Spell Manifestations: What are they?

[ElyasRavenwood]

What is a spell manifestation? I have been reading on various threads about spell manifestations. I am curious what are they?
I decided to look up what the components of a spell are, and what one needs to identify a spell as it is being cast with the spell craft skill..

Components

:

A spell’s components explain what you must do or possess to cast the spell. The components entry in a spell description includes abbreviations that tell you what type of components it requires. Specifics for material and focus components are given at the end of the descriptive text. Usually you don’t need to worry about components, but when you can’t use a component for some reason or when a material or focus component is expensive, then the components are important.

Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.

Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

Material (M): A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don’t bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.

Focus (F): A focus component is a prop of some sort. Unlike a material component, a focus is not consumed when the spell is cast and can be reused. As with material components, the cost for a focus is negligible unless a price is given. Assume that focus components of negligible cost are in your spell component pouch.

Core rulebook page: 212-213

Spellcraft (Int; Trained Only)

:

You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells as they are being cast.
Check: Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question. This skill is also used to identify the properties of magic items in your possession through the use of spells such as detect magic and identify. The DC of this check varies depending upon the task at hand.
Action: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors. Learning a spell from a spellbook takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0-level spells take 30 minutes). Preparing a spell from a borrowed spellbook does not add any time to your spell preparation. Making a Spellcraft check to craft a magic item is made as part of the creation process. Attempting to ascertain the properties of a magic item takes 3 rounds per item to be identified and you must be able to thoroughly examine the object.
Retry: You cannot retry checks made to identify a spell. If you fail to learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll, you must wait at least 1 week before you can try again. If you fail to prepare a spell from a borrowed spellbook, you cannot try again until the next day. When using detect magic or identify to learn the properties of magic items, you can only attempt to ascertain the properties of an individual item once per day. Additional attempts reveal the same results.
Special: If you are a specialist wizard, you get a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks made to identify, learn, and prepare spells from your chosen school. Similarly, you take a –5 penalty on similar checks made concerning spells from your opposition schools.
An elf gets a +2 racial bonus on Spellcraft checks to identify the properties of magic items.
If you have the Magical Aptitude feat, you gain a bonus on Spellcraft checks (see Chapter 5).

Core Rulebook Page 106

Spell manifestations do not appear to be mentioned in the rules. Perhaps I missed where the manifestations are mentioned and they are mentioned elsewhere.
Thank you.

[Milo v3]

1. It's implied in the Spellcraft skill as you don't have to see the components, you have to see the spell.
2. This FAQ.

[Angel Hunter D]

Oddly enough the only game I've seen where manifestations are obvious from the get go is the stuff by Privateer Press, which started as on OGL game.

Now that manifestations are chiseled in by word of God, I'm totally using Privateer Press' manifestation style.

[Franz Lunzer]

Can you link the product? I'd be interested.

[SlimGauge]

The manifestations are whatever the GM wants them to be.

[ElyasRavenwood]

Ah thank you. In a home game which I am GMing, I can completely disregard this FAQ if I wish to.

A PFS game is another kettle of fish. Well at least you can customize your spell manifestations.

I'll need to pop onto the PFS boards and see what people's consensus is about them.

Thanks

[Chess Pwn]

The PFS is same as here. All spellcasting is obvious of who is the caster and that he's casting something. Any fluff you add to that is whatever since the mechanics are set, like the fluff you'd add to a sword swing.
The only thing you need to decide is if Invisibility hides the manifestations as well or not. It's currently unclear with good support for both sides.

[Claxon]

ElyasRavenwood wrote:

Ah thank you. In a home game which I am GMing, I can completely disregard this FAQ if I wish to.

A PFS game is another kettle of fish. Well at least you can customize your spell manifestations.

I'll need to pop onto the PFS boards and see what people's consensus is about them.

Thanks

You can disregard the FAQ as much as you should just wantonly disregard things printed in the CRB. Which is to say you should consider carefully why it was clarified that all spells are noticeable, even without spell components. You should also be aware that feats were added in Ultimate Intrigue to hide these manifestations, but do not make it easy.

[GM Rednal]

The FAQ did note that the system just kind of assumed manifestations were a thing... but I agree it should have been more clear originally. XD The easiest way to think of manifestations is "the part of spellcasting that allows a spell to be identified". This is relevant for things like counterspelling.

What the rules say is that every spell can be countered, but you have to identify the spell in order to counter it. Therefore, every spell has something to be identified - that's the manifestation. It is distinct and separate from the components of the spell, whose presence or absence has no effect whatsoever on the ability to identify a spell being cast.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

In short, they are the things that allow you to use the spellcraft skill to identify a spell being cast even if it's silent and stilled with no penalty. Much like the manifestations in the old psionic rules.

What they are exactly, can vary for flavor reasons, but for rules purposes they are equivalent.

[Nefreet]

Just look through any spells section for images of spells being cast for ideas on what manifestations are.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

If you watch any MMORG in action, you'll see that many spells have a graphic that appears during casting which has nothing to do with the actual effect of the spell. Sometimes it will be symbols that appear about the hands, bubbling fire or a glyph that shows on the ground around the caster.

Think of those as examples.

[ElyasRavenwood]

Thank you all again for your thoughts.

I happen to like the artwork in Paizo’s products. I think the choice of having glowing circles of glyphs and halo’s of light surrounding the caster’s hands is a great way of giving the viewer a visual cue that something exiting is happening magic!.

:

I think similarly a Massively Multiplayer Online Games, which is primarily a visual medium with sound, also needs a visual cue to tell you magic is happening. In my opinion, with a “theater of the mind” game like Pathfinder, you don’t necessarily need a visual cue to tell you something fantastical is happening. Perhaps the GM describes hairs on the back of your character’s neck standing up….maybe you have a shiver down your spine…..etc.

In my opinion magic doesn’t have to be visually flashy to let you know it’s happening. But I do agree….it is a good idea for there to be some sort of chance for everyone noticing something fantastical is happening.

I read the FAQ that Milo V was kind enough to post.

:

I understand that the answer to the FAQ has to take into account as much as possible everything Paizo has published. It looks like they have made this choice to specifically address those who have spell like abilities, and psychic magic, and means to help obfuscate when magic is being cast is in the Ultimate intrigue. This of course applies to PFS. While the Occult book, and Ultimate Intrigue book are on my book shelf We don’t use them in our game. So we don’t have to worry about nor account for psychic spell casters. And spell like abilities are usually the province of “monsters”. As an aside thought looking in the Ultimate Intrigue, the Ruse Spell Feat, and the Ruse spells look interesting.

While I do think it is worthwhile to read FAQ and they can provide useful suggestions and insights on how to how to clarify questions,
I often keep this rule around to remind me that we are expected to make the game, us gms and players our own.

The Most Important Rule

:

The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters
have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

Personally I don’t give a FAQ the same weight as something that appears in errata, or more concretely, a change that appears in a new printing of a book.

:

FAQs can and do sometimes change. I couple of years ago I remember the FAQ that allowed the SLA of races to let them qualify for prestige classes like Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and Mystic Theurge. Six month’s later or so, and that FAQ was changed back to what it was before.

The printed word is a little more immutable.

As someone who GMed PFS for quite a few years, I understand you put allot of weight into a FAQ and need to keep up with them.

In my home-game I'll discuss with my players to see if they would like me to add spell manifestations or not.

:

We will discuss if they want these manifestations to look like the brightly glowing circle of illuminated glyphs and the halo of light surrounding the hands of a humanoid caster, or something more subtle and if they prefer not to have manifestations at all...there we are.

Again thank you for your thoughts.

[Isonaroc]

Claxon wrote:

ElyasRavenwood wrote:

Ah thank you. In a home game which I am GMing, I can completely disregard this FAQ if I wish to.

A PFS game is another kettle of fish. Well at least you can customize your spell manifestations.

I'll need to pop onto the PFS boards and see what people's consensus is about them.

Thanks

You can disregard the FAQ as much as you should just wantonly disregard things printed in the CRB. Which is to say you should consider carefully why it was clarified that all spells are noticeable, even without spell components. You should also be aware that feats were added in Ultimate Intrigue to hide these manifestations, but do not make it easy.

Except it wasn't printed in the CRB. But whatever, they clarified it, that's the way it is. Personally, I ignore the FAQ. If someone really wants to cast a stilled, silent spell with eschew materials, they can do it covertly as far as I'm concerned.

[TOZ]

ElyasRavenwood wrote:

What is a spell manifestation?

A poor idea.

[Jader7777]

Stop using words.

start

using

visual

aids

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Dr Styx]

Jader7777 wrote:

Stop using words.

start

using

visual

aids

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

These are all good for the casting of spells, but is the Manifestation apparent over the entire duration of the spell?

[Jader7777]

Like the first picture and protection from evil being cast along with turn undead?

[pH unbalanced]

See, I had always assumed that manifestations weren't visual, but that everyone had a "mana sense" -- much like our ability to feel infra-red on our skin as heat -- that allowed them to know that magic was in use.

You know, hairs rising on the back of your neck, or feeling a disturbance in the force, or whatever.

[GM Rednal]

You can flavor it that way if you want to - although given the rules for Counterspelling, I think they are explicitly visual in nature. XD Basically, they want you to be able to flavor it in whatever way matches your character/setting - but as the rules are written and intended, there's something there.

[andygal]

There could be spells that manifest in a non-visual way, such as cold spells chilling the air around the caster or electricity spells causing minor static electricity near the caster.

[Isonaroc]

Dr Styx wrote:

These are all good for the casting of spells, but is the Manifestation apparent over the entire duration of the spell?

They had better not be, otherwise a essentially all the charm/dominate spells lose most of their use when everyone can see that they're under the influence of Magic the entire spell.

[Milo v3]

Dr Styx wrote:

These are all good for the casting of spells, but is the Manifestation apparent over the entire duration of the spell?

No. Just part of the casting.

[Chess Pwn]

Thing is regardless of how you flavor them the mechanics are that they are able to be perceived and spellcrafted. So a coldness around the caster would need to be perceivable and spellcraftable and 100ft away or more. AND allow everyone to know who is casting the spell.

[Isonaroc]

This is where things start to get weird, though. They've said there are manifestations, but they leave it up in the air as to what they are. Are the visual? Are they tactile? If they're visual, then a blind creature would be unable to make a spellcraft check against it, but they could if it was tactile. Are the manifestations observable in pitch darkness? Do the manifestations themselves emit light? Sure, in home games it isn't a big deal, as the DM can just declare what it is by fiat, but this could be danged troublesome in society play.

[Luthorne]

Isonaroc wrote:

This is where things start to get weird, though. They've said there are manifestations, but they leave it up in the air as to what they are. Are the visual? Are they tactile? If they're visual, then a blind creature would be unable to make a spellcraft check against it, but they could if it was tactile. Are the manifestations observable in pitch darkness? Do the manifestations themselves emit light? Sure, in home games it isn't a big deal, as the DM can just declare what it is by fiat, but this could be danged troublesome in society play.

It's implied that it's visual, and I would consider darkness to be a 'poor condition' or at least 'other factors'...

Spellcraft wrote:

Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

That said, probably depends on individual rulings...

[Chess Pwn]

Spellcraft is modified using perception modifiers. So if being blind gives you a perception penalty then it's giving you a spellcraft penalty.

[darth_borehd]

It's up to GM fiat what spells look like. The rules imply that they look like something visual. For example, I leave it up to the players to describe. Every spellcaster in my world has an idiosyncratic style that can be identified like fingerprints.

[Luthorne]

darth_borehd wrote:

It's up to GM fiat what spells look like. The rules imply that they look like something visual. For example, I leave it up to the players to describe. Every spellcaster in my world has an idiosyncratic style that can be identified like fingerprints.

There actually is something like this described in Ultimate Intrigue...have you seen the greater detect magic spell?

Greater Detect Magic wrote:

Finally, you are able to locate and analyze the signature flourishes in a magical aura that allow you to match a spell to the person who cast it. In order to find these identifiers in a spell's aura, you must spend 1 round focusing on that spell in particular, and succeed at an opposed Knowledge (arcana) check against the caster (or a Knowledge [arcana] check with a DC equal to 15 + the spell level if the caster wants her work to be identified and emphasizes these unique elements rather than obscuring them). Once you learn a caster's set of identifiers, you can remember them as easily as a face or a voice. You can recognize this signature if you succeed at a Spellcraft check when later identifying a spell to determine whether or not that spell was cast by the same individual.

Of course, there's also a way to trick such things utilizing greater magic aura...

Greater Magic Aura wrote:

If cast on an object, this spell functions as magic aura, except that if you have identified the unique spellcasting signatures of a specific individual with greater detect magic or a similar spell, you can make the magic aura appear to have been created by that individual. Alternatively, you can simply obscure all identifiers, making it more difficult to determine who cast the spell.

[PossibleCabbage]

I always figured this was left up to the player to narrate what it looks like when they cast a spell in order to help illustrate that character's specific magical process, and the GM doesn't have a lot of say beyond "people can tell you're casting a spell" and "they can use spellcraft to figure out which one."

So the answer to "what do they look like" is "they're obvious, but what do you want them to look like?"

[GM Rednal]

Pretty much, yeah. Pathfinder is a roleplaying game - while there are mechanical considerations, as a GM, I'm always in favor of allowing players to customize the 'visuals' of what they do if that helps them enjoy the game more. So a wizard might have floating runes, a cleric might have light shine around their holy symbol, a druid might have vines on their clothing twist and move... it's okay for things to be different from table-to-table, or even character-to-character. ^^

[Azten]

What gets really weird is when someone invisible casts a spell.

1) Now you know the square they are in, making invisibility less useful.
2) You know they cast a spell, but can't make a Spellcraft check because you see the spell being cast, only the "manifestations." Regardless of what those manifestations are("Hey, guys? There are tattoos looking things floating in the air over there.").

[GM Rednal]

Invisibility is pretty powerful as it is. XD Besides, characters can generally move before or after they cast the spell, so it's not like the enemy will necessarily know where they are when they're not casting. It's not like it makes it useless.

[Chess Pwn]

There's nothing official to say if invis does or does not hide manifestations. GM choice, plenty of people on both sides of this one.

[TOZ]

Azten wrote:

What gets really weird is when someone invisible casts a spell.

YMMV, this point is still unconfirmed by the PDT.

[Azten]

If we go by the FAQ there is no way(outside of the feats in Ultimate Intrigue) to hide a manifestation. That includes invisibility.

[TOZ]

Azten wrote:

That includes invisibility.

Again, YMMV.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Azten wrote:

If we go by the FAQ there is no way(outside of the feats in Ultimate Intrigue) to hide a manifestation. That includes invisibility.

That only matters during the casting. Even in Warcraft, there is a flash when the spell is cast, but it, like the caster itself, disapears once it's done.

[Plausible Pseudonym]

Azten wrote:

If we go by the FAQ there is no way(outside of the feats in Ultimate Intrigue) to hide a manifestation. That includes invisibility.

There's also no way, outside spells like Invisibility, to hide a spell caster. What's that you say, there's room in the FAQ for manifestations to be part of the caster and also disappear? And that would be consistent with the FAQs intent to stop hidden social spellcasting by people you can clearly observe? Huh, interesting!

Also, Cunning Caster is a superior feat to hide manifestations that appears in Heroes of the Street. Not allowed in PFS, though.

[Ravingdork]

The recent clarification on spell manifestations marked a major paradigm shift in how the game is played for a great many people--even the game developers. There are plenty of encounters written prior to this ruling that no longer function as written as a direct result of that FAQ clarification, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few after!

Hit hardest are monsters who relied on being able to stealthily use their spell-like abilities. Doppelgangers can no longer read peoples' minds in a tavern, succubi cannot seduce people without giving their true nature away, etc.

All in all, I think it is a terrible FAQ entry. It raises more questions then it answers, which is the opposite of what a good FAQ entry is supposed to do.

[Plausible Pseudonym]

Ravingdork wrote:

The recent clarification on spell manifestations marked a major paradigm shift in how the game is played for a great many people--even the game developers. There are plenty of encounters written prior to this ruling that no longer function as written as a direct result of that FAQ clarification, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few after!

There's been at least one. The developer didn't know about the FAQ at the time.

[_Ozy_]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Azten wrote:

If we go by the FAQ there is no way(outside of the feats in Ultimate Intrigue) to hide a manifestation. That includes invisibility.

That only matters during the casting. Even in Warcraft, there is a flash when the spell is cast, but it, like the caster itself, disapears once it's done.

That matters a lot if people have readied actions.

[Azten]

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:

Azten wrote:

There's also no way, outside spells like Invisibility, to hide a spell caster.

Not entirely true. If they can't see you they can't identify the spell. There are quite a few spells to block line of sight, and even distance can be useful.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

_Ozy_ wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Azten wrote:

If we go by the FAQ there is no way(outside of the feats in Ultimate Intrigue) to hide a manifestation. That includes invisibility.

That only matters during the casting. Even in Warcraft, there is a flash when the spell is cast, but it, like the caster itself, disapears once it's done.

That matters a lot if people have readied actions.

If you are at the point where people are readied against you, then stealth took it's berth on the Titanic some time ago.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Ravingdork wrote:

Hit hardest are monsters who relied on being able to stealthily use their spell-like abilities. Doppelgangers can no longer read peoples' minds in a tavern, succubi cannot seduce people without giving their true nature away, etc.

Sure they can. Doppelgangers tend to use their abilities on people who fail their saves, or are distracted by something else. And the whole point of a successful seduction for a succubus, is that the target won't give a damm... literally. The only real change is that stealth casting is no longer a free assumption for PCs... you actually have to work to develop a stealth casting style. One may rework monsters to give them the equivalent of stealth casting... especially for doppelgangers.

[Plausible Pseudonym]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Hit hardest are monsters who relied on being able to stealthily use their spell-like abilities. Doppelgangers can no longer read peoples' minds in a tavern, succubi cannot seduce people without giving their true nature away, etc.

Sure they can. Doppelgangers tend to use their abilities on people who fail their saves, or are distracted by something else.

There are no rules for failing a Detect Thoughts save or being distracted not making you care about or inquire about the guy in the tavern who just obviously cast a spell. Social norms against doing it or announcing your intention and getting permission would have to develop. That kills the doppelgänger/rakshasha concept of passively reading everyone's thoughts without having to sneak into a broom closet, activate, then maintain concentration as you slowly walk over to those whose minds you want to read.

[darth_borehd]

TOZ wrote:

Azten wrote:

That includes invisibility.

Again, YMMV.

What is YMMV?

[CBDunkerson]

darth_borehd wrote:

What is YMMV?

Your Mileage May Vary

An idiom meaning that you may get different results.

[Mark Thomas 66]

Dr. Strange does a magnificent job of this

[Freehold DM]

I knew Mark would be in this thread and I knew he would be speaking of Dr strange.

Spell manifestations are weird. Games without them tend to get ugly, and games overly reliant upon them (or with loud/obvious ones) run contrary to common sense a'la pants stealing in the Gamers. I, and I think, most people who have run games, regardless of system, have them linked primarily to evocative(not necessarily evocation) spells, with more subtle ones being just that.