Wouldn't the problem be "solved" by altering Spellcraft instead of spell casting? Just make it so the skill gives a character a "sixth sense" for magic being utilized in the vicinity.
Then allow some feats or skill levels to pinpoint the magic - it'll give the "mundanes" a defense against stealth casters, provided they invest a few skillpoints or a feat.
I don't see that it's a problem that needs to be "solved." I think it's already solved if one reads the damn rules:
* All spells have manifestations, but those may not be visible. This is explicit.
* All manifestations are obviously magical.
Ergo, the fact that a spell is being cast in the area (and by extension that it is not) is obvious to all concerned. ("Hey, Moe, why is the king acting so wierd?" "I dunno, Larry, but someone cast a spell. Maybe that's it.")
* With appropriate training, anyone can identify the caster and the spell. ("Hey, Curly's a wizard! Curly, did you see anyone cast a spell? No?")
* With other appropriate training, anyone can determine the presence and even specific location of an invisible person. ("Wait a minute, Shemp's a ranger! Shemp, is anyone invisible around? Yes?")
... and the four Stooges proceed to eye-poke the hostile wizard until the credits roll....
|
Explain.Secret Signs
You are particularly adept at communicating with others via innuendo, gestures, and secret hand signs.Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on Bluff checks made to pass secret messages. In addition, you are adept at hiding the somatic components of spellcasting. If you cast a spell that has only somatic components, an observer must make a Perception check opposed by your Sleight of Hand check to notice your spellcasting. Spellcraft checks made to identify any spell you cast that has somatic components take a –2 penalty.
Huh, interesting. So maybe invisible creatures take sleight of hand checks to avoid their somatic movement counting as movement for invisibility?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, interesting. So maybe invisible creatures take sleight of hand checks to avoid their somatic movement counting as movement for invisibility?
Explain.
It means that manifestations weren't considered when that feat was written, otherwise that part of it would be pretty pointless.
It doesn't prove manifestations weren't a thing, but when you keep NOT seeing evidence for something where evidence should be there it's a pattern of non existance. You can't prove a negative but you can certainly accumulate a good case for it.
Reconcile that with the feat I posted. There are other similar feats that obscure casting.
All of these contradict the faq. The faq is straight up lying when it says 'many' of the rules depend on manifestations. Virtually no rules do, and more rules depend on there being no identifiable manifestations at all.
It doesn't contradict anything. Feats are supposed to override the rules of the game. The FAQ says that spellcasting is automatically noticeable, this feat says that the spell is only noticed if the opponent succeeds on a perception check against your sleight of hand. This is no more a contradiction than a bull rush provoking an attack of opportunity, but a character with the improved bull rush feat not provoking an attack of opportunity.
How exactly you want to fluff it is up to you. I'd go with the "misdirection" interpretation; the magical displays are still there, but the character uses a sleight of hand to draw attention away from the obvious and undertake such actions in plain sight.
Your melee weapon does not become visible. Your thrown halberd does.
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?
This is why it's different.
If all spells are manifestations, but not all manifestations are visible, I think I'm going to choose to have all my characters manifestations be things like ambient temperature changes and other things that are really hard to trace the origins of.
N N 959
A CMD is NOT a passive check not because it's passive but because it's not a check. No dice cross the table.
Derail aside, arguments that the rules are a certain way are very iffy things to base other rules off of.
SO...
question.
is anyone BESIDES N N 959 on the side that you can pinpoint the caster if he casts a spell?
Yes. I'm just choosing not to post as it's dealing with people on my "prefer not to engage" list and I feel he's doing a fine job explaining why.
Reconcile that with the feat I posted. There are other similar feats that obscure casting.
How exactly are any of these feats at odds with the FAQ? Lots of feats override the normal rules of the game. Normally the visual displays of a spell provide automatic detection, but these feats force observers to make a check to observe them. How is that any different from a Bull Rush normally provoking an attack of opportunity, but not provoking an attack of opportunity when you have the Improved Bull Rush feat?
SO...
question.
is anyone BESIDES N N 959 on the side that you can pinpoint the caster if he casts a spell?
Yes. If you read the rest of the thread, you would (or should) be aware of that.
But sentiments like this...
...
Basically he thinks the rule should work a certain way and he is trying to justify it...
...made it clear that reasonable discourse was going to get me nowhere, so I haven't posted in the last few pages.
...
Why is it so hard to admit that the FAQ is just full of it?
Because the FAQ is used for rules changes as much as it is used for rules clarifications, and because Paizo has not had a good track record of understanding their own rules. Between those two it is virtually impossible to call any particular FAQ false (bad, maybe, but not false).
SO...
question.
is anyone BESIDES N N 959 on the side that you can pinpoint the caster if he casts a spell?
Yes. If you read the rest of the thread, you would (or should) be aware of that.
But sentiments like this...
...
Basically he thinks the rule should work a certain way and he is trying to justify it......made it clear that reasonable discourse was going to get me nowhere, so I haven't posted in the last few pages.
Because the FAQ is used for rules changes as much as it is used for rules clarifications, and because Paizo has not had a good track record of understanding their own rules. Between those two it is virtually impossible to call any particular FAQ false (bad, maybe, but not false)....
Why is it so hard to admit that the FAQ is just full of it?
ah okay.
I seriously haven't put much effort into reading the thread because it was updating PRETTY quickly for something I think is too vague to get a reasonable discussion going.
if anyone curious, my opinion on whether or not Pazio intends for this to work on casters that are invis is "ask again later".
if anyone curious, my opinion on whether or not Pazio intends for this to work on casters that are invis is "ask again later".
All the more reason to hit the "FAQ" button on the first page.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reconcile that with the feat I posted. There are other similar feats that obscure casting.How exactly are any of these feats at odds with the FAQ? Lots of feats override the normal rules of the game. Normally the visual displays of a spell provide automatic detection, but these feats force observers to make a check to observe them. How is that any different from a Bull Rush normally provoking an attack of opportunity, but not provoking an attack of opportunity when you have the Improved Bull Rush feat?
5t
The feat says that it hides the somatic components, but hiding the somatic components is pretty useless if you don't hide the manifestations, and the manifestations aren't covered by the feat. For the feat to be of any value, manifestations must not exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. There are inconsistencies in the Pathfinder rules!Because the FAQ is used for rules changes as much as it is used for rules clarifications, and because Paizo has not had a good track record of understanding their own rules. Between those two it is virtually impossible to call any particular FAQ false (bad, maybe, but not false).I think you misunderstand what I was referring to. The FAQ specifically said that many of the Pathfinder rules were written with the understanding that there were visible manifestations during spellcasting.
It is that part which I think is full of it.
But that's OK, because Pathfinder isn't written like a technical manual so they don't have to be consistent. GMs just have to be omniscient use their brains when they interpret the rules.
]I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. There are inconsistencies in the Pathfinder rules!
An inconsistancy between A and B is one thing. An inconsistency between A and is something else entirely.
]I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. There are inconsistencies in the Pathfinder rules!An inconsistancy between A and B is one thing. An inconsistency between A and is something else entirely.I think you missed something. Or you're being clever and I'm being stupid.
*whistles innocently*
if anyone curious, my opinion on whether or not Pazio intends for this to work on casters that are invis is "ask again later".All the more reason to hit the "FAQ" button on the first page.
huh, I thought i did already but apparently I did not. well it's pressed now.
*whistles innocently*]I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. There are inconsistencies in the Pathfinder rules!An inconsistancy between A and B is one thing. An inconsistency between A and is something else entirely.I think you missed something. Or you're being clever and I'm being stupid.
kek, because FAQ's aren't pathfinder rules?
How much do manifestations weigh? What are they made of? What kind of 'objects' are they?The GM has to decide if the manifestations are covered by the invisibility (In my case, the answer is yes) and if they are a source of light (in my case, no) and determine if the casting of the spell gives away the position of the caster. Thus, I am perfectly in the rules to say that an invisible caster still requires a Perception check to locate, as with all invisible creatures.Let's look at the rules for the invisibility spell.
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible.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. While I agree that they do not create light, the are not in the possession of the caster and are not covered by the invisibility spell.
Consider, if I am smoking a pipe, does the smoke from my pipe remain invisible? No.
With regards to dust of disappearance, the object or people have to be dusted. As the manifestations are not dusted, nor can be dusted, I'd rule that they are not invisible.
1 oz each.
Cheese.Delicious.
The devs have always assumed something was noticeable about a spell being cast, but it was never said to be visible, and they never said that "noticeable thing" was noticable while casting spells.
Here is Jason on a similar issue a few years ago
Hey there Everybody,
The rules here are certainly not clear, because they generally assume that the act of casting a spell has some noticeable element. Notice I did not say component, because I think the rules are silent on parts of spellcasting that are codified components versus those that occur without any sort of codification, such as the wiggle of a finger, change in breathing and other flavor bits that happen when a spellcaster makes the magic happen, as it were.
Back to the topic at hand, since the rules are silent here, I think it is well within the GMs purview to impose a penalty to the Spellcraft check to identify a spell without components (V, S, M). Since there is no real increase for spells with just one, I would guess that this penalty is not very large, perhaps only as much as -4.
This is, of course, up to your GM to adjudicate.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Edit: I should also note that I also agree with James, that a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.
Of course like any other conversation you are going to go by the norm, unless otherwise stated, and people are not normally invisible. Which is another reason why there is no reason to assume the FAQ in question also counted invisible casters without calling them out.
Doting because I am interested where this leads.
I see it similar to if someone casts a still, silent spell/SLA that has no material components, can you tell they are casting a spell? The implication from the FAQ appears to me to say "YES". I'm not saying that it's consistent with any other rule or ruling, or that it doesn't make feats useless, just that's what I get out of it.
As a GM, I ruled that casting a spell, unless you have something special, does have a visual manifestation. The only time it came up was when the party was fighting imp-like creatures, and the imp previously cast invisibility, and then 2nd round cast greater teleport - they saw a flash of magical light in the square it was, and they got to make spellcraft checks. The question "Would the party see anything?" came to me and I decided "yep". No one argued against it.
I think I'll bring it up to the table next session and ask if they want to keep that interpretation. It made sense to me at the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see it similar to if someone casts a still, silent spell/SLA that has no material components, can you tell they are casting a spell?
As per the FAQ, you know a spell has been cast.
That's not the same as knowing who cast the spell.
I see it similar to if someone casts a still, silent spell/SLA that has no material components, can you tell they are casting a spell?As per the FAQ, you know a spell has been cast.
That's not the same as knowing who cast the spell.
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.
(FAQ is above for reference)
Huh. I didn't take it as "you know a spell was cast in the general area", but "you know a spell was cast by this person".
Well, personally that's how I ruled. I'll see if the players want to change it. I don't mind it one way or the other, just want to be consistent with my players.
I see it similar to if someone casts a still, silent spell/SLA that has no material components, can you tell they are casting a spell?As per the FAQ, you know a spell has been cast.
That's not the same as knowing who cast the spell.
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.
(FAQ is above for reference)
Huh. I didn't take it as "you know a spell was cast in the general area", but "you know a spell was cast by this person".
Well, personally that's how I ruled. I'll see if the players want to change it. I don't mind it one way or the other, just want to be consistent with my players.
I think the FAQ does intend to say who cast the spell, but it says nothing about overcoming invisibility. That is the question at hand. It is clear that the FAQ won't let you sit in a bar, and cast spells while drinking tea, and nobody will notice.
I think the FAQ does intend to say who cast the spell, but it says nothing about overcoming invisibility. That is the question at hand. It is clear that the FAQ won't let you sit in a bar, and cast spells while drinking tea, and nobody will notice.
Well yes, I get that, and I get that the FAQ stated that the reason why you know a spell was cast was because of manifestations.
The question is "Are the manifestations created by a spell caster casting a spell visible if the caster is invisible?"
At my table I ruled "Yes" because that seemed to fit with the flow of the game, and felt consistent with the rest of the rules (granted i thought about it for a total of 5 seconds, but it was a gut decision and it still feels right). I could easily go with a "NO" as well if my players want it that way.
The FAQ just gives us this undefined "manifestations" which I tried to extrapolate from a meaningful answer to, in the case of the invisible caster.
That's 100% false. RAW says I need to see the "spell", not the caster. While I might agree that since the Spellcraft skill talks about the "technical art of spell casting" one might expect there is some need to see the caster, the actionable text is unambiguous. It's the "spell" not the caster that must be seen.
How are you seeing a spell prior to it being cast?
I think the FAQ does intend to say who cast the spell,...
Maybe, but what it actually says is that the manifestations of the spell are obvious. (Even if the spell has no visual effect.)
I'm thinking of this type of thing here (look at about 0:55) when the wizard casts a spell, and the narrator helpfully says "Rock Shower" as he does it, just in case you missed that a huge shower of rocks are falling from the sky. You get the same effect if you're under an invisibility spell in that game -- the narrator still says that someone cast Rock Shower, but it doesn't break invisibility.
Maybe, but what it actually says is that the manifestations of the spell are obvious. (Even if the spell has no visual effect.)I'm thinking of this type of thing here (look at about 0:55) when the wizard casts a spell, and the narrator helpfully says "Rock Shower" as he does it, just in case you missed that a huge shower of rocks are falling from the sky. You get the same effect if you're under an invisibility spell in that game -- the narrator still says that someone cast Rock Shower, but it doesn't break invisibility.
Maybe it's more like getting the heeby jeebies/goosebumps?
A weird feeling/sensation that "everyone" gets when a spell is cast in the general area (5 ft? 20 ft? 100 ft radius?).
Doesn't have to be an unconformable feeling, but that's the best way I can explain it.
I get it, I just don't think that was the intent. But I ain't the FAQ-response-writer, so what do I know? Maybe it was.
Maybe it's more like getting the heeby jeebies/goosebumps?
Maybe, but what it actually says is that the manifestations of the spell are obvious. (Even if the spell has no visual effect.)I'm thinking of this type of thing here (look at about 0:55) when the wizard casts a spell, and the narrator helpfully says "Rock Shower" as he does it, just in case you missed that a huge shower of rocks are falling from the sky. You get the same effect if you're under an invisibility spell in that game -- the narrator still says that someone cast Rock Shower, but it doesn't break invisibility.
That works, too. Either way, there's no need to assume that my being invisible somehow makes my messing around with Forces No Ilithid Was Meant To Know less soul-twisting and sanity-blasting.
(And believe me, our standards for "things too bad to mess with" are pretty stringent. Much more so than you puny humanoids.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the FAQ does intend to say who cast the spell, but it says nothing about overcoming invisibility. That is the question at hand. It is clear that the FAQ won't let you sit in a bar, and cast spells while drinking tea, and nobody will notice.Well yes, I get that, and I get that the FAQ stated that the reason why you know a spell was cast was because of manifestations.
The question is "Are the manifestations created by a spell caster casting a spell visible if the caster is invisible?"
At my table I ruled "Yes" because that seemed to fit with the flow of the game, and felt consistent with the rest of the rules (granted i thought about it for a total of 5 seconds, but it was a gut decision and it still feels right). I could easily go with a "NO" as well if my players want it that way.
The FAQ just gives us this undefined "manifestations" which I tried to extrapolate from a meaningful answer to, in the case of the invisible caster.
There is no answer by the rules. The FAQ specifically leaves it up to the GM for now.
I would say someone with see invisibility would have no problem with spellcraft. I would also say a glitterdusted caster would also be subject to spellcraft. How? Well, that is up to the GM to decide.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
So basically no one gets the +40? Even breathing causes a person to move. I'm pretty sure the game developers mean "move from one's square" in this instance.
I think the FAQ does intend to say who cast the spell,...Maybe, but what it actually says is that the manifestations of the spell are obvious. (Even if the spell has no visual effect.)
I'm thinking of this type of thing here (look at about 0:55) when the wizard casts a spell, and the narrator helpfully says "Rock Shower" as he does it, just in case you missed that a huge shower of rocks are falling from the sky. You get the same effect if you're under an invisibility spell in that game -- the narrator still says that someone cast Rock Shower, but it doesn't break invisibility.
I think that is also reasonble. It lets people know someone cast a spell, but invisibility is not weakened by giving his position away.
You don't really have any clue what you're talking about.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.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.
Play nice.
I actually really like the idea of Spellcraft operating off of some kind of magical "sixth sense" that everyone has.
It breaks recognizing a spell down into three steps.
1) Everyone nearby gets some kind of sensation that magic is bing used in the area (might be different based on each school. Heebie Jeebies for necromancy. Little muscle tremors for transmutation. Whatever)
2) If the observer can see the caster, they can make a check to combine their "sixth sense" feeling with the caster's movements, vocalizations or components to figure out what spell it is.
3) If the observer cannot see the caster, they still know a spell has been cast, but not where it came from or what spell it is. It might give enough of a clue that they'd start casting Invisibility Purge or Glitter Dust, but it wouldn't override Invisibility.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Did you just hear ominous faux latin chanting? Because I just totally heard ominous faux latin chan.. HELL!"
"Did you just hear ominous faux latin chanting? Because I just totally heard ominous faux latin chan.. HELL!"
Ha! That's pretty funny.
I'm surprised to see all the FAQ clicks. Seems I'm not the only one interested in knowing more about this.
Sadly, it's not a corner case. This is something that will come up again and again in peoples' games. I hope we get some kind of clarification on the matter. Or better yet, that they get rid of some of the recent clarifications on the matter--they seem to cause more questions than they resolve.
The heroic defense of Wizardry will go on forever. If the design team came down and wrote specifically that casting invisibly will allow the caster to be pinpointed, there will be a cadre of "open minded" defenders arguing that it only applies situationally because of the placement of a comma or suchlike. This is attacking a very important pillar they base their playstyles on. At what point do you realize that they just don't want to learn to whisltle?