Joshua9093 wrote: N N 959 wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Because visibility of the caster is a binary yes/no. 'You must be able to see the spell as it is cast'. How can you see the spell if the caster is invisible? 'The manifestations are visible'? The FAQ does not establish that. Sickened state affects just about every thing a character does, including Ability Checks. It even affect CMB. But guess what? It doesn't affect CMD. Even though CMD is dependent on STR and DEX modifiers. And even though STR and DEX modifiers are the only modifiers in an their respective Ability Checks. Somehow Sickened makes you weaker at STR and DEX but doesn't make you worse at CMD which is partially dependent on STR and DEX.
The rules do what they state. Spellcraft needs to see the spell, not the caster. Seeing the caster or not seeing the caster is irrelevant per RAW. You don't think it makes logical sense? Well, get in line. Because there's a small ...no, make that large army of things that don't make logical sense in PF and yet that's how they work.
No free lunch for invisible casters. Once again you are confusing mechanics within a flawed argument. Everything YOUR character does involving a d20 is penalized by being sickened. It does not affect what other players do to you, hence why your AC and CMD is unaffected. It's really that simple. I can choose to stab you, and the mechanics remain the same. If I choose to cast a spell on you, YOU have to actively resist it, hence the penalty kicks in. To try and correlate this with your other argument is a fallacy. You don't really have any clue what you're talking about.
Your CMD determines whether you get to make an AoO on someone moving through squares you threaten. Someone moving through an area I threaten must beat my CMD to avoid my attacking them. If I take ability damage to STR or DEX, then this reduces my CMD and makes it easier for someone to avoid me. Yet, if I am sickened, weaker at all my STR and DEX checks in exactly the same way as taking ability damage, this has no effect on my CMD. Why? Because the game can name a penalty to an Ability checks without actually penalizing the underlying ability. A contrivance, and one of many things in Pathfinder that are totally nonsensical but result from an arbitrary or rather artistic sense of how the game should play. In the same way, the game differentiates between seeing a spell and seeing the caster. What makes logical sense is too often irrelevant when it comes to rules mechanics.
thejeff wrote: The FAQ was directed at subtle social spell casting - "No one can tell I just Silently Charmed the King" - not invisible battle casting. You're suggesting that the PDT had no concept that someone might actually try and cast a spell while invisible and that someone might want to use Spellcraft on that spell. You're also suggesting that somehow the PDT intended for manifestations to made invisible by invisibility, when nothing in the any rulebook suggests that would be true and yet the PDT didn't bother to clarify it.
The burden of proof is on the group insisting that that being invisible makes manifestations invisible because there's nothing that suggests that except for wishful thinking that when Spellcraft explicitly says you need to see the "spell," somehow the authors meant caster. There is no link or rule that suggests the caster being visible or invisible has any effect on Spellcraft. What is clear is that if I am in a dark room and don't have darkvision, I can't use Spellcraft. If I am blinded, I can't use Spellcraft. If the caster is not in my LOS, I can't use Spellcraft. If the caster is 10,000 ft away, the modifiers is going to make Spellcraft pretty unlikely. That's how Perception affects Spellcraft.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
How does it not make sense that you can see a spell being cast but not the caster. Imagine somebody firing a gun in a dark room. You can't see the person but you sure as hell can see that gun go off.
Not just replace 'gun' with 'spell'.
I'm not even saying that has to be the case. I'm with TOZ and the others that say it's basically up to GM interpretation. Talk to your GM, talk to your players, agree on how magic manifests in a way that makes the game enjoyable for everybody involved. Yes, sometimes the legitimate RAW answer to a rules question is "Ask your GM". Believe it or not, the game of Pathfinder cannot function without a GM. Human interpretation is required. The nature of the game makes it impossible for a computer to run the game because the rules can often be vague and/or incomplete. If you have a problem with a rule, instead of twisting words to get a perverted interpretation of the rules to benefit yourself, talk to the people you are playing with like they are rational human beings and come to a conclusion. It's ok if the entire internet doesn't agree with you. Just find a point where you agree with the people you actually interact with.
Joshua9093 wrote: Murdock Mudeater wrote: I think a caster using somatic spells, isn't stationary, so is only +20 to the perception DC.
This is the only part I would disagree with. If I'm sitting on the couch, but use a hand gesture to call my dog to me, did I become less stationary? I would say no. Generally, I would say, if what you do is confined to your 5-foot square, you would be considered stationary, ie hand waving isn't enough to incur a -20 penalty for you, or a +20 to your opponent effectively. I've always thought of the somatic components as "waving your body about" hence, why armor interferes with it. I'd say the motion involved is equal to running in place.
If it's just a small hand gesture, then I agree with you. Though I don't really think heavy armor should impair small hand gestures...
TOZ wrote: N N 959 wrote: 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. That FAQ is meant to address a number of things, one of which is people trying to deny Spellcraft checks or impose penalties in the absence of components. The FAQ unequivocally affirms that Spellcraft is independent of any actions taken by the caster as it is strictly and wholly dependent on the "manifestations." Their word, not mine. Since the term is not defined, it takes on the real world meaning:
Merriam Webster on Manifestation wrote: : a sign that shows something clearly Spell casting creates a sign that clearly shows a spell is being cast. That's it. Spell caster invisible? Irrelevant. The manifestation results from the casting of the spell.
N N 959 wrote:
Technically it doesn't reveal the caster. It reveals which square the caster was in at the time of the casting. The caster may still be invisible. The caster hasn't been "pinpointed." If you haven't Readied an action to shoot the square with the manifestation, then you have no certainty as to where the caster actually is.
You are confused about these rules as well. In Pathfinder, knowing which square the caster is in is the equivalent of having pinpointed them. The two are one and the same.
From the section on special abilities, Invisibility wrote:
It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance).
Otherwise, all you keep doing in this thread is begging the question. Stating that the FAQ makes clear that spell manifestations are always visible, no matter what. But that is the very point of the question being asked. You can't claim your assumed answer to the question as proof of the correct answer to the question.
What TOZ, Ozy, myself, and others are asking you to provide is some other rule, FAQ, or even developer commentary that supports your claim that your assumed answer has more merit than the opposition.
bbangerter wrote: You are confused about these rules as well. In Pathfinder, knowing which square the caster is in is the equivalent of having pinpointed them. The two are one and the same. I'm not confused about anything. You've pinpointed the square the caster was in at the time of casting. If the caster moves after the spell is cast, then you don't know where the caster is. Yes, if I can time my attack to trigger on manifestation, then it functions as if I've pinpointed the caster. But there is a distinction as the benefit of seeing the manifestation is time dependent. In addition, if there is a way to some future book to displace the manifestation, then you haven't pinpointed the caster.
If I pick a square at random and the caster is in that square, then it functions as though I have pinpointed the caster. But technically...I haven't.
Quote: Otherwise, all you keep doing in this thread is begging the question. Stating that the FAQ makes clear that spell manifestations are always visible, no matter what. But that is the very point of the question being asked. You can't claim your assumed answer to the question as proof of the correct answer to the question. There seems to be a lot of confusion on your end. The FAQ states that casting spells creates manifestations. It's 100% provable that those manifestations occur in the square of the caster, you've agreed to that. Nothing in the rule book says Invisibility stops manifestations from appearing. Ergo, once you cast a spell, I know what square the caster is in at the exact time of casting. There's nothing circular about that logic. Repeatedly claiming it's circular doesn't make it so.
Your fallacy is pretending that invisibility makes manifestations invisible when nothing says that. I don't need to prove your assertion is false because nothing says that its true. You and others are simply making it up try and support the conclusion you want: invisible casters get to run around and cast without detection. Sorry.
Quote: What TOZ, Ozy, myself, and others are asking you to provide is some other rule, FAQ, or even developer commentary that supports your claim that your assumed answer has more merit than the opposition. There is no burden on me to prove something that isn't stated, isn't true. Your asking me to provide proof that something which doesn't happen per the rules....doesn't happen. Your entire argument rests on the fallacy that I need to see the caster or that invisibility hides manifestations. This reminds me of the FAQ on the DC to jump 10'. People kept insisting you have to jump 11 feet to make a 10' jump. There is nothing in the rules that stated this, but people just kept insisting this was true.
None of this is ambiguous because the rules are clear: I need to see the "spell" not the caster. All spells create manifestation. Nothing about invisibility makes manifestations invisible.
Your claim is that all manifestations must be visible manifestations.
That is specified exactly nowhere. Your reference to spellcraft is begging the question.
N N 959 wrote: It's 100% provable that those manifestations occur in the square of the caster, you've agreed to that. Nothing in the rule book says Invisibility stops manifestations from appearing. Ergo, once you cast a spell, I know what square the caster is in at the exact time of casting. There's nothing circular about that logic. Repeatedly claiming it's circular doesn't make it so. You have an entire building of claims that you have not proved at all. Enjoy your not proved proofs I guess?
_Ozy_ wrote: Your claim is that all manifestations must be visible manifestations.
That is specified exactly nowhere. Your reference to spellcraft is begging the question.
FAQ on spellcraft wrote: 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 Not sure what you're disconnect is, but all manifestations must be visible because Spellcraft says you must be able to "see" the spell. It doesn't say hear or smell or touch or feel. It says "see." Since there is no spell that I cannot use Spellcraft on, it's an unavoidable fact that all manifestations must have a visual component that Spellcraft works on.
N N 959 wrote:
Your fallacy is pretending that invisibility makes manifestations invisible when nothing says that.
You are misunderstanding me. I'm not making that assertion. I'm making the assertion that the rules are silent on the issue and a GM would be within their right to rule either way on this without explicitly changing the rules.
Spellcraft says you must be able to see a spell as it is being cast. Neither the rules nor FAQ tell us if you can see a spell being cast by an invisible caster can be seen. They are silent on the issue.
N N 959 wrote:
All spells create manifestation.
I agree.
If its dark can I see the manifestation? I don't know. Ask your GM if manifestations of magic in his campaign world give off light.
If the manifestations make the casters clothes go temporarily invisible could someone spot that if the caster was already invisible? Probably not.
If the manifestations cause red swirls of mist to encircle the caster would they still be visible on an invisible caster? Probably - they would if I ruled that as the manifestation. But again, ask your GM, he may feel differently.
If the manifestation is that my hair grows an extra three feet in length, or my nose extends two inches, or I temporarily grow 3' taller, and I am invisible, could someone spot that? Again, probably not.
N N 959 wrote:
I need to see the "spell" not the caster.
Again I agree.
But you need to define under what conditions the spell is visible and under what conditions it is not. The rules are silent on the matter.
Nicos wrote: N N 959 wrote: It's 100% provable that those manifestations occur in the square of the caster, you've agreed to that. Nothing in the rule book says Invisibility stops manifestations from appearing. Ergo, once you cast a spell, I know what square the caster is in at the exact time of casting. There's nothing circular about that logic. Repeatedly claiming it's circular doesn't make it so. You have an entire building of claims that you have not proved at all. Enjoy your not proved proofs I guess? bbangerter wrote: 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. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
N N 959 wrote: Nicos wrote: N N 959 wrote: It's 100% provable that those manifestations occur in the square of the caster, you've agreed to that. Nothing in the rule book says Invisibility stops manifestations from appearing. Ergo, once you cast a spell, I know what square the caster is in at the exact time of casting. There's nothing circular about that logic. Repeatedly claiming it's circular doesn't make it so. You have an entire building of claims that you have not proved at all. Enjoy your not proved proofs I guess? bbangerter wrote: 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. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Why are you quoting two different people and making a single comment on it. I'm not sure what you are getting at?
N N 959 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Your claim is that all manifestations must be visible manifestations.
That is specified exactly nowhere. Your reference to spellcraft is begging the question.
FAQ on spellcraft wrote: 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 Not sure what you're disconnect is, but all manifestations must be visible because Spellcraft says you must be able to "see" the spell. It doesn't say hear or smell or touch or feel. It says "see." Since there is no spell that I cannot use Spellcraft on, it's an unavoidable fact that all manifestations must have a visual component that Spellcraft works on. There are spells you can't use spellcraft on. That would be spells that you can't see.
Spells around a corner, spells inside an obscuring mist, and so on. Now, since we have established that there are indeed spells for which you can't use spellcraft on, saying that manifestations MUST be visible because spellcraft guarantees that you can make a check no matter what is manifestly false.
Q.E.D.
bbangerter wrote: I'm making the assertion that the rules are silent on the issue and a GM would be within their right to rule either way on this without explicitly changing the rules. The rules do not have to address something that is not indispute. The rules don't state that if my hands are wet, or dirty, or greasy, it affects my to hit modifier. There's nothing in the rules that says anyone who is wet suffers a penalty on attacks. So asking me to prove to you that being wet does not impose a penalty is impossible. But by your logic, that allows the GM to impose a penalty for being wet. Sure, but its a house rule.
Quote: Spellcraft says you must be able to see a spell as it is being cast. Neither the rules nor FAQ tell us if you can see a spell being cast by an invisible caster can be seen. They are silent on the issue. The FAQ is not silent. It says that the spell creates a manifestation. All of them. Since invisibility doesn't make your spell manifestations invisible and it has no effect on Spellcraft, the FAQ doesn't need to address it directly because it's a non-issue. Insisting that there is some interaction when nothing in the rules says that one exists is simply house ruling.
Quote: If its dark can I see the manifestation? I don't know. Ask your GM if manifestations of magic in his campaign world give off light. They don't. We know this because Perception checks are affected by lighting. If a manifestation gave off light, then it would modify the Perception check in darkness. What's more, we know that the manifestations must operate uniformly, so it doesn't matter which spell is cast, they all have the same inherent non-Perception modifier.
Quote: If the manifestations make the casters clothes go temporarily invisible could someone spot that if the caster was already invisible? Probably not.
If the manifestations cause red swirls of mist to encircle the caster would they still be visible on an invisible caster? Probably - they would if I ruled that as the manifestation. But again, ask your GM, he may feel differently.
If the manifestation is that my hair grows an extra three feet in length, or my nose extends two inches, or I temporarily grow 3' taller, and I am invisible, could someone spot that? Again, probably not.
You're reverted back to your old tricks. Nothing in the GMs choice of manifestations can provide an advantage or disadvantage for Spellcraft. You can't deny someone a Spellcraft check because the person is wearing invisible clothes or the caster's face is covered.
Quote: But you need to define under what conditions the spell is visible and under what conditions it is not. The rules are silent on the matter. The rules are not silent on that matter. The rules unequivocally state that whatever affects Perception checks to "see" the "spell" as it is being cast modifies Spellcraft. To repeat myself, casting a spell inside an obscuring mist would make a Spellcraft impossible. Whatever stops or impedes a person's ability to see the square of the caster at the time of casting would affect Spellcraft.
Daw wrote: We all know that a wizards power comes from the myriad rules lawyers unflagging and heroic devotion to maintaining this superiority.
Actually it comes from the rules and how they have been used over the past 12+ years or so.
The fact that it stays that way is due to it not being as nearly as much as a problem in actual play as it does in theory so there has been no hard attempt by the majority to do much about it.
N N 959 wrote: Nicos wrote: You reached your point 4 by a circular argument. No, it's not. It's a restatement of the previous arguments. Manifestations have to occur at the point of the casting. Ergo, the caster must be in that square. Show me the rules quote that says this. Show me the rules quote which says it must be visible also. Your other points were pretty good, I must admit.
_Ozy_ wrote:
There are spells you can't use spellcraft on. That would be spells that you can't see.
Spells around a corner, spells inside an obscuring mist, and so on. Now, since we have established that there are indeed spells for which you can't use spellcraft on, saying that manifestations MUST be visible because spellcraft guarantees that you can make a check no matter what is manifestly false.
Q.E.D.
My statement that manifestations must be visible is stating that Spellcraft works on a visual aspect, not on any other sense. So the Perception modifiers are strictly those which affect sight. Being deaf has no effect on Spellcraft. You're attempting to take my statement that one"must be able to see" as my stating that nothing prevents someone from seeing. Nevermind that I already posted several times that things which stop you from seeing the square of the spell stops you from using Spellcraft.
So I'm not sure what your arguing or what your point is.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
I guess we're all just wondering what rules you are using to say that invisibility isn't one of those things that stop you from seeing the spell.
"Invisibility doesn't say it makes the spell invisible" isn't very convincing.
TriOmegaZero wrote: I guess we're all just wondering what rules you are using to say that invisibility isn't one of those things that stop you from seeing the spell.
"Invisibility doesn't say it makes the spell invisible" isn't very convincing.
On what basis are you asserting manifestations from an invisible caster are invisible?
N N 959 wrote: Nothing in the GMs choice of manifestations can provide an advantage or disadvantage for Spellcraft. Again I agree.
Is not having a spell casters position revealed because he cast a spell a serious disadvantage? Or a serious advantage to an observer?
All that needs to happen here is that the GM rule consistently, on one side or the other of the issue. Then either all casters (both PC and NPC) get the advantage. Or all observers (both PC and NPC) get the advantage, depending on which side the GM rules on.
N N 959 wrote: thejeff wrote: The FAQ was directed at subtle social spell casting - "No one can tell I just Silently Charmed the King" - not invisible battle casting. You're suggesting that the PDT had no concept that someone might actually try and cast a spell while invisible and that someone might want to use Spellcraft on that spell. You're also suggesting that somehow the PDT intended for manifestations to made invisible by invisibility, when nothing in the any rulebook suggests that would be true and yet the PDT didn't bother to clarify it.
If you are suggesting the PDT never answers an FAQ, without giving an a bride to decide on related situations then I can tell you that there are a few FAQ's that have been FAQ'd, and some that led to more FAQ's that exist right now.
Even if they did think of it they didn't address it. You might feel like they did, but nothing in there touches on being invisible. The point of the FAQ was to stop people from using magic in the open with nobody knowing. Which reminds me that I think I made a similar FAQ with regard to SU's that needs an answer.
Nothing says anything about a location being given away. Nothing also says the manifestion must be visible, and you have no direct quotes that prove it. You are using string your opinions together to prove a point, which I have no problem with. However, you must realize that without direct verbage saying _______ that you won't convince anyone in this case.
N N 959 wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: I guess we're all just wondering what rules you are using to say that invisibility isn't one of those things that stop you from seeing the spell.
"Invisibility doesn't say it makes the spell invisible" isn't very convincing.
On what basis are you asserting manifestations from an invisible caster are invisible? On the basis that what actually constitutes a manifestation is left up to a group of players (and ultimately their GM) to determine. I've already shown you numerous possibilities that could be counted as a manifestation. Some that would be invisible under invisibility, and others that would not. But all of which would be visible on a visible caster.
EDIT: Your entire argument seems to be hinged on an assumption of what a manifestation is, of which you've taken a very narrow perspective on allowable manifestations - which the FAQ very explicitly leaves wide open.
N N 959 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Your claim is that all manifestations must be visible manifestations.
That is specified exactly nowhere. Your reference to spellcraft is begging the question.
FAQ on spellcraft wrote: 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 Not sure what you're disconnect is, but all manifestations must be visible because Spellcraft says you must be able to "see" the spell. It doesn't say hear or smell or touch or feel. It says "see." Since there is no spell that I cannot use Spellcraft on, it's an unavoidable fact that all manifestations must have a visual component that Spellcraft works on. Spellcraft does not say you must always be able to see any spell within your line of sight. It is saying that must be able to see the spell in order to use spellcraft.
Example:
You are saying "you must be able to lift 1 metric ton."
Spellcraft is saying, "You must be able to lift 1 metric ton in order to use spellcraft.
bbangerter wrote: Is not having a spell casters position revealed because he cast a spell a serious disadvantage? Or a serious advantage to an observer? Not sure how that is relevant to how the mechanics work.
What happens to an invisible archer when he shoots his arrows? Is he detectable? Can someone ready an action to shoot the square from whence the arrows originate?
wraithstrike wrote: N N 959 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Your claim is that all manifestations must be visible manifestations.
That is specified exactly nowhere. Your reference to spellcraft is begging the question.
FAQ on spellcraft wrote: 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 Not sure what you're disconnect is, but all manifestations must be visible because Spellcraft says you must be able to "see" the spell. It doesn't say hear or smell or touch or feel. It says "see." Since there is no spell that I cannot use Spellcraft on, it's an unavoidable fact that all manifestations must have a visual component that Spellcraft works on. Spellcraft does not say you must always be able to see any spell within your line of sight. It is saying that must be able to see the spell in order to use spellcraft.
Example:
You are saying "you must be able to lift 1 metric ton."
Spellcraft is saying, "You must be able to lift 1 metric ton in order to use spellcraft. yeah, you've misconstrued my statement. I am not saying what you think I'm saying. I'm pointing out that the "manifestations" must be of the visual variety because Spellcraft requires that you be able to see the caster. In other words, because of how Spellcraft is worded, we know that the manifestations must provide a visual element on which Spellcraft is working. This is affirmed by the FAQ which talks about manifestations of the spell and not spell components or even the spell caster. If Spellcraft requires that you have LOS, then the manifestations must be of the visual variety.
I am not saying that nothing stops or prevents the manifestation from being seen. But if you think that's what I'm saying, then I can see how someone thinks I'm making a circular argument.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
TriOmegaZero wrote: I guess we're all just wondering what rules you are using to say that invisibility isn't one of those things that stop you from seeing the spell.
"Invisibility doesn't say it makes the spell invisible" isn't very convincing.
Right, because spells weren't visible when invisibility was written.
Hell, spells weren't visible 6 months ago when the hide your casting feats were written.
The idea that this is going to have a rules answer is absurd.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: bbangerter wrote: Is not having a spell casters position revealed because he cast a spell a serious disadvantage? Or a serious advantage to an observer? Not sure how that is relevant to how the mechanics work.
What happens to an invisible archer when he shoots his arrows? Is he detectable? Can someone ready an action to shoot the square from whence the arrows originate? According to the rules?
Quote:
If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location.
No. Knowing the general location is not pin pointing their 5' square. It would certainly be within a GM's prerogative to allow a perception check to realize exactly which square an arrow originated from, but there are no actual RAW rules that allow this.
So by the rules, you would know which direction the arrow came from, but not which square it originated from. Given that arrows in flight are moving quite rapidly, or even better, bullets from a gunslingers gun. The human eye is not particularly adept at tracking things moving in excess of 150mph. Its actually not that good at smoothly tracking things over about 20mph. (This all varies with speed, size of the object, distance it is from the viewer, etc).
So being unable to pinpoint an the origination of an object moving at those kind of speeds actually fits with the real world in this scenario.
bbangerter wrote: N N 959 wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: I guess we're all just wondering what rules you are using to say that invisibility isn't one of those things that stop you from seeing the spell.
"Invisibility doesn't say it makes the spell invisible" isn't very convincing.
On what basis are you asserting manifestations from an invisible caster are invisible? On the basis that what actually constitutes a manifestation is left up to a group of players (and ultimately their GM) to determine. I've already shown you numerous possibilities that could be counted as a manifestation. Some that would be invisible under invisibility, and others that would not. But all of which would be visible on a visible caster.
EDIT: Your entire argument seems to be hinged on an assumption of what a manifestation is, of which you've taken a very narrow perspective on allowable manifestations - which the FAQ very explicitly leaves wide open. There is still a disconnect at work here. It doesn't matter what form the GM decides. Per RAW, no GM can deny a Spellcraft check on the basis of what form the manifestation takes.
I've said this before and BNW has also suggested this, but the undefined nature of the manifestations was to support artistic license, not provide a basis for allowing or denying Spellcraft checks. Your suggestions that put the manifestation on the caster and would thus be undetectable and preclude a Spellcraft check if the caster were invisible, violate RAW.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote:
There is still a disconnect at work here. It doesn't matter what form the GM decides. Per RAW, no GM can deny a Spellcraft check on the basis of what form the manifestation takes.
This is incorrect. No GM can deny a spellcraft check for any given spell if the spell (or manifestation) can be seen. It is entirely open to debate under what conditions manifestations can be seen.
bbangerter wrote:
Quote:
If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location.
I'm not convinced this applies to projectile attacks. The rules say, "reach" and arrows and tanglefoot bags don't have reach. Nor does a tanglefoot bag move at 150mp. What if I toss a bag of caltrops in an adjacent square?
I'm going to see if I can find a rule that specifically applies to thrown objects.
I liked the old guidelines for spellcraft checks having a -2 penalty for each verbal somatic or material component they were missing, and was perfectly fine with someone just feeling the magic at a -6.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: bbangerter wrote:
Quote:
If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location.
I'm not convinced this applies to projectile attacks. The rules say, "reach" and arrows and tanglefoot bags don't have reach. Nor does a tanglefoot bag move at 150mp. What if I toss a bag of caltrops in an adjacent square?
I'm going to see if I can find a rule that specifically applies to thrown objects.
So if I throw my halberd at you as an improvised throwing weapon you know where I am, but if I just attack you normally from reach you don't? There are no specific rules on ranged weapons and invisibility for this issue. But extrapolating the reach weapon rules, it is basically saying if they aren't adjacent, you don't get to know their location.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote: Right, because spells weren't visible when invisibility was written. When invisibility was written no one was idiotic enough to say 'I can still identify your spell when you're invisible'.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Hell, spells weren't visible 6 months ago when the hide your casting feats were written. I did a cntl-f through my copy of Ultimate Intrigue and am not sure what feats you are talking about.
bbangerter wrote: N N 959 wrote:
There is still a disconnect at work here. It doesn't matter what form the GM decides. Per RAW, no GM can deny a Spellcraft check on the basis of what form the manifestation takes.
This is incorrect. No GM can deny a spellcraft check for any given spell if the spell (or manifestation) can be seen. It is entirely open to debate under what conditions manifestations can be seen. No. The GM cannot decide that the manifestations is a pimple that forms on the inside of the casters nose and thus no one can make a Spellcraft check. You're in Rule Zero territory. You're not understanding the purpose of the FAQ and simultaneously ignoring the RAW Spellcarft skill You're taking statements about the vagueness of manifestations as a mandate that the GM can arbitrarily decide that manifestations aren't even visible to the naked eye. That's not what the FAQ does.
I can use Spellcraft on any spell that is cast in front of me that I can see. The Spellcraft rule does not give the GM any discretion in saying that the thing which Spellcraft works on is not visible even thought the square in which the casting occurs is visible. Nor does the FAQ allow this. The FAQ simply affirms that it's not spell components that Spellcraft works on and that ALL spells create manifestations, regardless of their observable effect.
I'm not sure why you think the FAQ was intended to give GMs arbitrary power over whether Spellcraft works.
BigNorseWolf wrote: I liked the old guidelines for spellcraft checks having a -2 penalty for each verbal somatic or material component they were missing, and was perfectly fine with someone just feeling the magic at a -6. I haven't seen these guidelines, where were they printed?
bbangerter wrote:
So if I throw my halberd at you as an improvised throwing weapon you know where I am, but if I just attack you normally from reach you don't?
Your melee weapon does not become visible. Your thrown halberd does.
TOZ wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: I liked the old guidelines for spellcraft checks having a -2 penalty for each verbal somatic or material component they were missing, and was perfectly fine with someone just feeling the magic at a -6. I haven't seen these guidelines, where were they printed? Some designer suggested that it would not be unreasonable to impose a penalty for missing components....in contravention of the actual FAQ.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959, you are attempting to integrate a nonintegrated rules construct. The rest of the rules of Pathfinder were not written with "magical manifestations" in mind. The FAQ did not integrate the construct into the rest of the rules as it did not give it proper description or definition. In the end it is a fluff excuse to allow spells/slas that are normally non-detectable(still and silent) on usage to be detectable. This excuse normalizes spellcraft checks and AOOs vs slas, psychic casting and still/silent spells instead of leaving it up to the GM. For many GMs this ended up with zero difference in play as most tables already played this way.
You should allow the FAQ to achieve its goal instead of shoehorning it into a nerf on invisibility for the game in general. Can it work that way at your table? Sure. But no where does it mandate that every table should work that way.
As others have noted, if you attack someone while invisible further than 5 feet away then you are not pin-pointed. You are requiring that a caster is pin-pointed. That is not an equal situation and is a severe penalty on the caster.
TOZ wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: I liked the old guidelines for spellcraft checks having a -2 penalty for each verbal somatic or material component they were missing, and was perfectly fine with someone just feeling the magic at a -6. I haven't seen these guidelines, where were they printed? -2 per may be from waay back in 3.5
there's something similar here
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Yeah, I checked d20srd and didn't find it. I don't feel like searching my dead trees tonight, so that will have to wait.
Lorewalker wrote: N N 959, you are attempting to integrate a nonintegrated rules construct. The rest of the rules of Pathfinder were not written with "magical manifestations" in mind. A statement that seems to be at odds with the first line of the FAQ
FAQ wrote: 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. Quote: The FAQ did not integrate the construct into the rest of the rules as it did not give it proper description or definition. In the end it is a fluff excuse to allow spells/slas that are normally non-detectable(still and silent) on usage to be detectable. This excuse normalizes spellcraft checks and AOOs vs slas, psychic casting and still/silent spells instead of leaving it up to the GM. The FAQ clarified something that was already true and did not do it on the basis of fluff. Spellcraft works on seeing the casting of the spell, not the caster nor the components. SLAs, per RAW, "work just like spells" without components. Since Spellcraft didn't work on components, there's no reason for SLA's to avoid bing Spellcraftted.
Regarding some of the newer magics, I can imagine there was some ambiguity. But the FAQ put an end to people trying to insist the lack of spell components affected Spellcraft, an idea that a had become so ingrained in the player base, a designer even tried to salvage the idea unofficially. Ironically, I find that similar to what is happening with invisibility, but on a smaller scale.
Quote: You should allow the FAQ to achieve its goal instead of shoehorning it into a nerf on invisibility for the game in general. Can it work that way at your table? Sure. But no where does it mandate that every table should work that way. This isn't just about invisibility. The repercussions of allowing invisibility to nerf Spellcraft has far reaching implications. It would further empower caster and increase the caster/martial divide. Casting spells creates visible manifestations. The PDT shouldn't let casters avoid that consequence.
Quote: As others have noted, if you attack someone while invisible further than 5 feet away then you are not pin-pointed. You are requiring that a caster is pin-pointed. That is not an equal situation and is a severe penalty on the caster. I'm not requiring that the caster be pinpointed. If someone doesn't ready an attack, the caster gets to casts with near impunity if they remember to move after casting.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
N N 959 wrote: You're not understanding the purpose of the FAQ personally, I believe the FAQ was only specific to normal instance of casting, and that invisibility can be a special circumstance that overrides it. but who am I? no one in particular.
BigNorseWolf wrote: TOZ wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: I liked the old guidelines for spellcraft checks having a -2 penalty for each verbal somatic or material component they were missing, and was perfectly fine with someone just feeling the magic at a -6. I haven't seen these guidelines, where were they printed? -2 per may be from waay back in 3.5
there's something similar here 3.5 required that you actually be able to see or hear verbal "or" somatic components. PF specifically changed that.
N N 959 wrote:
3.5 required that you actually be able to see or hear verbal "or" somatic components. PF specifically changed that. Where/in what way?
Not sure what you're asking.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: A statement that seems to be at odds with the first line of the FAQ
FAQ wrote:
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.
The FAQ can say that all it wants, the fact is that it isn't shown. It isn't mentioned in any effects, there's no spells dealing with it, there's no rules for what happens if you're invisible, and the two "hide your casting " feats don't deal with the manifestations at all, rendering them worthless by raw.
edit: my bad, the latest one does hide the manifestations. The other one didn't.
N N 959 wrote: wraithstrike wrote: N N 959 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Your claim is that all manifestations must be visible manifestations.
That is specified exactly nowhere. Your reference to spellcraft is begging the question.
FAQ on spellcraft wrote: 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 Not sure what you're disconnect is, but all manifestations must be visible because Spellcraft says you must be able to "see" the spell. It doesn't say hear or smell or touch or feel. It says "see." Since there is no spell that I cannot use Spellcraft on, it's an unavoidable fact that all manifestations must have a visual component that Spellcraft works on. Spellcraft does not say you must always be able to see any spell within your line of sight. It is saying that must be able to see the spell in order to use spellcraft.
Example:
You are saying "you must be able to lift 1 metric ton."
Spellcraft is saying, "You must be able to lift 1 metric ton in order to use spellcraft. yeah, you've misconstrued my statement. I am not saying what you think I'm saying. I'm pointing out that the "manifestations" must be of the visual variety because Spellcraft requires that you be able to see the caster. In other words, because of how Spellcraft is worded, we know that the manifestations must provide a visual element on which Spellcraft is working. This is affirmed by the FAQ which talks about manifestations of the spell and not spell components or even the spell caster. If Spellcraft requires that you have LOS, then the manifestations must be of the visual variety.
I am not saying that nothing stops or prevents the manifestation from being seen. But if you think that's what I'm saying, then I can see how someone thinks I'm making a circular argument. I think the manifestation and the spellcraft rule are two different things.
Spellcraft says you have to see the spell being cast. That is different than seeing a manifestation.
As an example I see " clearly see the spell as it is being cast" as " clearly see the ax it is being made". In that sense the caster must be visible you to and the crafter would have to be visible to you also.
The manifestation is just something the pdt came up with to avoid people to use magic and nobody ever notice. I really wish they had named SU's also, but that will require another FAQ.
I say they just came up with this ideas when they made the FAQ because there was a topic on this a long time ago, and they could have just said it, since they did pop into the thread, and I think it was back when they used to issue FAQ's directly on the forum.
If the idea of manifestations appearing was not new they would have it in the core rules.
N N 959 wrote: Not sure what you're asking. He was asking where and in what way did Paizo change the rules below that you quoted.
n n 959 wrote: 3.5 required that you actually be able to see or hear verbal "or" somatic components. PF specifically changed that.
N N 959 wrote:
You don't really have any clue what you're talking about.
Your CMD determines whether you get to make an AoO on someone moving through squares you threaten. Someone moving through an area I threaten must beat my CMD to avoid my attacking them. If I take ability damage to STR or DEX, then this reduces my CMD and makes it easier for someone to avoid me. Yet, if I am sickened, weaker at all my STR and DEX...
Again, you are the one making a flawed argument and then telling someone else they are wrong. It's childish.
I will once again explain the mechanics. Take note of that word please. The mechanics of how AC and CMD work in this game is that it is passive. I must beat your CMD by actively making an acrobatics check, I must beat your AC by actively attacking you.
As such, even when sickened, you are not penalized by what I am doing. You get penalized for what you do, actively.
You describing what is happening does not change how the mechanic works or what it is. Describing how you are actively doing things to try and get an AoO against a tumbling opponent make no sense, and is the exact opposite of how the mechanics work.
|
