so could my manifestation be that in the next 4d6 hours a quartz rock somewhere on my planet will feel hot for 6 seconds?
|
LOL. So now your insisting that the manifestations are being wielded so that they can remain invisible?...lol. Knock yourself out.
No, I'm insisting that the GM determines everything about the manifestations. Which means that by RAW, the answer to 'can I pinpoint an invisible spellcaster by the manifestations of his spellcasting' is 'depends on your GM'. You rule that manifestations are not covered by invisibiliy and I rule they are and we are both right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to reference the FAQ, you should at least read the entire sentence regarding that.
It was read.
The next time you want to tell someone that it wasn't read? Don't. There are very good reasons for disagreeing with you that don't involve a failure of reading comprehension on other people's parts.
The FAQ strongly implies that the pretty shiny lights are in the characters squares. If you want to say they're invisible along with the caster that more than makes sense, but putting them elsewhere is both not what the faq implies and is abusable (you stand next to someone THEY have all the pretty glowy lights, you cast the spell and blame them). Trying to get a mechanical advantage out of artistic license is munchkiny cheese and you shouldn't be surprised when people don't read the rule to let you do that. Rules intent is a thing.
For the record i don't think it reveals an invisible caster. I would not expect any consistency as to why because I don't think this FAQ was thought thought through in that much depth. It's a drastic change to patch psycic casters from running roughshod over social encounters, messes up more than a few feats (silent spell, still spell, the two you can't see me casting feats), and monster spell like abilities.
|
|
This is the rules forum, not the Rule Zero forum. You don't "wield' spell manifestations.
That was why I put the word in quotations. The rules don't cover that part, so anything we describe is going to be not according to the rules, including your determination that invisibility doesn't cover it. It is literally a simple guideline in a FAQ without backup in the rules, so whatever the GM determines is what goes.
You obviously don't like that result, okay, so rule whatever you want.
I actually don't have a problem with either result. I just went with this stance for the discussion. I'd honestly be likely to say they do give off light, according to the art, which would give away an imprecise position.
Based on the fact that anything not directly carried becomes visible, I see no basis for claiming that the manifestations are covered by invisibility. The manifestations occur separately from the caster.
The FAQ leaves that bolded part up to each table to decide.
If an invisible Summoner calls his Eidolon, would you have the rune on his forehead (a manifestation of the link to his eidolon) floating in empty space, or would you say it's a (new) visible part of his body that is covered by the existing invisibility?
If you want to reference the FAQ, you should at least read the entire sentence regarding that.It was read.
The next time you want to tell someone that it wasn't read? Don't. There are very good reasons for disagreeing with you that don't involve a failure of reading comprehension on other people's parts.
Then don't read it wrong? :) I'll explain that in a moment.
The FAQ strongly implies that the pretty shiny lights are in the characters squares.
Here is your error that I objected to. The FAQ does not say the manifestations are 'pretty shiny lights'. It leaves it entirely up to the play group if they are lights, changes in skin coloration, their tattoos glowing (or changing color) etc.
The artwork showing 'pretty shiny lights' is simply one possibility. One and only one of the possibilities. Not even a strongly implied possibility in preference over other possibilities. You took part of the sentence, ignored the rest of it, then declared it worked based on how part of the sentence read. When in truth, reading the ENTIRE sentence gave an almost exact opposite indication than what you declared as 'the correct' way.
On a side note, early up thread I did suggest the manifestations need not be centered on the caster. I will officially retract that now. I think N N 959 gave a sound logical argument based on spellcraft checks getting harder based on distance like perception. None of that however changes in what form the manifestations manifest in though - still entirely open to GM rule. (Though I believe we are in agreement in general on this given your statement "For the record i don't think it reveals an invisible caster.").
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any interpretation of manifestations that allows you to impose mechanics that are contrary to the rules "IS" wrong. When Spellcraft unambiguously says I need to see the "spell," inventing some fluff that prevents me from seeing the spell because some part of the caster is hidden is in violation of the rules as written and intended.
Given that the rules and FAQ are completely silent on how invisibility interacts with spell manifestations, any ruling on either side has no rules support.
Inventing fluff that lets you pin point the invisible caster is in violation of the rules to the same extent as them being hidden. That is, neither is denied nor supported by the rules.
Since we are dealing with the world of make believe, I'd argue that the intent is for invisibility to conceal the mark even if the eidolon was summoned after the invisibility was cast. But I wouldn't be blown away if the PDT said otherwise.
So we come back to: If the manifestation is that my hair turns blue, how is this different then the eidolon mark.
Spellcraft does not state you GET to see spell manifestations, or that you GET to see a spell being cast. It says that in order to use spellcraft "...you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast". We have to look at other rules to determine if that visibility is possible. Again, rules and FAQ are silent on how invisibility interacts with this.
Then don't read it wrong? :) I'll explain that in a moment.
It wasn't read wrong either
Here is your error that I objected to. The FAQ does not say the manifestations are 'pretty shiny lights'. It leaves it entirely up to the play group if they are lights, changes in skin coloration, their tattoos glowing (or changing color) etc.
And the mistake you're making is assuming that it should matter which of those it is when mechanically they all function the same way, because you should not be able to get a mechanical advantage out of a flavor decision. Moving the effect into another square has a lot of mechanical repercussions.
None of that however changes in what form the manifestations manifest in though - still entirely open to GM rule. (Though I believe we are in agreement in general on this given your statement "For the record i don't think it reveals an invisible caster.").
The form is irrelevant. Pretty shiny lights should work just like your hair changing color or getting swirly hypnotic eyes.
And the mistake you're making is assuming that it should matter which of those it is when mechanically they all function the same way, because you should not be able to get a mechanical advantage out of a flavor decision. Moving the effect into another square has a lot of mechanical repercussions.
But you should suffer a mechanical disadvantage because of it?
Though when you state "Moving the effect into another square has a lot of mechanical repercussions." right after I stated "On a side note, early up thread I did suggest the manifestations need not be centered on the caster. I will officially retract that now.", and you wonder why I question whether you are actually reading everything?? :)
Ah, you've actually misunderstood my position.
In truth I think we are actually in agreement. However it works, it should work consistently. Either it doesn't reveal the caster for ALL casters in the game, or it does reveal the caster for ALL casters in the game. And not one way for some and the other way for others.
But which way that gets ruled play group to play group may vary.
|
|
The form is irrelevant. Pretty shiny lights should work just like your hair changing color or getting swirly hypnotic eyes.
Why? As long as the ruling is made in advance, why does it matter?
I could perfectly see an Avatar-style character activating lightning powers while invisible and describing the glowing eyes flaring and fading from sight, while at the same time declaring wind powers summoning a breeze that does nothing to pinpoint the characters location.
The form is irrelevant. Pretty shiny lights should work just like your hair changing color or getting swirly hypnotic eyes.Why? As long as the ruling is made in advance, why does it matter?
Because then you'd have to decide how every effect worked, and there are a LOT of effects in the game.
I suppose you could break it down by school? Give it a little variety without needing to add an entire volume of sticky notes. Abjurations don't till you hit them, conjurations show up as a summoning circle around the target, transmutations are visible on the target, evocations make crackling lights around you, enchantments give you hypno swirly eyes...
But you should suffer a mechanical disadvantage because of it?PDT made a ruling. You can't hide spell casting, not even from the "uninitiated." Which is what people were trying to do. So this mechanical disadvantage was decided a long time ago.
...in normal social settings, because of psychic components. They didn't decide whether to change the existing rules for invisible spellcasting, and left a window of choice so that people can go either way.
|
|
Because then you'd have to decide how every effect worked, and there are a LOT of effects in the game.
No, you'd only have to decide what actually will come up in play. Invisible spellcasters don't happen all the time, and they don't use a lot of spells. (If they do, they're either really lucky or PCs, and then you know exactly how many spells you need to decide on.) Really, you just need to decide how each spellcaster that uses invisibility manifests, which isn't that much, because they tend to not last longer than one combat.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PDT made a ruling. You can't hide spell casting, not even from the "uninitiated."
When you're doing it out in the open. The FAQ is meant to address the 'I can SLA anyone at the party and no one will know it is me' problem. It does not address casting while invisible.
Because then you'd have to decide how every effect worked, and there are a LOT of effects in the game.No, you'd only have to decide what actually will come up in play. Invisible spellcasters don't happen all the time
They're really really common. There's a reason Doyle never left batform. (except the one time he left batform. And then there were invisible ROGUES)
and they don't use a lot of spells. (If they do, they're either really lucky or PCs, and then you know exactly how many spells you need to decide on.) Really, you just need to decide how each spellcaster that uses invisibility manifests, which isn't that much, because they tend to not last longer than one combat.
If you make it an individual thing, why wouldn't every spellcaster go for the least obtrusive spellcasting possible?
Really, you just need to decide how each spellcaster that uses invisibility manifests, which isn't that much, because they tend to not last longer than one combat.
It would seem a little inconsistant, or a little unfair if the enemy spellcasters could but the party wizard couldn't.
It would seem a little inconsistant, or a little unfair if the enemy spellcasters could but the party wizard couldn't.That's an issue with the GM.
*headscratch*
Yes would be a huge game changer on invisibility. I'm not going to say it's not needed but its kind of late for that sort of change at this point.
No you can't see them would be the way everyone's been running it for years, but make you wonder how you could identify the spell at all. I really don't think it's that big of a deal to handwave "feeling" or seeing the magical emanations or something.
Some casters do and some casters don't is a little inconsistent and arbitrary, no matter how the dm breaks it up.
Some effects do and some don't is either going to be a VERY long list , or decided on the spot. You'd have to list everything the party wizard takes along with anything they even think of taking.
Doing it by school would be a middle ground, you get some weird corner cases but would generally work. But invisibility is ubiquitous enough that it would power the schools that work with it and underpower the ones that don't by a fair degree.
No you can't see them would be the way everyone's been running it for years, but make you wonder how you could identify the spell at all.By being able to see it?
I guesse if the target started getting swirly lights and hypno eyes?
A photon torpedo would show the caster's location though
Or you can just go with the likely intent and not let Spellcraft identify the spell if you can't see the caster.
The FAQ was directed at subtle social spell casting - "No one can tell I just Silently Charmed the King" - not invisible battle casting.
I don't think invisibility or being around a corner is supposed to shutdown spellcraft/counterspelling completely.
Actually, being around a corner does shut down counterspelling.
If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.If you don't have line of effect, the target isn't in range.
dark and stormy night then?
I just feel the necessary light of an outsider is needed here.
this topic is dumb.
|
In a recent game I threw a powerful witch at my players. Said witch, knowing the PCs had access to see invisibility, used dust of disappearance prolifically during the battle (which allows invisibility, and specifically defeats see invisibility).
When the witch later cast a spell, my players demanded to know his exact position (that is, grid square), citing that the FAQ made it clear that the magical manifestations generated from spellcasting are easily observable by all. They further claimed that, per the rules for invisibility, light sources (such as the glowing runes of spellcasting sometimes portrayed in Paizo's art) could not be hidden by invisibility effects.
I denied them this knowledge, and instead allowed them to make Perception checks to try and pinpoint the caster's square by sound (as he made no attempt to conceal his voice). They were less than pleased, but the game moved on.
What does the RAW have to say about this? Can you actually locate spellcasters via their spellcasting while they are invisible? Does nothing short of a high, opaque wall and a deaf target keep others from realizing you are casting a spell?
If you look up the perception rules, essentially, noticing an invisible creature is a perception check with +20 to the DC. +40 if the invisible creature is stationary. I think a caster using somatic spells, isn't stationary, so is only +20 to the perception DC.
If an invisible creature isn't attempting to be stealthy (like talking normally, perhaps as a verbal spell component), I'd say they didn't roll stealth that turn, so the DC to notice them is just DC 20.
If the invisible creature tries to be stealthy while casting, then I'd use a stealth roll to add to that DC. GM could impose defensive casting to represent the focus on stealth AND casting, but that would be relative to the situation and not something I'd impose every time.
Non-somatic spells would get the full +40, provided the creature wasn't moving also.
PS: Just because you can't see the invincible target, doesn't mean you can't use sight to locate them. You can't see them, but you can see their impact on their surroundings, which with high perception, should be enough to know where they are. That said, they are still transparent, so you can't see colors on the creature, or read books they are holding, and so forth.
I'm not sure what's worse. When people whining for an FAQ response don't get one, or when they get one they disagree with. With how bloody annoying the backlash on this one is I wouldn't be surprised if the PDT stopped answering these more difficult questions.
What was dumb was releasing a FAQ that didn't bother to describe what happens in the case of an invisible spellcaster.
yes
my poitn exactly, the rules currently are vague, really vague, I'm all for people getting another FAQ but only because it is vague, neither side is right because of how vague it is.
to top it all off, the perception rules don't even say that when you beat the DC you know the location of the target, only that you noticed them.
if someone is behind an opaque screen and is yelling at the top of their lungs, you notice the screaming, you don't get insight to their exact square.