that someone clicks his heels together?

Well I'll be! I didn't know that Spellcraft check happened over 3 rounds. You learn something new everyday!

I understand where you are coming from but with the normal spellcraft check you have nothing to go off of except the Magic Aura radiating off of the item. In the instance of the Boots of Speed, there is a command word spoken and an effect takes place. I feel that is more to go off of and would warrant the reduction from 3 rounds to 1.

When Identifying a spell being cast, it takes effectively one action to identify it. When Identifying a spell effect in place (I realize uses Kn: Arcana is used and not Spellcraft) only one action is required, not several rounds.

It almost seems silly now that identifying an item with spellcraft checks take 3 whole rounds!

I guess what I'm trying to understand is why the manifestation of magic is different depending on whether the effect is from a caster casting a spell or an item effectively casting a spell. I feel there must be some visual effect and that visual effect could then be identified.

[Vatras]

Yes, when someone casts a spell he is making gestures and uses words which are the same for everyone using that spell, and also physical components. The latter plays little role in Pathfinder with the generalised pouch, but used to be a huge clue in old AD&D - if a mage got out a glass wand and piece of fur everyone knew it was lightning bolt time.

Now, if magic is done without all that, you lack the clues what exactly is going on, except that it might be magical. Since most items don't have all that ritual when activating their magic, you have no idea what will happen. But as said above, the result often speaks for itself and reveals the flashier items for what they are, even without identifying.

[Thewms]

Vatras wrote:

Yes, when someone casts a spell he is making gestures and uses words which are the same for everyone using that spell, and also physical components. The latter plays little role in Pathfinder with the generalised pouch, but used to be a huge clue in old AD&D - if a mage got out a glass wand and piece of fur everyone knew it was lightning bolt time.

Now, if magic is done without all that, you lack the clues what exactly is going on, except that it might be magical. Since most items don't have all that ritual when activating their magic, you have no idea what will happen. But as said above, the result often speaks for itself and reveals the flashier items for what they are, even without identifying.

Unfortunately, after this FAQ these bolded parts are officially not true.

I bolded the parts I am specifically referring to:

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.

This says that even in the absence of making gestures, using words, or producing a glass wand and piece of fur, I can still make a check to tell a lighting bolt may be heading my way very soon.

Again, I don't understand why items would/should be held to a different standard.

EDIT: My search-fu has picked up today! I found this thread asking similar questions. No concrete answers came of it, though.

[N N 959]

Let's actually look at the text of the skill:

PRD on Spellcraft wrote:

You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells as they are being cast.

Check: Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question. This skill is also used to identify the properties of magic items in your possession through the use of spells such as detect magic and identify. The DC of this check varies depending upon the task at hand.

I think the problem you are having in this discussion is the conflation of two distinct things:

1) The art of casting spells;

2) The manifestations of magic.

Based on the wording of the Spellcraft skill, I would submit that it only applies to the casting of the spell and not specifically to the manifestation of magic. This is in slight conflict with the FAQ, but I believe more accurately reflects the rules.

That having been said, I would argue that any time magic is used, it is obvious to all that are within perception range, even the "uninitiated."

So to answer one of your hypos, using a Hat of Disguise triggers a "manifestation of magic," obvious to all, but that is not sufficient for using Spellcraft to identify the spell. So someone knows the wearer just used magic, but Spellcraft doesn't tell them what spell was used.

Taking this a step further, it's important to understand that there are universe sized gaping holes Pathfinder when it comes to the social implications of magic. There have been many discussions on what the decorum is on casting spells at social events and opinions are as many as the blades of grass on the planet. Some liken it to using a cell phone at a dinner party and some compare it to pulling out a gun.

In my opinion, there is no sensible answer because the framework within which the question is asked is completely contrived. Essentially, people are trying to insert Pathfinder magic into Western Society without any understanding of what that magic would have done to culture from Day One. If the magic in Pathfinder was part of human existence from the get go, culture would be NOTHING like it is today. Our society would be nothing like it is. Our ENTIRE culture would be magic-centric and there would be a fundamental difference as cultures evolved to handle it.

Consider the simple Adept NPC class, which among others, has these spell: Create Water, Mending, and Purify food and Drink. These three spells alone, which can be casts by Adepts without limit, would have have global impact. Allow just these three spells to be a part of human existence and consider the impact from early civilization. Then add Cure Light Wounds and it all just goes sideways.

[thejeff]

Thewms wrote:

Well I'll be! I didn't know that Spellcraft check happened over 3 rounds. You learn something new everyday

Technically, the Spellcraft check only takes one round, but it takes 3 rounds for detect magic to reach the point where you can do it.

If you're working on multiple items, you can try to id them once per round, starting in the 3rd round of studying them with Detect Magic.

[Thewms]

N N 959 wrote:

Let's actually look at the text of the skill:

PRD on Spellcraft wrote:

You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells as they are being cast.

Check: Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question. This skill is also used to identify the properties of magic items in your possession through the use of spells such as detect magic and identify. The DC of this check varies depending upon the task at hand.

I think the problem you are having in this discussion is the conflation of two distinct things:

1) The art of casting spells;

2) The manifestations of magic.

Based on the wording of the Spellcraft skill, I would submit that it only applies to the casting of the spell and not specifically to the manifestation of magic. This is in slight conflict with the FAQ, but I believe more accurately reflects the rules.

That having been said, I would argue that any time magic is used, it is obvious to all that are within perception range, even the "uninitiated."

So to answer one of your hypos, using a Hat of Disguise triggers a "manifestation of magic," obvious to all, but that is not sufficient for using Spellcraft to identify the spell. So someone knows the wearer just used magic, but Spellcraft doesn't tell them what spell was used.

Taking this a step further, it's important to understand that there are universe sized gaping holes Pathfinder when it comes to the social implications of magic. There have been many discussions on what the decorum is on casting spells at social events and opinions are as many as the blades of grass on the planet. Some liken it to using a cell phone at a dinner party and some compare it to pulling out a gun.

In my opinion, there is no sensible answer because the framework within which the question is asked is completely contrived. Essentially, people are trying...

You make many good points (including the cell phone vs. drawn gun, which could be an interesting discussion on its own!)

This perhaps is going to fall prey to another "because that's the way it is" sorts of answers. I won't push further unless someone is interested in continuing the conversation about it.

Thanks for the input, all!

[Vatras]

I forgot to ask before: what is the point of identifying spells in items?
You cannot do anything about it, and you often get to see the results. Is it curiosity? Or the wish to know in advance what someone else has at his disposal?

[Thewms]

thejeff wrote:

Thewms wrote:

Well I'll be! I didn't know that Spellcraft check happened over 3 rounds. You learn something new everyday

Technically, the Spellcraft check only takes one round, but it takes 3 rounds for detect magic to reach the point where you can do it.

If you're working on multiple items, you can try to id them once per round, starting in the 3rd round of studying them with Detect Magic.

Hmm...

Detect Magic wrote:

3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura: DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + 1/2 caster level for a nonspell effect.) If the aura emanates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft)

Spellcraft Skill wrote:

Attempting to ascertain the properties of a magic item takes 3 rounds per item to be identified and you must be able to thoroughly examine the object.

I can see how these could be interpreted as being the same 3 rounds but the "...per item" makes me think otherwise. Why include that if once those three rounds from D.M. are finished you can identify items in only a single round? If multiple items are caught in that 60ft cone, then the 3 rounds needed from D.M. are happening simultaneously, are they not?

[Daw]

I have a serious quibble with a basic assumption a lot of people are going by.

The same spell is always cast with the same gestures, the same words...

Doesn't this fly in the face of the basic fact that you can have wizards of not even vaguely humanoid races?

[N N 959]

Daw wrote:

I have a serious quibble with a basic assumption a lot of people are going by.

The same spell is always cast with the same gestures, the same words...

Doesn't this fly in the face of the basic fact that you can have wizards of not even vaguely humanoid races?

Math is the same no matter what language you learn it in. GIven every single spell operates in the same way, regardless of any individual specifics, it stands to reason that spells are essentially discoveries of the Weave. Magic Missile is triggered by a specific set of gestures and words and that is true no matter who or what you are.

That is why Spellcraft works on everyone who casts spells.

Translation: Everyone caster, of the same level, who casts Magic Missile does the exact same thing when casting it.

[Thewms]

Vatras wrote:

I forgot to ask before: what is the point of identifying spells in items?

You cannot do anything about it, and you often get to see the results. Is it curiosity? Or the wish to know in advance what someone else has at his disposal?

I suppose it is a combination of both. Before this FAQ, I believed that a combination of SLAs and Items could be used to create mysterious effects.

For example: The was an instance where there were twin sister wizards my players were facing. One was invisible and causing havoc while the other stayed visible and drew attention. When the visible sister became quite injured she defensively used an Invisibility SLA followed by her sister becoming visible, creating an illusion of her teleporting away and not giving away that there were indeed 2 of them.

[Thewms]

N N 959 wrote:

Daw wrote:

I have a serious quibble with a basic assumption a lot of people are going by.

The same spell is always cast with the same gestures, the same words...

Doesn't this fly in the face of the basic fact that you can have wizards of not even vaguely humanoid races?

Math is the same no matter what language you learn it in. GIven every single spell operates in the same way, regardless of any individual specifics, it stands to reason that spells are essentially discoveries of the Weaver. Magic Missile is triggered by a specific set of gestures and words and that is true no matter who or what you are. That is why Spellcraft works on everyone who casts spells.

Well, it could be interpreted that, if your GM like magicy runes appearing around caster, the runes are the same across casters. I like the idea of being able to invoke spells in different ways. It could add some neat individual flavor to a caster.

EDIT:

Some flavor from a Manga called Negima!:

Activation Key
An Activation Key (始動キー, Kidō Kī) is particular to western magic, this is a specific type of incantation unique to each mage that precedes usage of magic – a password. Taking the ‘power of words’ further, the phrase doesn’t have to make sense or even be in a real language, as long as it feels ‘natural’ to the mage. It is considered a requirement for a proper mage and the setting of one’s activation key is a lengthy ritual.

Activation keys are spoken before the main incantation, but they can be skipped for simple spells. However, what exactly a “simple” spell is depends on the level of the mage; the more capable the mage, the more easily he will be able to cast powerful spells without needing his activation key.

Practe bigi nar is the general activation key used by novices before becoming full-fledged mages.

Some of the known activation keys are as follows:

Negi Springfield: Ras tel Ma Scir Magister
Nagi Springfield, "The Thousand Master": Man Man Terro Terro
Evangeline A.K. McDowell: Lic Lac La Lac Lilac
Chao Lingshen: Last Tale My Magic Skill Magister
Mei Sakura: Maple Naple À La Mode
Natsume Megumi, "Nutmeg": Lapp Chapp La Chapp Lugpool
Kataragi: Dig Dir Dilic Volholl
Fate Averruncus: висю тал ли сютал вангэит (Visju Tal Li Sjutal Vangèit)
Thurdonzi: Nettos Natos Nayatos
Mitsuru Nijuin: Nicman Pizaman Fuchahireman! (Nikuman (steamed pork bun), pizaman (pizza-like steamed bun), fukahireman (steamed shark-fin bun))
Yue Ayase: Foa Zo Cratica Socratica (apparent reference to herself as a philosopher) [[1]]
Collette Farandole: Annet Ti Net Garnet
Emily Sevensheep: Tarot Carrot Charlotte
J Von Katze: Haiti Mighty Wendy
S Du Chat: Pacnam Tinuts Coconuts
Anya Cocolova: Fortis La Tius Lilith Lilioth
Beatrix Monroe: Mintir Mintis Freesia
Nii: Mera Lega Mera Sad Nasi Goreng
Septendecim: Aquari Eterna Dead Sea
Konoemon Konoe: Murakumo Rurakumo Yakumotatsu
Albireo Imma: Papryus Tarpis Ron Jinkou

[Daw]

I was going to comment that a wizard without arms/hands or a spoken voice...

I realized that invalidating whatever unspoken reason that makes identifying magic from its manifestation a horrible thing is not going to happen. Sorry for the annoyance.

Oh, got it, the invisible spellcaster gambit. Sorry again.

[N N 959]

Thewms wrote:

I like the idea of being able to invoke spells in different ways. It could add some neat individual flavor to a caster.

Yes, this is a very common sentiment, unfortunately, it directly conflicts with unavoidable implication of the rules as written.

If I can use Spellcraft to identify Charm Person being cast by a race or creature I've never encountered before, what must logically follow from that fact? Each spells has a specific way it must be cast....regardless of who is casting it.

Not a few posters seem to hate this idea and seem to need to cling or promote a notion that magic casting is mysterious and varied and arcane. Well, it is, if you haven't studied Spellcraft. Once you study the art, you can identify the spell because Magic Missile requires that the caster do certain things.

Now, one can argue that a caster can add flourishes and embellishments that make the casting look different to the "uninitiated," but that doesn't really have any mechanical impact.

[N N 959]

Daw wrote:

I was going to comment that a wizard without arms/hands or a spoken voice...

Logically, you'd think that Silent Spell or Still Spell would increase the difficulty for Spellcrafting. WotC and Paizo both had a chance to take it in that direction. But they didn't. Spellcraft is not affected by Silent Spell or any other feat or ability that removes spell components. This is probably why the FAQ talks about "manifestations" and moves away from the "art" talked about in the Spellcraft skill.

At this point, you have to recognize the rules are focused on serving the gameplay, not the roleplay. What makes sense in "real life" may not induce the experience that the authors are looking to create, so they ignore "reality" and support the game working a certain way. I can't say I've seen a logic or consistency to how Paizo makes these calls, probably because creating game rules is really art when you get down to it.

[Thewms]

N N 959 wrote:

Thewms wrote:

I like the idea of being able to invoke spells in different ways. It could add some neat individual flavor to a caster.

Yes, this is a very common sentiment, unfortunately, it directly conflicts with unavoidable implication of the rules as written.

If I can use Spellcraft to identify Charm Person being cast by a race or creature I've never encountered before, what must logically follow from that fact? Each spells has a specific way it must be cast....regardless of who is casting it.

Not a few posters seem to hate this idea and seem to need to cling or promote a notion that magic casting is mysterious and varied and arcane. Well, it is, if you haven't studied Spellcraft. Once you study the art, you can identify the spell because Magic Missile requires that the caster do certain things.

Now, one can argue that a caster can add flourishes and embellishments that make the casting look different to the "uninitiated," but that doesn't really have any mechanical impact.

I agree with this bolded part! However, like I mentioned above and what is somewhat supported by the FAQ, you don't spellcraft the Materials, the Movements, or the Words Spoken. While spells with Material components do specifically call out what must be used and consumed when casting, specific gestures and words are not. It could be that it would be tedious and time-consuming to try to come up with something original for each spell in these regards but it was intended to be universal OR it could be that it could be different between casters as I said above. Regardless of how you GM/Play your game, I think claiming that a RAW answer exists supporting one way or another for spells casting is simply untrue.

[KingOfAnything]

N N 959 wrote:

Thewms wrote:

I like the idea of being able to invoke spells in different ways. It could add some neat individual flavor to a caster.

Yes, this is a very common sentiment, unfortunately, it directly conflicts with unavoidable implication of the rules as written.

If I can use Spellcraft to identify Charm Person being cast by a race or creature I've never encountered before, what must logically follow from that fact? Each spells has a specific way it must be cast....regardless of who is casting it.

And if we can identify a spell being cast despite there being no outward components or actions? What must logically follow from that fact? The spells manifest in unique ways that are capable of being identified.

I don't think it follows that every caster of levitate must *swish* and *flick*. You can levitate someone or something without the gestures at all. What remains consistent is the near-visible wash of energy and unmistakable smell of goose feathers.

[N N 959]

KingOfAnything wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Thewms wrote:

I like the idea of being able to invoke spells in different ways. It could add some neat individual flavor to a caster.

Yes, this is a very common sentiment, unfortunately, it directly conflicts with unavoidable implication of the rules as written.

If I can use Spellcraft to identify Charm Person being cast by a race or creature I've never encountered before, what must logically follow from that fact? Each spells has a specific way it must be cast....regardless of who is casting it.

And if we can identify a spell being cast despite there being no outward components or actions? What must logically follow from that fact? The spells manifest in unique ways that are capable of being identified.

I don't think it follows that every caster of levitate must *swish* and *flick*. You can levitate someone or something without the gestures at all. What remains consistent is the near-visible wash of energy and unmistakable smell of goose feathers.

Except the skill specifically talks about the "skill of the technical art of casting a spell" and the world "manifestations" doesn't appear in the skill discription ...at all. So clearly there is a "technical art" to spell casting. Yet one only needs to see the spell as its being cast, not necessarily the caster.

Quote:

I don't think it follows that every caster of levitate must *swish* and *flick*. You can levitate someone or something without the gestures at all.

Yes and no. You have to have some feat or ability that allows you to forgo a component. You can argue that the feat or ability provides you a way to compensate in a way that Spellcraft still allows you to identify. Or to put it another way, Spellcraft readily identifies whatever Silent Spell is doing for the verbal portion of the spell.

The reality here is that his is all made up. It doesn't reflect any real world phenomena so it doesn't have to even be internally consistent. The skill can suggest there is an "art" to spellcasting, but then ignore the caster as part of that art???

So getting back to the OP, Pathfinder gives you two contradictory responses:

1. I can identify the spell being caster by the caster based on the manifestations because I only need to see the spell, not necessarily the caster.

and...

2. I cannot identify the magic being cast by an item based on the manifestations because there is no "caster" and there is no "technical art" on display to use Spellcraft on.

Which answer is correct? My answer is ....Yes.

[Agodeshalf]

I would think that sure 2 wizards would cast magic missile the same way, but the unlearned sorcerer or the psychic bloodline sorcerer (psychic magic). Do they really all cast it the same way? However, these manifestations that the FAQ refers to are above and beyond the somantic/verbal or thought/emotion that people think about. Still/Silent or Logical/Intuitive or being invisible won't hide these manifestations and as such spellcraft can be used to figure out what was being cast. To get past those manifestations you have to hide them using conceal spell, and greater conceal spell. Now regarding whether items behave the same as casting a spell, I don't think it's all that clear that they do.

[N N 959]

Thewms wrote:

I think claiming that a RAW answer exists supporting one way or another for spells casting is simply untrue.

Paizo is not going to give a RAW answer because it would be without benefit. Whether two casters use the same gestures or not, its irrelevant from a mechanics point of view. Spellcraft works equally well on everyone. So what if one caster moves her hand side to side instead of up and down? It has zero impact on game mechanics. Paizo answered the most important question and that is just what you stated: Spellcraft is not affected by the presence or lack of components.

What is true is that the "manifestations" or the "technical art" must be the same across all casters for the same spell. You can interpret that to be whatever you want.

[Daw]

God, I hate myself for this.
Spellcraft text:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identify Spell Being Cast

Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

Retry? You cannot retry checks made to identify a spell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It never specifies what it is you are actually looking at, the motions or the manifestations. I would argue that, considering wizards can be from divergent enough forms that common gestures, etc. would be impossible, it is more reasonable to assume that the telltales would be the manifestations, and not the gestures.

NN959 wrote:

Logically, you'd think that Silent Spell or Still Spell would increase the difficulty for Spellcrafting. WotC and Paizo both had a chance to take it in that direction. But they didn't. Spellcraft is not affected by Silent Spell or any other feat or ability that removes spell components. This is probably why the FAQ talks about "manifestations" and moves away from the "art" talked about in the Spellcraft skill.

**** So, wouldn't it be logical to assume then that the words, gestures and components are therefore NOT what you are using to identify the spell? *******

At this point, you have to recognize the rules are focused on serving the gameplay, not the roleplay. What makes sense in "real life" may not induce the experience that the authors are looking to create, so they ignore "reality" and support the game working a certain way. I can't say I've seen a logic or consistency to how Paizo makes these calls, probably because creating game rules is really art when you get down to it.

Possibly true, possibly not, but not relevant in any case. A touch impolite as written.
You are obviously invested in your interpretation, but I don't see that you have made your case, and I don't appear to be in the minority in this.

[Thewms]

N N 959 wrote:

Thewms wrote:

I think claiming that a RAW answer exists supporting one way or another for spells casting is simply untrue.

Paizo is not going to give a RAW answer because it would be without benefit. Whether two casters use the same gestures or not, its irrelevant from a mechanics point of view. Spellcraft works equally well on everyone. So what if one caster moves her hand side to side instead of up and down? It has zero impact on game mechanics. Paizo answered the most important question and that is just what you stated: Spellcraft is not affected by the presence or lack of components.

What is true is that the "manifestations" or the "technical art" must be the same across all casters for the same spell. You can interpret that to be whatever you want.

How funny! This is exactly what i was trying to relay to you in response to...

N N 959 wrote:

Yes, this is a very common sentiment, unfortunately, it directly conflicts with unavoidable implication of the rules as written.

If I can use Spellcraft to identify Charm Person being cast by a race or creature I've never encountered before, what must logically follow from that fact? Each spells has a specific way it must be cast....regardless of who is casting it.

[N N 959]

Daw wrote:

You are obviously invested in your interpretation, but I don't see that you have made your case, and I don't appear to be in the minority in this.

Actually I have. All that matters is the casting of the spell and using Spellcraft on it. If you want to insist that casters cast differently, that's irrelevant to Spellcraft. Whatever constitutes the thing that Spellcraft works on...is the same for all casters, that's all that matters when I roll the check.

[N N 959]

Thewms wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Thewms wrote:

I think claiming that a RAW answer exists supporting one way or another for spells casting is simply untrue.

Paizo is not going to give a RAW answer because it would be without benefit. Whether two casters use the same gestures or not, its irrelevant from a mechanics point of view. Spellcraft works equally well on everyone. So what if one caster moves her hand side to side instead of up and down? It has zero impact on game mechanics. Paizo answered the most important question and that is just what you stated: Spellcraft is not affected by the presence or lack of components.

What is true is that the "manifestations" or the "technical art" must be the same across all casters for the same spell. You can interpret that to be whatever you want.

How funny! This is exactly what i was trying to relay to you in response to...

N N 959 wrote:

Yes, this is a very common sentiment, unfortunately, it directly conflicts with unavoidable implication of the rules as written.

If I can use Spellcraft to identify Charm Person being cast by a race or creature I've never encountered before, what must logically follow from that fact? Each spells has a specific way it must be cast....regardless of who is casting it.

Not sure I follow, but if you want to say that each caster does a bunch of things that have nothing to do with actual spell casting, obviously you can say that. Not sure what that services, but knock yourself out.

[thejeff]

N N 959 wrote:

Thewms wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Thewms wrote:

I think claiming that a RAW answer exists supporting one way or another for spells casting is simply untrue.

Paizo is not going to give a RAW answer because it would be without benefit. Whether two casters use the same gestures or not, its irrelevant from a mechanics point of view. Spellcraft works equally well on everyone. So what if one caster moves her hand side to side instead of up and down? It has zero impact on game mechanics. Paizo answered the most important question and that is just what you stated: Spellcraft is not affected by the presence or lack of components.

What is true is that the "manifestations" or the "technical art" must be the same across all casters for the same spell. You can interpret that to be whatever you want.

How funny! This is exactly what i was trying to relay to you in response to...

N N 959 wrote:

Yes, this is a very common sentiment, unfortunately, it directly conflicts with unavoidable implication of the rules as written.

If I can use Spellcraft to identify Charm Person being cast by a race or creature I've never encountered before, what must logically follow from that fact? Each spells has a specific way it must be cast....regardless of who is casting it.

Not sure I follow, but if you want to say that each caster does a bunch of things that have nothing to do with actual spell casting, obviously you can say that. Not sure what that services, but knock yourself out.

You can use Spellcraft on Still, Silent spells with no material components or ones cast by Druid wild Shaped into a tiny bird or as a spell like ability. It's obviously not the gestures or words you're going by.

That's why they introduced manifestations, to provide an explanation for that.

[N N 959]

thejeff wrote:

You can use Spellcraft on Still, Silent spells with no material components or ones cast by Druid wild Shaped into a tiny bird or as a spell like ability. It's obviously not the gestures or words you're going by.

That's why they introduced manifestations, to provide an explanation for that.

Yeah, already covered that.

[thejeff]

N N 959 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

You can use Spellcraft on Still, Silent spells with no material components or ones cast by Druid wild Shaped into a tiny bird or as a spell like ability. It's obviously not the gestures or words you're going by.

That's why they introduced manifestations, to provide an explanation for that.

Yeah, already covered that.

And thus, there's no need for casters to all cast spells the same way.

[Plausible Pseudonym]

Especially when the have different limbs and vocalization apparatus. An Aboleth's V and S components probably can't be the same as a humanoid.

[Quandary]

thejeff wrote:

You can use Spellcraft on Still, Silent spells with no material components or ones cast by Druid wild Shaped into a tiny bird or as a spell like ability. It's obviously not the gestures or words you're going by.

That's why they introduced manifestations, to provide an explanation for that.

Yeah, I really am baffled why this still provokes discussion, after FAQ made it very clear.

To the OP topic, I'm inclined to believe wands/scrolls/SLAs/etc DO exhibit the same manifestations as normal spellcasting, because the only difference is that you are not including the normal spellcasting components (VSM), but otherwise the same spell is manifesting, if there is some effect which negates spells (but not Su abilities) then wands/scrolls/etc will be affected, so the same spell manifestation should have the same inherent visual spell manifestation phenomena. Su abilities do not have those features.

[N N 959]

thejeff wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

You can use Spellcraft on Still, Silent spells with no material components or ones cast by Druid wild Shaped into a tiny bird or as a spell like ability. It's obviously not the gestures or words you're going by.

That's why they introduced manifestations, to provide an explanation for that.

Yeah, already covered that.

And thus, there's no need for casters to all cast spells the same way.

What ever constitutes the thing that Spellcraft works on...is the same for all casters. So if you want to invent stuff that has nothing to do with Spellcraft and the "technical art of casting a spell" and say all that stuff is different between casters....okay. But by definition, Spellcraft deals with the "technical art of casting a spell," so whatever is left, it's all yours.

[Squiggit]

N N 959 wrote:

Yes, this is a very common sentiment, unfortunately, it directly conflicts with unavoidable implication of the rules as written.

If I can use Spellcraft to identify Charm Person being cast by a race or creature I've never encountered before, what must logically follow from that fact? Each spells has a specific way it must be cast....regardless of who is casting it.

That's.. actually not true at all. All it means is there is some telling identifier that is common among all spellcasters, that's distinctly different than "it must be done in the exact same way for everyone". There merely has to be enough similarity, not completely similarity.

[N N 959]

Squiggit wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Yes, this is a very common sentiment, unfortunately, it directly conflicts with unavoidable implication of the rules as written.

If I can use Spellcraft to identify Charm Person being cast by a race or creature I've never encountered before, what must logically follow from that fact? Each spells has a specific way it must be cast....regardless of who is casting it.

That's.. actually not true at all. All it means is there is some telling identifier that is common among all spellcasters, that's distinctly different than "it must be done in the exact same way for everyone". There merely has to be enough similarity, not completely similarity.

There has to be enough "similarity"? The spells invoked are exactly the same, regardless of the caster, except for spells that have a random component. But Mage Armor cast a millennia ago works exactly the same as the Mage Armor cast tomorrow. Exactly. It uses the same components, regardless. Everything is the same. Spellcraft work across all races, classes, etc. Why? Because Mage Armor is a thing. It's a specific thing that exist and was discovered by casters.

That leads to the inexorable conclusion the casting is the same. In fact, there's nothing in the rulebook that says there is any variation in how spells are cast. Spellcraft works on the "casting" of the spell...so that means it's the same.

You can insist that there are differences, but they have no impact on the game or really in the game for that matter. This is the rules forum and from the perspective of the rules, there's no information you can deny the player based on imagined differences between casters.

[N N 959]

Squiggit wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Yes, this is a very common sentiment, unfortunately, it directly conflicts with unavoidable implication of the rules as written.

If I can use Spellcraft to identify Charm Person being cast by a race or creature I've never encountered before, what must logically follow from that fact? Each spells has a specific way it must be cast....regardless of who is casting it.

That's.. actually not true at all. All it means is there is some telling identifier that is common among all spellcasters, that's distinctly different than "it must be done in the exact same way for everyone". There merely has to be enough similarity, not completely similarity.

Here's another way to view it. Material components for spells are the same across all spells with respect to Divine and Arcane. There are no rules or provisions for substituting or altering the components, except for one's Divine Focus. You can add reagents or you can learn how to cast without material components, but everyone who casts Fireball must use bat guano and sulfur...no variation. So the same would be true of the verbal and somatic components. Each is a specific thing, but obviously the authors aren't going to identify them for the game.