|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Daw wrote: This is attacking a very important pillar they base their playstyles on. Yes, exactly.
The new FAQ changes the game on a fundamental level. It upends not just play styles of many characters, but tons of published encounters revolving around invisible spellcasters.
It isn't an FAQ. It is errata with far reaching impact about spells, skills, and how every single spell casting class works.
Are you really surprised that people are confused?
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Doomed Hero wrote: Daw wrote: This is attacking a very important pillar they base their playstyles on. Yes, exactly.
The new FAQ changes the game on a fundamental level. It upends not just play styles of many characters, but tons of published encounters revolving around invisible spellcasters.
It isn't an FAQ. It is errata with far reaching impact about spells, skills, and how every single spell casting class works.
Are you really surprised that people are confused? Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
it's you guys fault, next time take a time to read your copy of the unwritten CRB.
Doomed Hero wrote: Daw wrote: This is attacking a very important pillar they base their playstyles on. Yes, exactly.
The new FAQ changes the game on a fundamental level. It upends not just play styles of many characters, but tons of published encounters revolving around invisible spellcasters.
It isn't an FAQ. It is errata with far reaching impact about spells, skills, and how every single spell casting class works.
Are you really surprised that people are confused? Or maybe it doesn't? Maybe it just keeps casters from using their spells unnoticed in social settings. You know, like the question it responded to.
Now, it may raise the question of what happens with invisibility or other hidden casters, but that doesn't mean it was intended. FAQ it and see how they respond.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Doomed Hero wrote: Daw wrote: This is attacking a very important pillar they base their playstyles on. Yes, exactly.
The new FAQ changes the game on a fundamental level. It upends not just play styles of many characters, but tons of published encounters revolving around invisible spellcasters.
Or it doesn't.
The faq was made to stop psycic casters from walking through the party and charming everyone.
The effects beyond that are the result of interpretation
Interpretation you don't have to accept.
The rules are not so consistant that you can follow them through logically with any guarantee of getting the right answer at the end.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote: I'm sure some would. If they actually said that, I'd be fine with it. It's reading it into the tea leaves of a FAQ responding to an entirely different question that I object to. Yep, if the PDT said you can pinpoint invisible creatures when they cast a spell due to the manifestations, I'd say okay and stop arguing.
But then, I've never played a wizard, so I'm clearly not the guy Daw is referring to.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
TheJeff wrote: FAQ it and see how they respond. That's part of the problem. The FAQ process is slow and cumbersome.
I'd just rule that they get to make a perception check to pinpoint the caster:
Base -10: Casting a spell with verbal components should be about as noticable as a battle, I think. Not sure where that's from.
+20 for being invisible.
+1 for every 10 feet of distance.
+2 for unfavorable conditions if the invisible npc has allies that are also engaged in combat.
the David wrote: I'd just rule that they get to make a perception check to pinpoint the caster:
Base -10: Casting a spell with verbal components should be about as noticable as a battle, I think. Not sure where that's from.
+20 for being invisible.
+1 for every 10 feet of distance.
+2 for unfavorable conditions if the invisible npc has allies that are also engaged in combat.
You mean, like using the existing rules for pinpointing invisible characters based on the current conditions? What an odd concept. (Note, not all the bonuses/penalties you've listed above are correct, but close enough for the concept).
Quote: A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. The base is DC40 to pinpoint an invisible creature. To that you add modifiers:
In combat or speaking –20 (casting a spell)
Not moving +20 (if standing still)
Some distance away +1 per 10 feet
It's really hard to pinpoint an invisible creature unless you have a targeting sense that can find them. Hearing is not a targeting sense.
Of course, there is no DC modifier listed that mentions manifestations, so YMMV on that one. ;)
Another thought, if the manifestations are visible an illusionist could make spells look like other spells. Two guys working together, one standing in an area unseen, casts an illusion spell on his buddy, and people see the illusion and go "Did he just cast wish?"
Ruske Bell wrote: Another thought, if the manifestations are visible an illusionist could make spells look like other spells. Two guys working together, one standing in an area unseen, casts an illusion spell on his buddy, and people see the illusion and go "Did he just cast wish?" That's assuming you have control over the manifestations. If the manifestations are something like the words "PHANTASMAL FORCE" appearing in large red letters at the bottom of the screen, it's hard to make that look like a wish spell.
thejeff wrote: Daw wrote: 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? I'm sure some would. If they actually said that, I'd be fine with it. It's reading it into the tea leaves of a FAQ responding to an entirely different question that I object to. You shouldn't make assumptions about people's motives. I am sure if they accused you of not being able to handle the game as part of your motivation you wouldn't like it.
Edit: That was for Daw
Orfamay Quest wrote: Ruske Bell wrote: Another thought, if the manifestations are visible an illusionist could make spells look like other spells. Two guys working together, one standing in an area unseen, casts an illusion spell on his buddy, and people see the illusion and go "Did he just cast wish?" That's assuming you have control over the manifestations. If the manifestations are something like the words "PHANTASMAL FORCE" appearing in large red letters at the bottom of the screen, it's hard to make that look like a wish spell. No, no, I was thinking the same thing earlier. The illusionist off around the corner where he can't be seen casts an illusion on his buddy that duplicates the manifestation of wish - in your example the words "Wish" appearing in large red letters.
Works even better with an illusion you can cast and concentrate to keep manipulating. So your illusion was cast offstage and now there's no identifiable manifestation of it, but you can make it look like the other guy is casting whatever you want.
_Ozy_ wrote: Because there is no feasible way to explain how making hidden motions with a somatic-only spell makes it harder to detect your casting than a spell with NO somatic, material, verbal components. Hmmm. Seems pretty straight forward to me. I must be missing something.
If we go back to the 3.5 version of Spellcraft which depended on components, then it's pretty obvious that if Spell A requires somatic motions and I don't see them, I am going to have a harder time identifying that as Spell A. If Spell B has no somatic components, then I would not be expecting them. To put it another way, if I don't see any spell components, then I'm going to have a harder time realizing that the spell cast was one that depended on spell components. So yes, hiding a component that was part of the casting would make it harder to identify the spell cast versus a spell that didn't have that component.
The question you have to ask is why did Paizo change Spellcraft to ignore components? Many of you point to the Social aspect. I'm sure that factored into it. But what you're overlooking is that by removing the reliance on components, or even seeing the caster, you've empowered both Spellcraft, and Counter-spelling (not that I've ever seen someone counterspell).
Since Spellcraft now works regardless of components, it now works on all spell casting. That's a big deal for Spellcraft. Insisting that manifestations are made invisible by an invisible caster, would be a serious nerf on Spellcraft, because all classes that cast spells can certainly use potions of invisibility and/or cast it directly.
I see no evidentiary basis or need for making invisible casters, NPC or PC, even more powerful. Invisible casters who aren't casting, already have the same benefits as all non-casters. I see no reason to give them the benefits of non-casters and then protect their casting as well. Making manifestations visible is not nerfing casters or invisiblity. It's making invisibility for casters no better than it is for every other non-caster.
Quote: There is a disconnect here, and that disconnect is the claim by the FAQ that the rules already assume the existence of visible manifestations. Spellcraft as changed from 3.5, mandated the existance of manifestations. At the time and now, the FAQ makes sense to me. My only issue with Spellcraft is that it contains the legacy description which talks about the "technical art of casting a spell" and I would agree that this conveys the idea that you need to see the artist. Nevertheless, I can understand a desire to for the PDT to give examples of what they were thinking about when they wrote the FAQ. I can also relate to the frustration with having content that seems to contradict/ignore the implications of the FAQ.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
What you're missing is what I've already explained. That feat, along with the others, demonstrates that Pathfinder, in fact, had not assumed that manifestations were 'a thing' when generating its rules. None of those feats make sense if manifestations exist, and these are feats that were published in 2015 and 2016 as well as the earlier ones.
If they want to change the rules to now make manifestations a pathfinder rules thing, fine. But don't lie to us and tell us that the rules assumed them all along. ALSO, pay a little more attention to the big swaths of gameplay that this affects, specifically invisible casting which happens all. of. the. time.
It's quite frankly inexcusable that the effect on invisible casting was not spelled out once they decided to go this route.
_Ozy_ wrote: What you're missing is what I've already explained. That feat, along with the others, demonstrates that Pathfinder, in fact, had not assumed that manifestations were 'a thing' when generating its rules. None of those feats make sense if manifestations exist, and these are feats that were published in 2015 and 2016 as well as the earlier ones. In other words, I've completely explained how hiding a component could make a component based Spellcraft check harder, but you're ignoring that.
Quote: If they want to change the rules to now make manifestations a pathfinder rules thing, fine. The underpinnings for manifestations were there ever since Paizo changed Spellcraft to say what it says now. When was that? 2009? The FAQ came out nearly a year ago and doesn't actually change any rules. So I can't agree this is some sudden thing. It'd be great if someone with a first printing of the Corer Rulebook could tell us.
Quote: ALSO, pay a little more attention to the big swaths of gameplay that this affects, specifically invisible casting which happens all. of. the. time.
Hunh. Someone earlier in this thread who insisted that manifestations were not visible claimed invisible casting was rare? So which is it? I suspect people will claim whatever supports their position. Through 8 levels of PFS, I've encountered an invisible caster once...and that was an NPC. I imagine others have different anecdotal experiences.
But I do agree that it would be helpful to have the proper handling laid out by the PDT.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
N N 959 wrote: It'd be great if someone with a first printing of the Corer Rulebook could tell us. The first printing I have has the table sans the component statement from 3.5, so Spellcraft has not changed since the first publication.
N N 959 wrote: It's making invisibility for casters no better than it is for every other non-caster.. Explain this.
If I am an archer you still won't know where my attack came from.
Invisibility states "Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible..", and the rules state that you only know the location of an invisible adjacent attacker. So that also backs up invisible archers getting full use of their method of attacks without being given away.
If I am using SU's(which is not casting) you still can't find me. They don't have manifestations or anything else that is even hinted at giving away a location by the rules or any FAQ . Maybe if it is something like a dragon's breath attack, but that is about it.
N N 959 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: What you're missing is what I've already explained. That feat, along with the others, demonstrates that Pathfinder, in fact, had not assumed that manifestations were 'a thing' when generating its rules. None of those feats make sense if manifestations exist, and these are feats that were published in 2015 and 2016 as well as the earlier ones. In other words, I've completely explained how hiding a component could make a component based Spellcraft check harder, but you're ignoring that.
Quote: If they want to change the rules to now make manifestations a pathfinder rules thing, fine. The underpinnings for manifestations were there ever since Paizo changed Spellcraft to say what it says now. When was that? 2009? The FAQ came out nearly a year ago and doesn't actually change any rules. So I can't agree this is some sudden thing. It'd be great if someone with a first printing of the Corer Rulebook could tell us.
Quote: ALSO, pay a little more attention to the big swaths of gameplay that this affects, specifically invisible casting which happens all. of. the. time.
Hunh. Someone earlier in this thread who insisted that manifestations were not visible claimed invisible casting was rare? So which is it? I suspect people will claim whatever supports their position. Through 8 levels of PFS, I've encountered an invisible caster once...and that was an NPC. I imagine others have different anecdotal experiences.
But I do agree that it would be helpful to have the proper handling laid out by the PDT.
Also I already quoted a 2010 posting from Jason. Now my quote was regarding not being able to spellcraft a no component having spell, and he said "something" would be noticable for that purpose. However he never said that "something" was visible, nor did he even mention invisibility, so this last FAQ is him deciding what that "something" is, and even then he still did not mention invisibility. So for any official purpose invisibility is not effected until they actually call it out.
edit: He did suggest adding +5 to the DC for each missing component as a houserule for spellcraft.
wraithstrike wrote:
Explain this.
If I am an archer you still won't know where my attack came from.
Invisibility states "Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible..", and the rules state that you only know the location of an invisible adjacent attacker. So that also backs up invisible archers getting full use of their method of attacks without being given away.
A wizard can pick up a crossbow or longspear and get the same benefit as everyone else. But more to the point, it's precisely a wizard/sorcere who is most likely to get the benefit of greater invisibly, not an archer or a ranger or paladin.
In addition, this isn't just about attacking. Letting plain old 2nd level invisibility make a caster nearly impossible detect while they run around buffing is what you're advocating.
A wizard reduced to the same actions that everyone else is, fails to satisfy the definition of getting nerfed, imo.
Quote: If I am using SU's(which is not casting) you still can't find me. They don't have manifestations or anything else that is even hinted at giving away a location by the rules or any FAQ . Maybe if it is something like a dragon's breath attack, but that is about it. The amount of things any individual creature can due with SU's is an order of magnitude less than what a wizard can do with spells. The amount of creatures with the means of putting greater invisibility on themselves while simultaneously being able to wipe out a party with just SU's...is probably an order of magnitude less than that. More importantly, this rule has no effect on them, so changing it does nothing to stop invisible SUers from doing their thing, how ever many of them that there are.
So I am hardly worried about invisible SUer's upsetting power balance with their one or two SUs. Undetectable invisible casters is on a whole other level of impact.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: wraithstrike wrote:
Explain this.
If I am an archer you still won't know where my attack came from.
Invisibility states "Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible..", and the rules state that you only know the location of an invisible adjacent attacker. So that also backs up invisible archers getting full use of their method of attacks without being given away.
A wizard can pick up a crossbow or longspear and get the same benefit as everyone else. But more to the point, it's precisely a wizard/sorcere who is most likely to get the benefit of greater invisibly, not an archer or a ranger or paladin.
In addition, this isn't just about attacking. Letting plain old 2nd level invisibility make a caster nearly impossible detect while they run around buffing is what you're advocating.
A wizard reduced to the same actions that everyone else is, fails to satisfy the definition of getting nerfed, imo. Which is, as I understand it, the exact way everyone understood it to be before this FAQ.
wraithstrike isn't so much advocating that as saying it's not clear that it's changed.
Invisible casters have always been powerful. It's not at all clear this FAQ was intended to change that. If it was, I think that it should have been spelled out.
That said, the dev team doesn't always agree with me about what needs to be spelled out, so it's certainly possible they intended a hidden change to how casting while invisible works.
N N 959 wrote: wraithstrike wrote:
Explain this.
If I am an archer you still won't know where my attack came from.
Invisibility states "Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible..", and the rules state that you only know the location of an invisible adjacent attacker. So that also backs up invisible archers getting full use of their method of attacks without being given away.
A wizard can pick up a crossbow or longspear and get the same benefit as everyone else. But more to the point, it's precisely a wizard/sorcere who is most likely to get the benefit of greater invisibly, not an archer or a ranger or paladin.
In addition, this isn't just about attacking. Letting plain old 2nd level invisibility make a caster nearly impossible detect while they run around buffing is what you're advocating.
A wizard reduced to the same actions that everyone else is, fails to satisfy the definition of getting nerfed, imo.
Quote: If I am using SU's(which is not casting) you still can't find me. They don't have manifestations or anything else that is even hinted at giving away a location by the rules or any FAQ . Maybe if it is something like a dragon's breath attack, but that is about it. The amount of things any individual creature can due with SU's is an order of magnitude less than what a wizard can do with spells. The amount of creatures with the means of putting greater invisibility on themselves while simultaneously being able to wipe out a party with just SU's...is probably an order of magnitude less than that. More importantly, this rule has no effect on them, so changing it does nothing to stop invisible SUers from doing their thing, how ever many of them that there are.
So I am hardly worried about invisible SUer's upsetting power balance with their one or two SUs. Undetectable invisible casters is on a whole other level of impact.
If someone can use SU's such as a witch or a vampire(dominate) and nobody notices then they are undetectable, even more so than a caster because most of the time the caster at least needs a verbal component.
With that aside my main point was to counter the notion that casters and noncasters don't already enjoy the same benefits which is to be invisible and still get full use out of their main shtick without being noticed. It seems to be as if you are trying to find an excuse to make this work vs just trying to look at it objectively. This FAQ has not hinted at doing anything to invisible casters.
I say that because if it were not the case the caster's power would not factor into your arguments or you would at least admit that both casters and noncasters both get full use of their main shtick in most cases.
Who is more likely to get the benefit is not a factor with regard to "what the rule is". It is a good point to make when trying to say "this rule should change because ____ has a heavy advantage".
With regard to my quote about dropped objects I only put that there to show that an archer's arrow won't give his position away before that point was even brought up since I had already anticipated it.
PS: There is nothing wrong with wanting things about the game to change, but that is different than trying to argue a rule already exist when it does not.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I might have been fine with the recent FAQ had they not touched spell-like abilities as well. If it only applied to spells, it only would have resulted in the weakening of a few stealth characters and a few clarification-seeking threads like this. Having it also effect spell-like abilities though? That just broke so many things.
Do the manifestations show up briefly, or would they always be showing on a spell effect that was there because of permanency?
Ruske Bell wrote: Do the manifestations show up briefly, or would they always be showing on a spell effect that was there because of permanency? Spellcraft lets you identify as spell as it's being cast, therefore they show up while it's being cast, not afterwards.
wraithstrike wrote: If someone can use SU's such as a witch or a vampire(dominate) and nobody notices then they are undetectable, even more so than a caster because most of the time the caster at least needs a verbal component.
So what? Spellcraft doesn't work on SU's anyway. What you can and can't do with SU's has nothing to do with invisibility and Spellcraft. What Paizo decides is acceptable for SUs means that's what they think is fair. If SU's are too good, that isn't fixed by making spell casters even more powerful.
Quote: With that aside my main point was to counter the notion that casters and noncasters don't already enjoy the same benefits which is to be invisible and still get full use out of their main shtick without being noticed. It seems to be as if you are trying to find an excuse to make this work vs just trying to look at it objectively. This FAQ has not hinted at doing anything to invisible casters. Yes, I see what your point and I disagree with the paradigm. Invisibility isn't a spell that's suppose to let a caster "get full use out of their main stick." You're inventing a requirement for the spell that is entirely your own fabrication. Invisibility does what invisibility does. Whether or not that is uniquely beneficial to any particular tactics is the luck of the draw. The only way an archer or fighter get to do damage is with greater invisibility, something they are not exactly going to have available very often.
Casters get the same in-game IC benefit as everyone else. They can perform the same actions as everyone else with the same exact benefit. The argument that caster's can't do what they want to do, is a fairness argument. You're trying to convince me that this isn't fair and honestly, that dog won't hunt. The fact that wizards can duplicate nearly every skill and completely dominate encounters at higher levels, does not make your case a sympathetic one. Especially since what your doing is making higher level casters even more powerful than they are now. If it were up to a vote, mine would be an emphatic no. And if you stop and think about, if the best use of greater invisibility for a wizard is to cast it on an archer/reach fighter, rather than hoard it for themselves, then I would say its working as intended.
Casting should be obvious and virtually unhide-able. It is the most powerful thing that can occur in the game. You can stop time with spells. You can destroy cities with spells. You can raise the dead with spells. You can travel to other dimensions and create dimensions with spells. No way I'm going to agree a second level spell should make all of that undetectable. You want to suck power from the Weave? Sorry, you're not going hide that fact by hiding under a blanket.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Totally unrelated, but this topic has me thinking about using silent image to create an illusionary caster that casts "silent" spells via somatic only motions. Obviously, he's not really casting anything, he's an illusion, but you could probably use this to "fake out" players with spellcraft...Especially if the spell being "cast" had no immediate spell effects (like control weather).
N N 959 wrote: So what? Spellcraft doesn't work on SU's anyway. What you can and can't do with SU's has nothing to do with invisibility and Spellcraft. What Paizo decides is acceptable for SUs means that's what they think is fair. If SU's are too good, that isn't fixed by making spell casters even more powerful. I see you are missing my point.
You point earlier was about spells and how being undetectable made them so powerful. So I brought up SU's which had been mentioned previously to point out that what you brought up was not limited to spells, and to mention how they are even more difficult to detect.
Basically if your argument was that spells equal N with regard to not being detectable, then SU's are N+1. In other words being hard to detect is not a factor in what the rule is.
Quote: Yes, I see what your point and I disagree with the paradigm. Invisibility isn't a spell that's suppose to let a caster "get full use out of their main stick." You're inventing a requirement for the spell that is entirely your own fabrication. Invisibility does what invisibility does. Whether or not that is uniquely beneficial to any particular tactics is the luck of the draw. The only way an archer or fighter get to do damage is with greater invisibility, something they are not exactly going to have available very often. How often it is availible is not a factor, and remember we are not discussing balance between classes, but only what the rules is. As for balance yeah casters tend to be ahead and the more spell levels you have the more ahead you tend to be. I won't dispute that.
Quote:
Casters get the same in-game IC benefit as everyone else. They can perform the same actions as everyone else with the same exact benefit. The argument that caster's can't do what they want to do, is a fairness argument. You're trying to convince me that this isn't fair and honestly, that dog won't hunt. The fact that wizards can duplicate nearly every skill and completely dominate encounters at higher levels, does not make your case a sympathetic one. Especially since what your doing is making higher level casters...
The current rules are fair. Yes casters can do more, but that does not make it not fair. They just have the power to do more things. The caster can do more with invisibility because he does so much without it. Invisibility is not really the problem here, and trying to nerf invis for casters won't fix the problem that you are trying to fix.
PS: I say all of this as a GM, and someone who almost never plays full casters.
wraithstrike wrote:
Basically if your argument was that spells equal N with regard to not being detectable, then SU's are N+1. In other words being hard to detect is not a factor in what the rule is.
And the response is again....so what? If Spells are N and SU's are N+1, so what? A short sword is 1d6 and a longsword is 1d8. Somethings can use longswords and somethings can't. Just because one class is limited to Shortswords doesn't mean we have to raise their damage.
What's more, is that it's not as simple as SUs=Spell +1. Because there a many more dimensions to the equation than just one metric. The variety and breadth and accessibility of spells dwarfs SU's. Every wizard can't go pick up Fireball as an SU. They can pick it up as a spell. So if SU's are more powerful than Spells...my response is that is by design.
Quote: How often it is availible is not a factor, and remember we are not discussing balance between classes, but only what the rules is. When your argument is that archers get to shoot but caster don't get to cast, that is a balance argument. Casters can shoot and use reach weapons same as everyone else. But you're insisting that because casters don't get to do those things AND cast, then there is a problem. Based on what? Certainly not based on any official rules about what invisibility is suppose to facilitate.
Quote: As for balance yeah casters tend to be ahead and the more spell levels you have the more ahead you tend to be. I won't dispute that. And when Paizo and the PDT go about deciding how these mechanics are going to work, they need to keep these types of things in mind. Because none of this is reality, it's all contrived to support game play and these types of rules decide the experience that players will have.
Quote:
The current rules are fair. Yes casters can do more, but that does not make it not fair. They just have the power to do more things.
I'm not really understanding how one class can "have the power to do more things" and that is fair. But let's not debate that here.
Quote: The caster can do more with invisibility because he does so much without it. Perhaps, but if their manifestations are visible, this provides a nice counter-balancing mechanic.
Quote: Invisibility is not really the problem here, and trying to nerf invis for casters won't fix the problem that you are trying to fix. I'm not trying to fix anything. I'm reading the rules and not seeing any basis for invisibility hiding manifestation. Spellcraft is explicit: I need to see the "spell" as its being cast not the caster. The FAQ makes it clear what the Spellcraft is operating on: Manifestations that all spells create. Since the mechanics of Spellcraft mandate that I can use Spellcraft in a box with the caster, then the manifestations must occur at the point of casting. Prior to the FAQ, you might have convinced me that I do need to see the caster, but the FAQ has disabused me of that notion.
One group insists you have to be able to see the caster...even thought that's not stated in the rules. Another insist a caster's manifestations are made invisible....with nothing to support that in the rules. A third group has tried to argue that the manifestations have nothing to do with the caster's location (with nothing to support that claim). And then there is the idea that the FAQ is a lie. None of those argument have been compelling for me. But to each his own.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Once again how can there even BE a spell before it is cast?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ravingdork wrote: Once again how can there even BE a spell before it is cast? The same way a sandwich comes into being , you start seeing bread cheese baloney mustard cheese coming together. At some point it's incredients. At some point it's a sandwhich. If you bop the sandwich artisan on the nose when it's just one piece of bread and some ham it will probably never be a sandwich.
Although in this example the baloney is all glowy and radioactive so...not that different from reality.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Best. Explanation. Evar.
EDIT: However, by that logic, the spell isn't a spell until it is cast. Prior to being cast it is just a spellcasting manifestation of some kind.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
I'm still not entirely sure what's being argued here.
the FAQ doesn't cover the specific instance of invisibility, I thought FAQs were only supposed to apply to what they explicitly say?
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote: I'm still not entirely sure what's being argued here.
the FAQ doesn't cover the specific instance of invisibility, I thought FAQs were only supposed to apply to what they explicitly say?
That is likely why we're getting so many FAQ clicks. People want to know how to adjudicate this kind of common scenario.
N N 959 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: What you're missing is what I've already explained. That feat, along with the others, demonstrates that Pathfinder, in fact, had not assumed that manifestations were 'a thing' when generating its rules. None of those feats make sense if manifestations exist, and these are feats that were published in 2015 and 2016 as well as the earlier ones. In other words, I've completely explained how hiding a component could make a component based Spellcraft check harder, but you're ignoring that. I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it makes no sense. Big difference.
If manifestations are a thing, and somatic components are unnecessary for spellcraft checks, then why does it matter whether or not someone is hiding their somatic components? People using spellcraft just look at the manifestations. The feat, all of those feats, are irrelevant and useless.
Quote: Quote: If they want to change the rules to now make manifestations a pathfinder rules thing, fine. The underpinnings for manifestations were there ever since Paizo changed Spellcraft to say what it says now. When was that? 2009? The FAQ came out nearly a year ago and doesn't actually change any rules. So I can't agree this is some sudden thing. It'd be great if someone with a first printing of the Corer Rulebook could tell us.
Bull.
Spellcraft said the word manifestation exactly zero times. You are extrapolating from the text that they were talking about manifestations. The existence of multiple rules and feats that explicitly and/or implicitly ignore or deny the existence of manifestations shows exactly how much sense your argument makes.
None.
Quote: Quote: ALSO, pay a little more attention to the big swaths of gameplay that this affects, specifically invisible casting which happens all. of. the. time.
Hunh. Someone earlier in this thread who insisted that manifestations were not visible claimed invisible casting was rare? So which is it? I suspect people will claim whatever supports their position. Through 8 levels of PFS, I've encountered an invisible caster once...and that was an NPC. I imagine others have different anecdotal experiences.
But I do agree that it would be helpful to have the proper handling laid out by the PDT.
Every single campaign I've ever played in that has reached a level where invisibility exists has had invisible casters casting spells.
I'm frankly I'm in utter disbelief that you have encountered only one instance of invisible casting in all of your gameplay.
In my games every single PC who has had access to invisibility, heck even vanish, has at some point cast while invisible. Furthermore, APs are replete with invisible casting tactics, do I really need to make a list?
We could take a poll, but somehow I think you would find a way to discount that as well.
Of course, maybe this difference is because in my games there isn't a shining beacon pinpointing the invisible caster to every hostile creature on the board.
Was there in your case?
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote: Bandw2 wrote: I'm still not entirely sure what's being argued here.
the FAQ doesn't cover the specific instance of invisibility, I thought FAQs were only supposed to apply to what they explicitly say?
That is likely why we're getting so many FAQ clicks. People want to know how to adjudicate this kind of common scenario. exactly I feel like we should all calm down, agree to advise people to smack that FAQ button and keep doing that instead of this, until we get the FAQ.
If people pose serious questions as to the opposite sides PoV then they should respond, as this is right now, too much is left open to interpretation.
Bandw2 wrote:
the FAQ doesn't cover the specific instance of invisibility, I thought FAQs were only supposed to apply to what they explicitly say?
Yes, and no. Some FAQs (see the FAQ on metamagic and its "In general" clause) have a broad spectrum of things they cover. Others are very specific and only apply to that specific question.
What that boils down to, is don't take a FAQ on say, Free Actions and declare that because grab, push, pull, trip can all be used off turn as part of an AoO, that all free actions can be used off turn as part of an AoO.
Conversely, the current FAQ being discussed says ALL spells have manifestations. So if some new form of spell casting comes out in a future book, we don't have to ask if that form of spell casting also includes manifestations. E.g, the FAQ isn't limited to traditional spells, SLA's, and psychic casting only - even though that is what is specifically talks about.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote: The feat, all of those feats, are irrelevant and useless. But they aren't. The feat lets you hide your spellcasting, so when you use the feat your spellcasting is hidden or harder to detect. Because that's what the feat says it does.
Quote: Bull.
Spellcraft said the word manifestation exactly zero times. You are extrapolating from the text that they were talking about manifestations.
Spellcraft also never mentions that spells that lack components are any harder or impossible to detect. Ever assuming that was true in the first place was just as extreme an extrapolation. Arguably worse, because it's changing the rules to suit its purpose.
_Ozy_ wrote: If manifestations are a thing, and somatic components are unnecessary for spellcraft checks, then why does it matter whether or not someone is hiding their somatic components? People using spellcraft just look at the manifestations. The feat, all of those feats, are irrelevant and useless. I've already stated that modifying Spellcraft checks based on the existance or absence of components contradicts Spellcraft. So there are two ways to deal with that:
1. As someone mentioned previously, the feat does what it says it does mechanically. If the fluff doesn't make sense logically or contradicts other fluff, then the GM simply relabels it.
2. The fluff is what controls and if it doesn't make sense, then the feat is invalid and does nothing.
I'll let you decide which method you want to go with it. But I completely agree that Paizo/the PDT should clear this stuff up.
Quote: Spellcraft said the word manifestation exactly zero times. It doesn't matter. Spellcraft all but spelled it out. All the FAQ did was explicitly state what Spellcraft was doing. You think the PDT is lying about other things operating under this paradigm? Okay..that's your prerogative.
Quote: You are extrapolating from the text that they were talking about manifestations. Yes...that what you do with rules to fill in the gaps for things that aren't explicitly discussed.
Quote: The existence of multiple rules and feats that explicitly and/or implicitly ignore or deny the existence of manifestations shows exactly how much sense your argument makes. No, they just prove that Paizo is not perfect and mistake-free. And that when you have an RPG based on legacy rules and people are making changes along with new people creating content, things get missed. But by all means, subscribe to your perspective if that makes you feel better.
Quote: I'm frankly I'm in utter disbelief that you have encountered only one instance of invisible casting in all of your gameplay. Actually, now what I think about it, I did team with a witch who could turn invisible. I don't remember that her casting while invisible ever came up, probably because, as has been pointed out, hexes are SU.
Versus the NPC caster, this was back in 2014, before the FAQ. At the time, I didn't think about using Spellcraft to target them, but in retrospect I should have. Though before the FAQ, I can imagine GMs would have been reluctant to allow it.
Bandw2 wrote: SO...
question.
is anyone BESIDES N N 959 on the side that you can pinpoint the caster if he casts a spell?
I prefer the explanation that N N 959 has put forward. The rules for invisibility are poorly constructed, it seems to me that you could support almost any position by selecting quoting the rules. The interpretation given by N N 959 provides better game balance than the contrary position, that is my main reason for supporting it.
I hate that it reveals my location on my psychic everytime I cast while invisible but that is how I read it currently. which is I want them to add something about invis one way or the other. all my dm's also see it as revealing spell casting. I hate it.
Squiggit wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: The feat, all of those feats, are irrelevant and useless. But they aren't. The feat lets you hide your spellcasting, so when you use the feat your spellcasting is hidden or harder to detect. Because that's what the feat says it does.
Quote: Bull.
Spellcraft said the word manifestation exactly zero times. You are extrapolating from the text that they were talking about manifestations.
Spellcraft also never mentions that spells that lack components are any harder or impossible to detect. Ever assuming that was true in the first place was just as extreme an extrapolation. Arguably worse, because it's changing the rules to suit its purpose.
How does the feat work. A GM has to deal with players who sometimes can think things through. If a feat exists that allows someone to hide somatic gestures to make it hard to detect spellcasting, a GM has to explain why still spell doesn't do the same thing.
And they have to do it in a way that doesn't sound incredibly stupid. Care to take a shot?
Spellcraft does what it says. The fact that there were devs suggesting house rules for DC penalties based on lack of V, S, or M components, despite no mention in the Spellcraft skill, perhaps indicates we shouldn't be using the spellcraft skill as the definitive benchmark for how magic is supposed to work.
And yet, here we are.
N N 959 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: The existence of multiple rules and feats that explicitly and/or implicitly ignore or deny the existence of manifestations shows exactly how much sense your argument makes. No, they just prove that Paizo is not perfect and mistake-free. And that when you have an RPG based on legacy rules and people are making changes along with new people creating content, things get missed. But by all means, subscribe to your perspective if that makes you feel better. Feel better? What does feeling one way or the other have to do with anything? There is no mention of manifestation anywhere in the rules, several feat and abilities absolutely run counter to the idea that manifestations exist. And yet we're supposed to ignore all of that because ONE skill can be extrapolated to possibly infer the existence of some sort of manifestation? Even after a dev already suggested a corrective houserule regarding lack of V, S, M components? I guess he wasn't aware of this unwritten part of the rules either.
Again, bull.
Quote: Versus the NPC caster, this was back in 2014, before the FAQ. At the time, I didn't think about using Spellcraft to target them, but in retrospect I should have. Though before the FAQ, I can imagine GMs would have been reluctant to allow it. ? Why would you have to use spellcraft to target them? Anyone can see manifestations, right? Spellcraft just lets you ID the spell, anyone and everyone on the board should have been able to target the caster regardless of Spellcraft ranks.
Yeah, I do imagine GMs would have been reluctant to allow it considering NOBODY* actually played by this supposed unwritten rule.
*that I have ever heard of
Again, Pathfinder APs are filled with invisible casters, or creatures with Sp abilities. Somehow they seemed to be able to cast their summoning spells just fine.
My primary invisible character is an alchemist. He throws his Su bombs using greater invisibility just fine, regardless of the FAQ. In fact, now he'll be able to target invisible spellcasters all that much easier.
_Ozy_ wrote:
? Why would you have to use spellcraft to target them? Anyone can see manifestations, right? Spellcraft just lets you ID the spell, anyone and everyone on the board should have been able to target the caster regardless of Spellcraft ranks.
I meant using the fact that Spellcraft suggests that there is something to see independent of the caster.
Quote: Yeah, I do imagine GMs would have been reluctant to allow it considering NOBODY* actually played by this supposed unwritten rule. I agree, because Spellcraft has slightly confusing text when it talks about the "technical art of casting a spell." Prior to the FAQ, I would have accepted or even argued that those words are confusing. But the FAQ made it clear that Spellcraft does not need the caster. As is evident from this thread alone, there are GMs and Players who now agree that the manifestations are visible and occur in the square of the caster.
Quote: My primary invisible character is an alchemist. He throws his Su bombs using greater invisibility just fine, regardless of the FAQ. In fact, now... I am surprised there are no rules with being able to locate the square from which a projective is launched. If there is such a rule or one gets created, your alchemist and archers will all be in the same boat as casters.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
How does the feat work. A GM has to deal with players who sometimes can think things through. If a feat exists that allows someone to hide somatic gestures to make it hard to detect spellcasting, a GM has to explain why still spell doesn't do the same thing.
Because someone with still spell doesn't have the special training (feat) to try to conceal their casting? And someone with the feat does.
Quote: The fact that there were devs suggesting house rules for DC penalties based on lack of V, S, or M components, despite no mention in the Spellcraft skill, perhaps indicates we shouldn't be using the spellcraft skill as the definitive benchmark for how magic is supposed to work. Yeah, but it also suggests that the idea is a 'reasonable houserule' rather than anything definitive in the rules.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Boomerang Nebula wrote: Bandw2 wrote: SO...
question.
is anyone BESIDES N N 959 on the side that you can pinpoint the caster if he casts a spell?
I prefer the explanation that N N 959 has put forward. The rules for invisibility are poorly constructed, it seems to me that you could support almost any position by selecting quoting the rules. The interpretation given by N N 959 provides better game balance than the contrary position, that is my main reason for supporting it. this is the wishful thinking fallacy, just like to point it out. Not that there's anything wrong about it. It's just desired balance has no direct effect on what is actually the rules or not.
Squiggit wrote: _Ozy_ wrote:
How does the feat work. A GM has to deal with players who sometimes can think things through. If a feat exists that allows someone to hide somatic gestures to make it hard to detect spellcasting, a GM has to explain why still spell doesn't do the same thing.
Because someone with still spell doesn't have the special training (feat) to try to conceal their casting? And someone with the feat does. No, I mean HOW are they concealing their manifestation by hiding their gestures. The feat literally says they hide their somatic gestures, and that on spells that have ONLY somatic components, they can attempt to hide the fact that they are spellcasting.
With the existence of manifestations, there is literally no way to explain how that feat works in any self-consistent manner.
Btw, how does that feat work if you're invisible? You can hide your somatic gestures, which nobody can see anyways?
Quote: Quote: The fact that there were devs suggesting house rules for DC penalties based on lack of V, S, or M components, despite no mention in the Spellcraft skill, perhaps indicates we shouldn't be using the spellcraft skill as the definitive benchmark for how magic is supposed to work. Yeah, but it also suggests that the idea is a 'reasonable houserule' rather than anything definitive in the rules.
I think you missed the point. If, as the FAQ claimed, the Pathfinder rules were written with the understanding that manifestations were a thing, why would one of the devs suggest such a house rule in the first place.
Why, it's almost as if one of the game developers had no idea that manifestations were a thing.
Shocker.
Why would a feat to conceal your voice and gestures of a spell exist if a big glowy blue bullseye appeared on your chest when you did so?
|
