| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prior to a FAQ on spell manifestations when casting (introduced to rein in psychic casting in social situations), the answer was clearly no. The answer now is "GM decides" until the development team updates with a new FAQ.
Generally, yes. Even without the 'manifestations', you only need to hear the spell cast to try to identify it, with a +5 penalty for missing some components (visual in this case)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Generally, yes. Even without the 'manifestations', you only need to hear the spell cast to try to identify it, with a +5 penalty for missing some components (visual in this case)
Disagree.
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.
Seeing, not perceiving, is a requirement of using Spellcraft to identify a spell. If someone casts a spell behind a curtain 5' away you have no way to identify it no matter how high a Perception check you roll.
|
Generally, yes. Even without the 'manifestations', you only need to hear the spell cast to try to identify it, with a +5 penalty for missing some components (visual in this case)
Disagree.
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.Seeing, not perceiving, is a requirement of using Spellcraft to identify a spell. If someone casts a spell behind a curtain 5' away you have no way to identify it no matter how high a Perception check you roll.
Thanks. So I guess we'll just have to wait on that FAQ then. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.Seeing, not perceiving, is a requirement of using Spellcraft to identify a spell. If someone casts a spell behind a curtain 5' away you have no way to identify it no matter how high a Perception check you roll.
Spellcraft says you have to see the spell being cast. Not the caster of the spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell and its normal visible manifestation, if any, (e.g. fireball but not charm person) doesn't exist until after the spellcraft check is complete. There's just the ill-defined manifestations of spellcasting from the recent FAQ. If those manifestations are on the caster (skin runes) or an outgrowth of the caster connected to his body in the same way his clothing/gear is (glowing runes connected by whispy tendrils to your hand) then they can be covered up by invisibility. The FAQ currently leaves the nature of these manifestations up to the GM, so.
Additionally, my post you're reponding to was in response to a (definitely wrong) claim that you can identify a spell with spellcraft by hearing its verbal component. That's not the case at all.
The manifestations could be energy in the area. If there is verbal components to the spell you could hear those being spoken. If the material component is unique and you had the scent ability, you might smell that they pulled out a twig of holly, basically, up to the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No official clarification has been given by PDT on if invisibility does or does not stop spellcraft from identifying spells. Plenty of people on both sides, both have enough rules support to make their cases. It's literally just the GM's/table's decision for now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The manifestations could be energy in the area. If there is verbal components to the spell you could hear those being spoken. If the material component is unique and you had the scent ability, you might smell that they pulled out a twig of holly, basically, up to the GM.
No to hearing and smelling. The spellcraft skill specifies you have to SEE it. The FAQ leaves leeway for describing manifestations, but doesn't change how the skill operates. Sound and smells can exist, if you want, but they can't be sufficient or necessary to ID a spell, just extra fluff for flavor.
See the spell, not the caster. GM decides if the spell causes energy fluctuations from mana moving in the area, or just that the bear druids features look a bit more bear-y while he casts.
The others still let you know that a spell was cast. Just not to identify what it was.
Your GM is in house rules territory if you have spellcasting manifestations visible anywhere but the caster's square.
The others let you know they chanted something you didn't understand (a prayer in an unknown language?) or carry spices into battle for good luck or deodorant purposes.
Your GM is in house rules territory if you have spellcasting manifestations visible anywhere but the caster's square.
The others let you know they chanted something you didn't understand (a prayer in an unknown language?) or carry spices into battle for good luck or deodorant purposes.
Sure, in their square. Doesn't mean there isn't some visible component of a spell even though the caster is invisible.
This is evident in that even a quickened, silent, still, no material component/eschew materials spell can still be spellcrafted to identify what it is as it is cast. The caster did not have to move, speak, or do anything other than think the spell into happening. And yet, you can tell what spell it is if you know about spells.
Yes, I agree that the rules and FAQ leave that leeway for a GM to decide to run it that way. Or the other way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Perception Modifiers .. DC Modifier
Creature or object is invisible .. +20
The FAQ indicates the spell's manifestations are visible and usable for spellcraft. What the manifestation is, is not stated. It would be reasonable to apply the +20 modifier for IDing a spell from an invisible caster.
2nd edition had actual rules that took into account "V", "S", "M", and so on, where fewer components made it harder.
/cevah
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is just another FAQ that further complicates the issue by not covering the consequences of the change.
Since the FAQ is supposedly how the game worked since day one... then I suppose no changes are necessary to how we play the game. If you can see a caster you can spellcraft their casting and get AOOs against their casting. If you can not see them... then you can not and it doesn't automatically give away their square. To make it easy, just say the spell itself(including its manifestations) is not separate from the caster until it has been cast thus falls under the invisibility umbrella. It also has the benefit of being the least complicated.
Manifestations are just the excuse why you can spellcraft and get AOOs vs spells that have no visible or audible components such as psychic casting. So it's probably best to rule that they do their job but not change how the game has been functioning up till now. IE it is a caster/SLA "nerf"(clarification) not an invisibility nerf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Manifestations are just the excuse why you can spellcraft and get AOOs vs spells that have no visible or audible components such as psychic casting. ...
This.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... Manifestations are just the excuse why you can spellcraft and get AOOs vs spells that have no visible or audible components such as psychic casting. ...This.
Except that excuse was never necessary. Spells require concentration. It has always been enough to say the lack of focus (on one's own defense) due to casting the spell was enough to trigger the attack of opportunity.
An enemy doesn't need to know your casting to get the AoO, he just has to know you've suddenly let your guard down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Cevah said, you apply all the perception penalties. Invisibility give a perception penalty? Yes.
So we have wat penalty invisibility applies to identifying a spell.
Not necessarily. If you think the perception penalty is to see a faint distortion, then maybe. If you think the perception penalty is to account for the fact you have to use sound or other non-sight sensory clues then you absolutely can't spellcraft an invisible manifestation. You have to see, not sense, the spell casting.
I said maybe rather than yes because it's by no means obvious that a subtle spatial distortion that lets you see what square an invisible creature inhabits provides the visual detail to identify manifestations.
I vote strongly against this middle ground. Either manifestations reveal your square, or they can't be seen at all when invisible. There are already magical and mundane counters to invisibility. Use See Invisibility and Glitterdust in combat, use beaded curtains in all doors in socia/inflitrationl situations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Manifestations are just the excuse why you can spellcraft and get AOOs vs spells that have no visible or audible components such as psychic casting. ...This.Except that excuse was never necessary. Spells require concentration. It has always been enough to say the lack of focus (on one's own defense) due to casting the spell was enough to trigger the attack of opportunity.
An enemy doesn't need to know your casting to get the AoO, he just has to know you've suddenly let your guard down.
Spell manifestations were invented [out of discussions on this board] for one purpose only. To account for the lack of rules stating that the still and silent metamagics have no impact on spell identification DC's. Since Paizo was not going to change on this point, the rest pretty much had to follow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There never should have been an argument for silent spell. Spellcraft specifies you have to see the spell being cast, not hear, not perceive, not sense. Unless Spellcraft includes lip reading for all species that use verbal components the components really never were the issue.
Paralyzation should also lead to AoO. It's not less vulnerable than drinking a potion...
Doesn't a Mass Hold Person followed by someone with combat reflexes walking through playing whack a mole just feel good as a concept?
I had a situation where as a psychic I got paralyzed and I was told I can still cast as it was a mental process and paralyzed doesn't stop it. that made me think, what exactly is provoking an attack of opportunity if I am paralyzed? my "guard" couldn't be more down. the spell manifestations let them know I am casting a spell and to try and stop me. so yes it was needed.... Manifestations are just the excuse why you can spellcraft and get AOOs vs spells that have no visible or audible components such as psychic casting. ...This.Except that excuse was never necessary. Spells require concentration. It has always been enough to say the lack of focus (on one's own defense) due to casting the spell was enough to trigger the attack of opportunity.
An enemy doesn't need to know your casting to get the AoO, he just has to know you've suddenly let your guard down.
As Plausible Pseudonym pointed out, that's a weird quirk of paralysis, and really has nothing to do with my argument.
... Manifestations are just the excuse why you can spellcraft and get AOOs vs spells that have no visible or audible components such as psychic casting. ...This.Except that excuse was never necessary. Spells require concentration. It has always been enough to say the lack of focus (on one's own defense) due to casting the spell was enough to trigger the attack of opportunity.
An enemy doesn't need to know your casting to get the AoO, he just has to know you've suddenly let your guard down.
Except this whole topic is about an invisible spellcaster, which you can't see to tell that their guard is down.
|
|
Except this whole topic is about an invisible spellcaster, which you can't see to tell that their guard is down.... Manifestations are just the excuse why you can spellcraft and get AOOs vs spells that have no visible or audible components such as psychic casting. ...This.Except that excuse was never necessary. Spells require concentration. It has always been enough to say the lack of focus (on one's own defense) due to casting the spell was enough to trigger the attack of opportunity.
An enemy doesn't need to know your casting to get the AoO, he just has to know you've suddenly let your guard down.
Irrelevant, you can't make AoO against creatures that you can't see.
So either you wav a way to see/perceive the caster and you can notice that he is letting his guard down, or you don't have a way to do that and you can't take a AoO.
Invisibility already got buffed compared to D&D 3.5, so I don't see any reason to allow it to conceal spell manifestations as well. Those come into existance after invisibility has already been cast, so there is a good argument for them not being invisible at all.
But in my games manifestations aren't centered on a single square, so while you would have a chance to identify a spell and maybe get a very vague idea where it came from (similar to ranged attacks from invisible shooters), it won't allow you to pinpoint the caster. Hasn't caused any problems so far.
Irrelevant, you can't make AoO against creatures that you can't see.
No, not true. Creatures with Blindsight that can't see you still get an AOO if you provoke one.
So either you wav a way to see/perceive the caster and you can notice that he is letting his guard down, or you don't have a way to do that and you can't take a AoO.
This part is true.