What, Still Spell? I would say "being able to cast when you are unable to use your hands" is still a perfectly valid use for metamagic to have.
Changes in grapple may have rendered this feat useless as well.
You can cast in a grapple
You need still spell to cast in a pin, but the concentration check is in the "not even on a nat 20" range
I suppose you could use it to get around arcane armor failure.
No, I mean HOW are they concealing their manifestation by hiding their gestures.
I'm not sure why this is a question that needs to be asked. The feat does what it says it does. The how is however you want to fluff things in your games. Perhaps in learning to better obscure his gestures the caster has also learned tricks to make the manifestation less visible as well, but it doesn't work for other types of spells because the verbal or material components give it away.
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.
In that same post the dev said that by the rules there would be no penalty, which indicates the exact opposite. Saying "but if you want you can houserule it" doesn't invalidate that first part.
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.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.SO...
question.
is anyone BESIDES N N 959 on the side that you can pinpoint the caster if he casts a spell?
Your "wishful thinking" comment makes no sense to me. My preference is the interpretation by N N 959. I have no idea what the official position is on the matter.
"That way of reading the rules is completely borked and this way provides a reasonable benefit, lets go with this way" will get you to the right answer far more than insisting on an allegedly objective meaning from the grammar.
No, I mean HOW are they concealing their manifestation by hiding their gestures.I'm not sure why this is a question that needs to be asked. The feat does what it says it does. The how is however you want to fluff things in your games. Perhaps in learning to better obscure his gestures the caster has also learned tricks to make the manifestation less visible as well, but it doesn't work for other types of spells because the verbal or material components give it away.
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.
In that same post the dev said that by the rules there would be no penalty, which indicates the exact opposite. Saying "but if you want you can houserule it" doesn't invalidate that first part.
All i know is apparently, while invisible, hiding your gestures is enough to make sure manifestations hidden as well.
"That way of reading the rules is completely borked and this way provides a reasonable benefit, lets go with this way" will get you to the right answer far more than insisting on an allegedly objective meaning from the grammar.
depends on what you're asking. are you looking for the best possible reading of the rules, or the most accurate, or simply the least complicated?
Your "wishful thinking" comment makes no sense to me. My preference is the interpretation by N N 959. I have no idea what the official position is on the matter.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.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.SO...
question.
is anyone BESIDES N N 959 on the side that you can pinpoint the caster if he casts a spell?
I'm saying that comments on preferred side don't hold any argumentative merit. they shouldn't impact other people's choice on which side to choose. that's all.
The Spellcraft FAQ makes a big deal about not being able to hide your spellcasting, thus visible manifestations, and now a feat that doesn't even mention manifestations can just override the intent?
Yeah, feats often let you do things that are beyond what you could otherwise normally do. That's kind of the whole point of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However... I don't think they should hide manifestations unless they actually say they do so, especially because there is no logical connection between manifestations and components.
don't worry, if you want to cats invisible, you just have to try to hide your somatic components and BAM they won't notice the manifestations...
However... I don't think they should hide manifestations unless they actually say they do so, especially because there is no logical connection between manifestations and components.don't worry, if you want to cats invisible, you just have to try to hide your somatic components and BAM they won't notice the manifestations...
*snirk*
Ok, yeah, that's pretty funny.
I'm saying that comments on preferred side don't hold any argumentative merit. they shouldn't impact other people's choice on which side to choose. that's all.
Fair enough, I can agree with that.
Is there an order of importance for published material?
I would have thought that the hierarchy would be something like this.
House Rules (table specific)
Errata
FAQS
Core Rulebook
Additional Rulebooks (optional)
Adventure Paths (optional)
3rd Party Content (optional)
In which case the FAQ description would overrule the feat unless your GM had a house rule that said otherwise.
Does anyone know otherwise?
Errata
FAQ are not supposed to change the rules, which why people complain about stealth errata. If the rules contradict the FAQ the FAQ should be FAQ'd.
Apart from that the latest printing of a book takes precedence.
...
FAQ are not supposed to change the rules
...
When has this ever been the case? Seriously.
I get that using something called Frequently Asked Questions as a method of rules revision is highly questionable, but Paizo is doing that and this FAQ (among many other things) is a reflection of that. Complaining about the FAQ changing the rules (assuming for the moment that it actually does) is tantamount to criticizing the entire FAQ process. This probably isn't the place for that to be addressed, because the scope of that issue goes far beyond this FAQ alone.
From the perspective of the designers the FAQ should not change the intent of the rules only the way it is perceived by everyone else. Well that is how I thought it was supposed to work.
From the perspective of the designers the FAQ should not change the intent of the rules only the way it is perceived by everyone else. Well that is how I thought it was supposed to work.
Nope. See Spell like abilities and prestige classes, or monk TWF with only one weapon, or haste and spell combat, or arguably racial FCB and halfbreeds, just to name a few off the top of my head. They have gone back and changed things plenty of times.
Based on those examples, I can see why people complain about stealth errata masquerading as a FAQ.
Based on those examples, I can see why people complain about stealth errata masquerading as a FAQ.
Well yeah, but this is yet another example in a long list of faqratta. It isn't as if this FAQ in particular should be demonized for being a rules change when the exact same thing has been happening over and over for a long time.
If the manifestations are visible... characters can still cast and move. Or move and cast. People don't know what order they're doing it in. I wouldn't say it necessarily invalidates every possible strategy...
Exactly, that is why I like it.
It makes it harder for a wizard to be a better rogue than a rogue without stopping wizards from using misdirection entirely.
If the manifestations are visible... characters can still cast and move. Or move and cast. People don't know what order they're doing it in. I wouldn't say it necessarily invalidates every possible strategy...Exactly, that is why I like it.
It makes it harder for a wizard to be a better rogue than a rogue without stopping wizards from using misdirection entirely.
this will not make the rogue good at roguing. They still have a mere class skill as pretty much the sum total of their sneaking abilities.
...monk TWF with only one weapon, ...racial FCB and halfbreeds
What happened to those? Did they change how FoB works? Did they make it so half-elves can't get human or elf fcb any more?
...monk TWF with only one weapon, ...racial FCB and halfbreedsWhat happened to those? Did they change how FoB works? Did they make it so half-elves can't get human or elf fcb any more?
They ruled that they had always intended FOB to work with two actual weapons. After a while they realized that really wasn't obvious from the rules and had been missed by every other part of the game so they moved it back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is yet another example of an ability that is supposed to help conceal spells no longer functioning as intended because of this nonsensical FAQ.
Seems it broke far more than it fixed.
Please FAQ this thread's original post if you wish to know how these circumstances should be adjudicated. As this FAQ stands now, it's going to end up with every game table running these oh so common scenarios differently from every other table!
Here is yet another example of an ability that is supposed to help conceal spells no longer functioning as intended because of this nonsensical FAQ.
Seems it broke far more than it fixed.
Please FAQ this thread's original post if you wish to know how these circumstances should be adjudicated. As this FAQ stands now, it's going to end up with every game table running these oh so common scenarios differently from every other table!
I am lost RD. What no longer conceals spells?
Yeah - you're protected from AoO's, but the spell says absolutely nothing about hiding your manifestations or stopping people from realizing that you're casting in the first place. Isn't this another case of assuming things have effects that they really don't?
Oh, I get it now.
In his defense manifestations were not a thing when this spell was written, and even now nothing says they give a location away so really they have no affect on this spell unless Paizo says they give your location away even while invisible or under an affect like this one.
Yeah - you're protected from AoO's, but the spell says absolutely nothing about hiding your manifestations or stopping people from realizing that you're casting in the first place. Isn't this another case of assuming things have effects that they really don't?Oh, I get it now.
In his defense manifestations were not a thing when this spell was written, and even now nothing says they give a location away so really they have no affect on this spell unless Paizo says they give your location away even while invisible or under an affect like this one.Well in theory, manifestations were always a thing, just not clearly stated. :)
Even beyond that though, the spell still keeps you from taking attacks of opportunity when you cast, even if the manifestation can be clearly seen. Much like defensive casting keeps you from provoking, even though it's obvious you're casting. You don't appear to have the vulnerability/distraction that lets Attacks of Opportunity happen.
The idea was that "something" allowed you to spellcraft even with no components. That "something" was never really decided on. I guess that due to the new Intrigue book they had to nail it down, but our buddy Invisibility is causing problems, just like it does for the stealth rules.
I would write it for them, with rules quotes, and let them fix what they don't like if it would fix this and stealth more quickly. <--Yeah, I know it will never happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well in theory, manifestations were always a thing, just not clearly stated. :)
Per usual, I call BS on this theory. There is clear evidence in the rules that strongly suggest otherwise. Among other things a multitude of game designers wrote rules/encounters over the years operating under the assumption that, that theory was NOT true. Now that it has been "clarified," many corner cases and even many mainstream cases have fallen apart or otherwise become terribly unclear. Whether this was done to promote their new products or to bring us closer to a "stealth Pathfinder 2.0," I can't say for certain, but I absolutely 100% believe that this was a clear and deliberate change to the game's rules, not merely just a clarification.
At the very least, this is gross failure on Paizo's part to communicate clearly; FAQ entries are meant to make things clearer for everyone, allowing different tables to play in a more consistent manner, not spread mass confusion and further dividing different tables' interpretations of the rules.
|
@Ravingdork: it goes like that every time some aspect of the rules that was previously vague gets nailed down; then suddenly it turns out that quite a few writers held other interpretations and got stuff published based on those (and often contradicting each other, too).
Just imagine trying to nail down what "wielding" means.
Now that it has been "clarified," many corner cases and even many mainstream cases have fallen apart or otherwise become terribly unclear.
This would be unfortunate, if it were true. No one's actually presented such a case without making some strong and unsupported assumptions about what the manifestations actually do.
Or, more directly, things only fall apart if you willfully interpret the FAQ to make them fall apart. In which case the problem is with you, not with the FAQ.
Orfamy, are you refuting the idea that things are more confusing now than they were prior to the FAQ entry?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orfamy, are you refuting the idea that things are more confusing now than they were prior to the FAQ entry?
Well, before the FAQ entry psycic casters would just run through social encounters dominating everyone with no real defense against them. So while things are more confusing after the FAQ it's probably gotten better.
this will not make the rogue good at roguing. They still have a mere class skill as pretty much the sum total of their sneaking abilities.If the manifestations are visible... characters can still cast and move. Or move and cast. People don't know what order they're doing it in. I wouldn't say it necessarily invalidates every possible strategy...Exactly, that is why I like it.
It makes it harder for a wizard to be a better rogue than a rogue without stopping wizards from using misdirection entirely.
True. If I was going to redesign the character classes for better balance in addition to limiting casters I would boost the rogue a little.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*fails saving throw, posts*
Can I try to summarize what we'd like an FAQ on this to sort out?
- In general we all agree that nowadays, manifestations exist. And they should, because they keep psychic casters from dominating people without any warning whatsoever. They also clarify why you can use spellcraft on component-less spells and SLAs.
- A big question is whether the manifestations are visible even if the caster isn't (invisibility). There's a lot of disagreement on how it works, and if it should work.
On the one hand, quite a few AP encounters have NPCs relying on it working. Perhaps also in PFS. With the "run as written" nature of scenarios, it would be awkward if their tactic is invalidated.
Also, quite a few wizard PCs like their safe summoning. As do psychic casters who don't have to worry about verbal components.
On the other hand, for everyone on the receiving end those encounters can be a bit of a drag. What with the new feats that you need to hide manifestations, they'd be relegated to a more specialized rarer niche.
And, just because casting would give away your position, doesn't mean invisibility becomes useless. It'll still protect you from AoOs, or let you move away from your revealed-position after you cast your spell, or just use the invisibility to buff another party member.
All in all it would be nice to get a decisive answer about this.
- Quite a few older feats and abilities have language focusing on hiding your spellcasting by concealing the use of components, not on hiding manifestations. Are they supposed to hide manifestations now?
|
I'm actually really pleased with the implications of the manifestations FAQ. It has changed the way that I run invisible caster encounters, but apparantly not as much as some people have had to change them. I always gave players a general area that the spell casting came from, but I'm guessing it needs to be more specific from now on. I'm not sure what the intent is, but until we find out otherwise I think i'll house rule giving away an intersection of squares that the manifestation comes from, and players can guess which of the 4 squares the enemy is in.
I know of a couple encounters I've run in the past from published material that this FAQ might change things a bit for, compared to when I ran them but I don't think it really invalidates the tactics as much as some people are claiming it does. I'm pretty sure the Wriggling Man in Kingmaker book 6 stays a lot like it was when I ran it at the end of last year.
Or I could be wrong, and the sky really is falling. I would like to hear if anyone has an example of a published encounter where the FAQ really does truely invalidate the tactics as written. For Science.
I'm actually really pleased with the implications of the manifestations FAQ. It has changed the way that I run invisible caster encounters, but apparantly not as much as some people have had to change them. I always gave players a general area that the spell casting came from, but I'm guessing it needs to be more specific from now on. I'm not sure what the intent is, but until we find out otherwise I think i'll house rule giving away an intersection of squares that the manifestation comes from, and players can guess which of the 4 squares the enemy is in.
I know of a couple encounters I've run in the past from published material that this FAQ might change things a bit for, compared to when I ran them but I don't think it really invalidates the tactics as much as some people are claiming it does. I'm pretty sure the Wriggling Man in Kingmaker book 6 stays a lot like it was when I ran it at the end of last year.
Or I could be wrong, and the sky really is falling. I would like to hear if anyone has an example of a published encounter where the FAQ really does truely invalidate the tactics as written. For Science.
Some encounters involve detect thoughts, but the players are not supposed to know the spell is in play.
Also if the intersection is given away glitterdust can be used to cancel being invisible. Glitterdust is a very common spell. If it actually gives away invisible casters then it truely changes how things work tactically.All you would have to do is ready an action to wherever the manisfestation appeared. You don't even need to worry about making a perception check to get a general idea of where the caster is.
PS: I don't think the rules say anything about giving direction away, but it is common in many games.
I would also like clarification on how it works with (non-invisible) stealth. Pretty much along the same lines as the invisibility question, but might not be covered by the answer.
- In general we all agree that nowadays, manifestations exist. And they should, because they keep psychic casters from dominating people without any warning whatsoever. They also clarify why you can use spellcraft on component-less spells and SLAs.
- A big question is whether the manifestations are visible even if the caster isn't (invisibility). There's a lot of disagreement on how it works, and if it should work.
I'm rather curious about the opposite: how would someone "fake" these manifestations, in order to pretend to cast a spell? Hand movements and incantations can be mimicked easily enough - unspecified phenomena not so much.