The original poster appears to have been under the impression that you can take AoOs against an invisible enemy as long as you can pinpoint their square - otherwise there's not much point in doing Step Up.
But the OP has been gone for a while.
Uh, there is absolutely nothing in the game that specifies you can locate a caster from "manifestations".Since the manifestations are clearly perceivable, why would you not be aware of their location?
The caster doesn't need to 5' step away to cast freely, because as long as they have total concealment (50% miss chance), they do not provoke AoO. Visible spell manifestations do not remove that miss chance.Nobody is claiming they do.
The OP did.
The discussion should be focused on issues surrounding Step Up, AoO's and the interactions between them and Invisibility.
If you want to discuss other aspects of the rules (like the visible manifestations of spell casting), a new thread should be made.
For example, if you want to discuss specific DC's to pinpoint a creature and what might impact that DC this thread would be more appropriate. Or you could make a new one specifically concerning the "manifestations" aspect.
If you want to discuss visible manifestations of spellcasting by invisible characters, this would be a good place. You could also FAQ it there, though I suspect Paizo is wary of answering a question where people have such strong opinions.
You're free to rule as you wish, but Jason Buhleman disagreed with you.
The OP made several mistatements which made it seem likely that the caster wasn't actually pinpointed. But even if he were pinpointing at one point in time doesn't pinpoint him at every other time, or in fact at any other time.
Where? Cite?
No, and I never said it did. It is just that the caster is already pinpointed, and step up is a immediate action.
Well, that was sensible. Someone get the lights on the way out. ; )
Remember, all of this is about whether or not the character with Step Up can make an Attack of Opportunity.
In Pathfinder, if the target has total concealment, you CANNOT make an AoO, even if you know what square they are in.
The caster doesn't need to 5' step away to cast freely, because as long as they have total concealment (50% miss chance), they do not provoke AoO. Visible spell manifestations do not remove that miss chance.
"After the PC turn in which he used a minor action (page 186) to make a perception check to perceive pinpoint the NPC and then attacked. The NPC in his turn tries to take a 5-foot step back to cast. The PC wants to use his “Step Up” feat claiming he “pin pointed” with perception so he can follow him."
The PC is not going for a AoO in this part, he just wants his free 5' step. Which he should get.
And the caster has no idea that the PC doesnt have See Invis, etc. After all the PC did swing at him.
The original poster appears to have been under the impression that you can take AoOs against an invisible enemy as long as you can pinpoint their square - otherwise there's not much point in doing Step Up.
But the OP has been gone for a while.
Sure there is. Now you are right in the caster's face. So the caster casts a offensive spell. He cant MOVE away without provoking. He can 5' step, but the PC has Step up.
Now, here is a question. Taking Manifestations aside, let us say the caster does a offensive spell, which immediately ends invis. Does the PC get a AoO? Obviously the AoO cant interrupt spellcasting.
You're free to rule as you wish, but Jason Buhleman disagreed with you.
The OP made several mistatements which made it seem likely that the caster wasn't actually pinpointed. But even if he were pinpointing at one point in time doesn't pinpoint him at every other time, or in fact at any other time.
Where? Cite?
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt9j&page=2?Stealth-Errata#64
Look, I'm sympathetic to the idea of stepping up - the player gave up a feat for it, it should have some game effect.
However, read step up. I can't pull the quote at the moment, but its something like "Benefit: Whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step away from you, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent"
If you don't know where the wizard is, you cannot be sure to end up adjacent.
Do you think you should be able to step up into each of the 3 potential squares until you guess the right one?
The ramification of which would be that Step up would allow you to pinpoint the location of invisible characters - something never intended.
I think I would rule that you may guess one square. If you guess right, you step up; if you guess wrong you stay in place, *if* you can perceive the 5ft step.
Now, here is a question. Taking Manifestations aside, let us say the caster does a offensive spell, which immediately ends invis. Does the PC get a AoO?
That also sounds like a question for another thread.
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get an AoO for the casting - the caster would appear only when they've finished doing casting and the attack spell has fired off, by which time it's too late to respond.
This is probably also true for something like casting a ranged touch spell from invisibility into someone's face. I believe you can get sneak damage for such a spell, implying you don't become visible until after the attack has already taken place.
Mathew, its considered bad form to necro threads - and you are proposing people necro threads from six years ago..
Either that or read the threads from six years ago that already resolved the question.
|
The whole thing about manifestations is a hijack, and not relevant here. It does not matter whether or not the Caster will trigger a AOO. The caster knows he has been spotted, and wants to do a 5 foot step just in case the PC can see him. (The caster has no idea whether or not the PC has See invis, or Blindsight, etc).
.
The caster could attempt perception/sense motive to determine if the fighter notices him. This could be resisted by bluff/disguise.
If the caster is aware that they are spotted, then they should be able to feint despite invisibility.
[
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt9j&page=2?Stealth-Errata#64Look, I'm sympathetic to the idea of stepping up - the player gave up a feat for it, it should have some game effect.
However, read step up. I can't pull the quote at the moment, but its something like "Benefit: Whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step away from you, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent"
If you don't know where the wizard is, you cannot be sure to end up adjacent.
Do you think you should be able to step up into each of the 3 potential squares until you guess the right one?
The ramification of which would be that Step up would allow you to pinpoint the location of invisible characters - something never intended.
Well, yes, I read that post,* but it has no bearing on what I said. I said there is no need at all for a perception check, since one has already been made and the target has not yet moved. See Step up is Immediate. It interrupts. It happens As the foe is moving not after.
It is already a given that your have pinpointed the caster. You already know where the Caster is.
Let me show you a different way: The caster is NOT invisible. He is standing there, right next to the PC. He then casts Invisibility. Does the PC get a AOO? Yes! Why, isnt the caster Invisible? Not yet, since a AOO is a immediate action.
If Step up wasnt Immediate, you'd be correct.
*"For simplicities sake, it should be assumed that those making Perception checks get to do so at the most favorable point during the movement of a character using Stealth, to avoid making checks every time the condition changes. Technically, I think you would get a check whenever the conditions change, but that might make things overly complicated during play."
The whole thing about manifestations is a hijack, and not relevant here. It does not matter whether or not the Caster will trigger a AOO. The caster knows he has been spotted, and wants to do a 5 foot step just in case the PC can see him. (The caster has no idea whether or not the PC has See invis, or Blindsight, etc).
.
The caster could attempt perception/sense motive to determine if the fighter notices him. This could be resisted by bluff/disguise.
If the caster is aware that they are spotted, then they should be able to feint despite invisibility.
True, he could. But he didn't. But the Fighter has noticed him and I think attacked.
Either that or read the threads from six years ago that already resolved the question.
The first thread you suggested had three comments. None by paizo. Hardly
'resolved'.Uh, there is absolutely nothing in the game that specifies you can locate a caster from "manifestations".It says the manifestations are visible. And they're not on the list of things concealed by invisibility. I'd assume they appear in your square.
Assumption: that they appear in your square. Whereas, I've given example - and there are several others - that they do *not* necessarily appear in your square. The summoned creature appears in a gout of flame and wind - certainly fulfils the letter of the FAQ, and is thematic.
If the druid "Calls Lightning" - storm clouds gather (perhaps even a mile up) ominously.
Take a look at spellcraft.
If the caster is invisible - you get a minus to determine the spell.
If the caster is silent - you get a minus to determine the spell.
If you can't see the caster clearly - you get a minus to determine the spell.
IIRC from 3.5, if it was quickened - you got a minus to determine the spell.
You are making the argument that manifestations convey information other than what the rules state.
*IF* manifestations were able to do that - you would see the information under concealment, under invisibility. If manifestations were able to do that - why would a person need to see the caster casting - at all - to make a spell craft check. Just make the check against the manifestations.
Likewise, take a concealed, or covered mage.
Cover blocks line of effect - what you are arguing is regardless of the line of sight, line of effect rules, manifestations would be visible.
What you are further arguing is that someone with a stealth skill, who has taken the care to cover their footprints, taken the care to blend in, lacks the ability to take efforts to prevent location by the side effects of spells.
So what you are arguing that what is intended to be a minor side effect which is subject "perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spell caster.." is in fact a major (albeit unwritten) rule that trumps rules on line of effect, concealment, invisibility, location, etc. I don't find your argument persuasive, but I agree with you that its a ripe area for Paizo to explore.
And it would add to the game - how does a wizard make a spell silent. Can the bystander detect the spell. Are these the droids you're looking for....
Really, what is the value of things like nondection, change self, disguise self, dominate person, magic jar, possession etc., if using magic made it plain the victim was under magic effect?The manifestations appear on the caster while casting the spell, not on the victim.
Uh, there is absolutely nothing in the game that specifies you can locate a caster from "manifestations".Since the manifestations are clearly perceivable, why would you not be aware of their location?
Pretty much answered above, but
A). The manifestations are not necessarily visible. A gout of heat, a rush of air - would make perfectly lovely manifestations.
B). The manifestations are not necessarily in the casters square.
C). There's nothing to support your contention that the manifestations appear on the caster while casting the spell. See the spellcraft argument above.
D). The manifestations may perhaps are subject "to the artistic aesthetics of the caster."
Which suggests that the manifestations are under the control of the caster.
E). There's nothing to suggest that control of the manifestations aren't already subsumed under the rules for steal; concealment; invisibility; illusion, dominate person etc.
F). Its the spell - not the caster - that has manifestations. So the rest of the assumptions about being visible, being with the caster - are further suspect. If a spell manifests 30 feet a way - the spell has manifestations - why would you make any presumption about the caster?
Your contention would break dozens of spells. Whats the point of project image, if the caster reveals his location with manifestations?
Suppose you have a contingency spell - do you continually manifest? And if so... What?
What about Snirflevbin.. famous illusionists. Too bad that racial ability of nondetection is useless everytime you cast a spell - breaking just about every mod ever made with them.
The fact is manifestations are supposed to announce one thing - and one thing only. This is magic.
|
|
If you don't know where the wizard is, you cannot be sure to end up adjacent.
Do you think you should be able to step up into each of the 3 potential squares until you guess the right one?
The ramification of which would be that Step up would allow you to pinpoint the location of invisible characters - something never intended.
I think I would rule that you may guess one square. If you guess right, you step up; if you guess wrong you stay in place, *if* you can perceive the 5ft step.
Someone pointed this out up thread. If the wizard is taking a 5-foot step, which is a requirement to trigger Step Up, then you could guarantee that you are adjacent to where the wizard ends up by taking a 5-foot step into the square that the wizard left. It may be that is your only option, for the trial and error pinpointing reasons you mentioned. You 5-foot into the square they left. You don't know where they are, unless terrain/other creatures limit their options to 1 potential square.
Perfect Tommy, there are a number of point you make that I agree with, however, looks like I need to switch sides for a moment here.
Take a look at spellcraft.If the caster is invisible - you get a minus to determine the spell.
If the caster is silent - you get a minus to determine the spell.
If you can't see the caster clearly - you get a minus to determine the spell.
IIRC from 3.5, if it was quickened - you got a minus to determine the spell.
None of these are a thing with spellcraft in pathfinder. One of the PDT (or maybe it was James Jacobs) once suggested a house rule for the above would be reasonable, but none of them are actually in the rules.
Assumption: that they appear in your square.
This isn't clear cut, but I believe the rules lean heavily that the manifestations do in fact appear in the casters square. I base this off the idea that spellcraft follows the same rules as perception for penalties to distance, poor lighting conditions, etc. Storms clouds miles up in the sky would suffer distance penalties, summoned creatures out of LOS of a character, when the caster is not, would mean you could not spellcraft what spell the caster is casting in that case.
A). The manifestations are not necessarily visible. A gout of heat, a rush of air - would make perfectly lovely manifestations.
Given that spellcraft has a requirement of "...but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast..." then the only logical conclusion is that spell manifestations (under the basic assumption at least of no other factors in play) are visible. You cannot 'see' the air grow colder, you cannot see rushing wind (though you may or may not be able to see clothing, etc, effected by said wind).
None of those points above though, of course, change anything with regard to the idea that other rules in play may change the effective visibility of spell manifestations. So the idea that invisibility either does or does not hide spell manifestations is unfounded in the rules. We have at best an interpretation from different posters how they think it works or should work.
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get an AoO for the casting - the caster would appear only when they've finished doing casting and the attack spell has fired off, by which time it's too late to respond.
+1.
Invisibility breaks when you make an attack of some kind. A spell attack does not occur until the casting has completed. It is the act of casting that provokes, so that opportunity is gone at the time that invisibility ends.
The original poster appears to have been under the impression that you can take AoOs against an invisible enemy as long as you can pinpoint their square - otherwise there's not much point in doing Step Up.
But the OP has been gone for a while.
Sure there is. Now you are right in the caster's face. So the caster casts a offensive spell. He cant MOVE away without provoking. He can 5' step, but the PC has Step up.
Now, here is a question. Taking Manifestations aside, let us say the caster does a offensive spell, which immediately ends invis. Does the PC get a AoO? Obviously the AoO cant interrupt spellcasting.
No, invisibility does not break until the offensive action is resolved.
Simply casting a spell, even something as offensive as Fireball does not automatically break invisibility. Invisibility is broken only when an offensive action is resolved. This applies similarly to melee characters attacking while invisible. Invisibility does not break until after their first attack is resolved.
The caster will not provoke from casting or, in the case of rays, from making a ranged attack.
The FAQ:
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
Assumption: that they appear in your square. Whereas, I've given example - and there are several others - that they do *not* necessarily appear in your square. The summoned creature appears in a gout of flame and wind - certainly fulfils the letter of the FAQ, and is thematic.
If the druid "Calls Lightning" - storm clouds gather (perhaps even a mile up) ominously.
The intent of the FAQ is that the manifestations are supposed to reveal that the caster is casting, even if they use Still & Silent spell. So we don't get a situation where you can just walk into a room and start summoning monsters to attack people and there's nothing they can do to stop you because they have no way of knowing who's doing it.
If the manifestations appear where the summoned monster is appearing, then it could be anyone casting the spell. The intent of the FAQ has been broken.
If the manifestations are 'your fingers turn green' then you could easily conceal your spell by wearing gloves. Again, the intent of the FAQ would be broken.
Only something like a light show or coloured smoke effect around the caster can satisfy the intent of the FAQ.
If manifestations were able to do that - why would a person need to see the caster casting - at all - to make a spell craft check. Just make the check against the manifestations.
Yes, that's my interpretation. You can see the casting and identify the spell being cast through the manifestations, even if you can't see the caster.
Likewise, take a concealed, or covered mage.
Cover blocks line of effect - what you are arguing is regardless of the line of sight, line of effect rules, manifestations would be visible.
No, cover would prevent people from seeing the manifestations. The manifestations are not made invisible, because they are not covered by the text of invisibility spells, but if you were (say) hiding behind an illusory wall, or in the middle of Obscuring Mist, the manifestations would be hidden too.
What you are further arguing is that someone with a stealth skill, who has taken the care to cover their footprints, taken the care to blend in, lacks the ability to take efforts to prevent location by the side effects of spells.
Yes, unless they have the relevant feats to prevent the side effects of spells, or full cover.
Suppose you have a contingency spell - do you continually manifest?
You manifest when casting, during your casting time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only something like a light show or coloured smoke effect around the caster can satisfy the intent of the FAQ.
No. Variations can be conceived of that do not require a manifestation to be external to the casters person.
Examples:
Caster (and gear) becomes translucent, or turns black, or blue, or polka dotted.
Caster appears to change in size.
Casters gear/clothing turns invisible while their skin changes color.
Caster (and gear) appears to temporarily turn to mist.
For divine casters who require a focus that must be presented boldy as part of casting, various visual effects occur on the focus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the PC in question has already pinpointed the caster.
The whole thing about manifestations is a hijack, and not relevant here. It does not matter whether or not the Caster will trigger a AOO. The caster knows he has been spotted, and wants to do a 5 foot step just in case the PC can see him. (The caster has no idea whether or not the PC has See invis, or Blindsight, etc).
So, since the PC HAS spotted the caster, and a 5' step is a Immediate action, yes he can follow without another perception check.
THEN, if the caster does an attack, it ends invisibility.
He cannot follow if he does not know he moved. That requires a perception check separate from the check to pinpoint. He cannot use a move action to pinpoint, and only gets the reactive check. That reactive check lets him know something is there in the area but not where. The only space he can step up into is the space just vacated. Any other space may not be adjacent to the target and so may not be a valid choice.
Even if he successfully follows the caster, he still needs to do another check next round to pinpoint. Either that or risk attacking the wrong square.
/cevah
Remember, all of this is about whether or not the character with Step Up can make an Attack of Opportunity.
In Pathfinder, if the target has total concealment, you CANNOT make an AoO, even if you know what square they are in.
The caster doesn't need to 5' step away to cast freely, because as long as they have total concealment (50% miss chance), they do not provoke AoO. Visible spell manifestations do not remove that miss chance.
"After the PC turn in which he used a minor action (page 186) to make a perception check to perceive pinpoint the NPC and then attacked. The NPC in his turn tries to take a 5-foot step back to cast. The PC wants to use his “Step Up” feat claiming he “pin pointed” with perception so he can follow him."
The PC is not going for a AoO in this part, he just wants his free 5' step. Which he should get.
And the caster has no idea that the PC doesnt have See Invis, etc. After all the PC did swing at him.
I have zero interest in the hypothetical of strategy and motivations. This is a rules questions, not a "how should I play a character" advice thread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have zero interest in the hypothetical of strategy and motivations. This is a rules questions, not a "how should I play a character" advice thread.
Already answered, I'd give it to the player. If they bothered to take Step Up, and you/your NPC didn't plan a counter, then let them use their reactive feat when it is triggered.
The thread has it well covered, there are lots of counters to this feat and your NPC could reasonably attempt to execute one of them to avoid this feat. If the NPC doesn't counter, the feat should work.
The FAQ:
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products,but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.Assumption: that they appear in your square. Whereas, I've given example - and there are several others - that they do *not* necessarily appear in your square. The summoned creature appears in a gout of flame and wind - certainly fulfils the letter of the FAQ, and is thematic.
If the druid "Calls Lightning" - storm clouds gather (perhaps even a mile up) ominously.The intent of the FAQ is that the manifestations are supposed to reveal that the caster is casting, even if they use Still & Silent spell. So we don't get a situation where you can just walk into a room and start summoning monsters to attack people and there's nothing they can do to stop you because they have no way of knowing who's doing it.
If the manifestations appear where the summoned monster is appearing, then it could be anyone casting the spell. The intent of the FAQ has been broken.
You have no basis to declare what the intent of the FAQ is - you can only go by the plain statement. It does not say that the intent of the FAQ is to locate casters. What it says is that non-spellcasters need to have cues that some kind of activity is going on.
Ie: Magic is going on. What actions do you want to take.
That - and that alone is all the FAQ says - and anything further is a home-rule.
I don't know what rules you play with your group, but I play alot across the country and I have never seen a sanctioned event use your rules.
I further note that you have failed to address significant holes in your argument.
Ie - if manifestations are constantly required - how on earth would dominate person, bard performances, Magic Jar etc., ever work.
"Martha, get the pitchfork. That darn spell caster has charmed Charlie again...." Really???
or
"Damn - smoke is coming out of that wizard's ears. Guys - that door is an illusion." Ie., the very act of casting would generate the bonus to the save called for in illusion spells.
Whereas, what actually happens is that the text of the spell gives the spell caster permissible ways to break the normal rules of the game.
Casting an illusion specifies the appropriate reactions. (save when you interact for example - not save when you see smoke coming out of the wizard's ears...)
Likewise, rules exist for concealment. What you propose completely nullifies an entire class. An arcane trickster spends tons of skill points on casting from concealment, and using the sniping rules to return to concealment after casting his scorching ray.
You would have that all these rules were written for NO purpose - because the spellcaster is located and pinpointed by casting. Period.
But the PC in question has already pinpointed the caster.
The whole thing about manifestations is a hijack, and not relevant here. It does not matter whether or not the Caster will trigger a AOO. The caster knows he has been spotted, and wants to do a 5 foot step just in case the PC can see him. (The caster has no idea whether or not the PC has See invis, or Blindsight, etc).
So, since the PC HAS spotted the caster, and a 5' step is a Immediate action, yes he can follow without another perception check.
THEN, if the caster does an attack, it ends invisibility.
He cannot follow if he does not know he moved. That requires a perception check separate from the check to pinpoint. He cannot use a move action to pinpoint, and only gets the reactive check. That reactive check lets him know something is there in the area but not where. The only space he can step up into is the space just vacated. Any other space may not be adjacent to the target and so may not be a valid choice.
Even if he successfully follows the caster, he still needs to do another check next round to pinpoint. Either that or risk attacking the wrong square.
/cevah
Speaks to the point. He needs to be both pinpointed and that he moved/where he moved too.
This cannot be accomplished with one perception check. It needs a minimum of two; which goes against JB's suggestion as to the appropriate number of reactive checks.
Perfect Tommy, there are a number of point you make that I agree with, however, looks like I need to switch sides for a moment here.
None of these are a thing with spellcraft in pathfinder. One of the PDT (or maybe it was James Jacobs) once suggested a house rule for the above would be reasonable, but none of them are actually in the rules.
Take a look at spellcraft.If the caster is invisible - you get a minus to determine the spell.
If the caster is silent - you get a minus to determine the spell.
If you can't see the caster clearly - you get a minus to determine the spell.
IIRC from 3.5, if it was quickened - you got a minus to determine the spell.
Meh. I have to concede the point with caveats. Playing under so many rule systems, somedays they carry over in your mind. I didn't check this one. So .. Pathfinder seems to have simplified enumerated penalties for such things only as - able to see clearly, distracted etc; with each giving a flat -2.
I will note however that the crux of the argument remains. Spellcraft receives a flat -20 penalty against an invisible caster.
So it remains true that Mathew's idea about manifestations being able to identify spells AND being unaffected by invisibility is incorrect.
Assumption: that they appear in your square.
This isn't clear cut, but I believe the rules lean heavily that the manifestations do in fact appear in the casters square. I base this off the idea that spellcraft follows the same rules as perception for penalties to distance, poor lighting conditions, etc. Storms clouds miles up in the sky would suffer distance penalties, summoned creatures out of LOS of a character, when the caster is not, would mean you could not spellcraft what spell the caster is casting in that case.
I think you are conflating two things unnecessarily. IF you read the previously quoted FAQ spell manifestations are subject to the aesthetics of the personal caster.
I can *choose* whether my conjurations appear in a gout of fire. Or if my hands glow red.
No one caan judge what spell is being cast by the manifestations.
Rather, your knowledge of the technical art of casting a spell gives you insight into what spell is being cast. You hear the words of the invocation, you see the gestures, perhaps you see the objects being used in the incantation.
From that, using your knowledge of the art - you know magic circle is being cast.
Notice that this is consistent with the other uses of spellcraft. To identify the properties of magic items; to decipher scrolls.
Mathews suggestion that you use manifestions to explain spellcraft roles must rely on an entirely separate justification to explain deciphering scrolls or magic items, because there are no manifestations at those times.
Given that spellcraft has a requirement of "...but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast..." then the only logical conclusion is that spell manifestations (under the basic assumption at least of no other factors in play) are visible.
A). The manifestations are not necessarily visible. A gout of heat, a rush of air - would make perfectly lovely manifestations.
Once the assumption fails the rest falls.
Mathews argued that spell manifestations are never hidden - but this fails against the rule that spellcraft checks against invisible casters take a -20 penalty.Spell craft is done by "seeing the spell as it is being crafted"
Ie., the things you can observe: hand gestures, words, components, etc.
No one caan judge what spell is being cast by the manifestations.
Rather, your knowledge of the technical art of casting a spell gives you insight into what spell is being cast. You hear the words of the invocation, you see the gestures, perhaps you see the objects being used in the incantation.
Manifestations do allow you to use spellcraft to identify the spell.
The entire manifestations FAQ was in response to psychic casters that have no verbal, somatic, or material components.
So you keep insisting without any actual evidence.
Spellcraft says you have to see **the spell** not the manifestations.
Mathew said the manifestations are not made invisible by an invisible caster - yet spell craft takes a -20 penalty when the caster is invisible.
Ergo- either the manifestions are invisible OR they aren't used for spellcraft.
Look, we agree on this: this ruling was made because Paizo released psychic casters without sufficient (any?) consideration on how silent componentless casting might affect traditional casting.
It then used "manifestations" as a fig leaf to give a justification that people still have a way of knowing that spell casting is occuring. Further, it then tried to deceptively cover its mess-up by just baldly stating that manifestations have always been a facet of the game. When in fact manifestation have always been utterly irrelevant for gameplay.
But neither the rules, nor the FAQ say anything about location.
"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."
"A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack."
I'm going to quote Ravingdork on this..
"I hate that developers continually lie to us to promote their own agendas (changing the rules in order to better sell the new pyschic classes, for example). I hate that several of my characters, who invested a great deal of resources in "stealth casting" can no longer "run amok in social situations" or in any other situation for that matter. I hate that the official stance is so vague that no two tables will ever really adjudicate it the same way. I hate the band-aid patch feats and abilities that they have put in place to allow for stealth casting--all of which either have far too steep prerequisites, remain so easy to spot as to be self-defeating, or simply no longer work BECAUSE of this new FAQ. I hate that the new system is FAR more complicated then "you are identifying spell components" rule of older editions. I hate that Paizo is dictating to its customers how magic should appear in their games. I hate that Paizo didn't take a different direction with this in general. I hate that the only way out is to resort to house rules (which I also hate). I hate that so many important questions continue to go unanswered. I hate that people's views on the matter have split the online community. I hate that people's views on the matter have split my group. I hate that the FAQ appears inconsistent with the RAW (for example, the FAQ implies manifestations don't need to be visual in nature, but the Spellcraft skill makes it clear that you have to see it). I hate that PFS, and the wider game as a whole, continues to grow even more limited in regards to effective character concepts and actions. I hate that GMs and players can't run these types of characters and scenarios how they want without resorting to house rules. I hate how a great many adventure paths, modules, and PFS scenarios no longer function as written. I hate that said adventure paths, modules, and PFS scenarios have not been changed to adapt to the new rules of the land. I hate that one or two people at Paizo can make such sweeping decisions for their company without better informing those creative artists who actually make the game as great as it is. I hate that so many of these problems will never get fixed because of Paizo's current policy on errata and FAQ releases. I hate a great many things about this FAQ, the problems it creates, and the perceptions it generates."
Essentially, Paizo released a new set of classes that opened a whole can of worms regarding stealth casting - without any thinking about the obvious issues. Then relied upon a poorly worded FAQ that provides no real clear cut guidance as a band-aid.
There is no question that paizo now needs to release rules about stealth casting etc. Just as obviously, a lot of people will be happy when they do. Casters who have invested a lot of time and efforts into character creation will not be happy.
Personally, I think that psychic casters ought to have more limited casting in return for inherently stealthy - but that ship has sailed too.
So you keep insisting without any actual evidence.
Read the FAQ establishing spell manifestations.
It starts with the question: What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell?
And does, in no place, answer "manifestations".
What the FAQ says, is that manifestations exist - and these manifestations give a reason that players can know spell casting occurs.
It implies, but does not state, and in no place does it change the RAW regarding locating, stealth, or even how spellcraft occurs.
And it doesn't because they haven't figured out a clear answer themselves. They realize psychic casters are a problem, so they want to address that issue without making a ruling that breaks everything else.
So, so far the ruling is - you know when psychic casters cast.
And does, in no place, answer "manifestations".
What the FAQ says, is that manifestations exist - and these manifestations give a reason that players can know spell casting occurs.
It implies, but does not state.
Spell manifestations was the entirety of the answer.
And does, in no place, answer "manifestations".
What the FAQ says, is that manifestations exist - and these manifestations give a reason that players can know spell casting occurs.
It implies, but does not state, and in no place does it change the RAW regarding locating, stealth, or even how spellcraft occurs.
And it doesn't because they haven't figured out a clear answer themselves. They realize psychic casters are a problem, so they want to address that issue without making a ruling that breaks everything else.
So, so far the ruling is - you know when psychic casters cast.
So, the FAQ doesn't answer its own question? That's what you're running with?
Here's the FAQ in its entirety:
"Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse."
lets break it down.
"Although this isn't directly stated in the Core Rulebook" = OOps, we screwed up, and are now inventing something to COA.
"Many elements of the game system"; ie we haven't actually figured out which ones... Notice that we said "many" and not all??
Worth also noting: that the game elements "assume" spells have manifestations. Not that they do.
" have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect"
Says spells have manifestations. Not the caster.
"These manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated;"
Means that even people that don't have a single rank of spellcraft, or magical class - knows a spell has been cast.
"Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue)" = we introduced psychic casters and really screwed the pooch
" that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, "
ie., psychic casters...using componentless, silent, and somaticless casters..
"but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse."
People have a chance to detect that spell casting is going on.
So what they have said is manifestations exist; but they make no explicit alterations to any RAW.
Here's the FAQ in its entirety:
Except, you know, the question:
What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?
But the PC in question has already pinpointed the caster.
The whole thing about manifestations is a hijack, and not relevant here. It does not matter whether or not the Caster will trigger a AOO. The caster knows he has been spotted, and wants to do a 5 foot step just in case the PC can see him. (The caster has no idea whether or not the PC has See invis, or Blindsight, etc).
So, since the PC HAS spotted the caster, and a 5' step is a Immediate action, yes he can follow without another perception check.
THEN, if the caster does an attack, it ends invisibility.
He cannot follow if he does not know he moved. That requires a perception check separate from the check to pinpoint. He cannot use a move action to pinpoint, and only gets the reactive check. That reactive check lets him know something is there in the area but not where. The only space he can step up into is the space just vacated. Any other space may not be adjacent to the target and so may not be a valid choice.
Even if he successfully follows the caster, he still needs to do another check next round to pinpoint. Either that or risk attacking the wrong square.
Well, I disagree. Magic trumps skills too much anyway, so in a borderline case, rule in favor of skill.
Here's the FAQ in its entirety:Except, you know, the question:
What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?
Sure - its a great question. I can make a hundred great questions.
But the answer is the ruling. Show me anywhere in the ruling where it:
a). Modifies how spellcraft works.
b). Modifies how locating invisible casters is changed.
Actual RAW. You can't because there isn't any.
Its a FAQ that provides no guidance on how to resolve the issues they raised with the creation of the occult classes - except to say - people should get to know magic is happening. And that includes SLA's and psychic casters.
Notice that this guidance doesn't give any guidance on
c) Should people get to know when Billy Bob is charmed? Really? Or Magic Jarred?
d). When the bard is fascinating people - smoke pouring out of his ears - why exactly do people not get the +4 to saves - since they have reason to believe its not real?
e). If there are manifestations - under what circumstances are they visible? Where?
f). If I am ethereally jaunting, do my manifestations stay on the ethereal plane?
In other words the imprecise wording and lack of guidance raises huge issues exactly like some of the points raised here.
Now you're mixing in 4 parts flurry of red herring with your 1 part on-topic. I'm no longer convinced this is a good-faith rules discussion.
Well, I disagree. Magic trumps skills too much anyway, so in a borderline case, rule in favor of skill.But the PC in question has already pinpointed the caster.
The whole thing about manifestations is a hijack, and not relevant here. It does not matter whether or not the Caster will trigger a AOO. The caster knows he has been spotted, and wants to do a 5 foot step just in case the PC can see him. (The caster has no idea whether or not the PC has See invis, or Blindsight, etc).
So, since the PC HAS spotted the caster, and a 5' step is a Immediate action, yes he can follow without another perception check.
THEN, if the caster does an attack, it ends invisibility.
He cannot follow if he does not know he moved. That requires a perception check separate from the check to pinpoint. He cannot use a move action to pinpoint, and only gets the reactive check. That reactive check lets him know something is there in the area but not where. The only space he can step up into is the space just vacated. Any other space may not be adjacent to the target and so may not be a valid choice.
Even if he successfully follows the caster, he still needs to do another check next round to pinpoint. Either that or risk attacking the wrong square.
Since I did not mention magic, and did mention using a skill, I am not sure what you are talking about.
/cevah
Since I did not mention magic, and did mention using a skill, I am not sure what you are talking about.
Isn't Invisibility magic?
The character in the game can choose to use Step Up if someone moves, however he must know someone has moved in order to follow them, which make it an active feat, not a passive feat. If they are invisible he has no way to know that unless he makes a perception check. The feat is not an automatic invisibility detector.
If the feat was worded to make you take the movement anytime someone adjacent to you moved then it would be a passive(always on) versus active(you must choose to use it) feat. Of course being forced to move would be a bad thing.
As for the manifestation subtopic there is no ruling or PDT wording that says the location is given away of an invisible spellcasting opponent.
|
|
The character in the game can choose to use Step Up if someone moves, however he must know someone has moved in order to follow them, which make it an active feat, not a passive feat. If they are invisible he has no way to know that unless he makes a perception check. The feat is not an automatic invisibility detector.
If the feat was worded to make you take the movement anytime someone adjacent to you moved then it would be a passive(always on) versus active(you must choose to use it) feat. Of course being forced to move would be a bad thing.
It's a reactive feat. It reacts to a specific set of conditions.
GM discretion if they allow Step Up for an NPC that the PC was unaware of, but the GM could allow it. Not a very helpful option if the PC is unaware of the invisible creature. Then again, why is the invisible creature making 5-foot steps when they can just walk by you?
GM "You feel compelled to take a 5-foot step into one of the these squares...."
PC "Is this a mind affecting effect?"
GM "No. Something within, perhaps core to your training, silently compels you. You don't have to take the 5-foot step if you don't want to."
PC "Seems like a bad idea, I don't think I'm going to move there."
The character in the game can choose to use Step Up if someone moves, however he must know someone has moved in order to follow them, which make it an active feat, not a passive feat. If they are invisible he has no way to know that unless he makes a perception check. The feat is not an automatic invisibility detector.
If the feat was worded to make you take the movement anytime someone adjacent to you moved then it would be a passive(always on) versus active(you must choose to use it) feat. Of course being forced to move would be a bad thing.
It's a reactive feat. It reacts to a specific set of conditions.
GM discretion if they allow Step Up for an NPC that the PC was unaware of, but the GM could allow it. Not a very helpful option if the PC is unaware of the invisible creature. Then again, why is the invisible creature making 5-foot steps when they can just walk by you?
GM "You feel compelled to take a 5-foot step into one of the these squares...."
PC "Is this a mind affecting effect?"
GM "No. Something within, perhaps core to your training, silently compels you. You don't have to take the 5-foot step if you don't want to."
PC "Seems like a bad idea, I don't think I'm going to move there."
1. Do you really think the PDT would rule that you can react to something you can't see with this feat?
2. One of your party members might be able to see the invisible creature, and opponent might be moving away from them while being adjacent to both of you.
I have zero interest in the hypothetical of strategy and motivations. This is a rules questions, not a "how should I play a character" advice thread.Already answered, I'd give it to the player. If they bothered to take Step Up, and you/your NPC didn't plan a counter, then let them use their reactive feat when it is triggered.
The thread has it well covered, there are lots of counters to this feat and your NPC could reasonably attempt to execute one of them to avoid this feat. If the NPC doesn't counter, the feat should work.
Your response makes zero sense to me. Almost like you're discussing something completely different than what I was discussing.
Of course, you removed the context of what I was replying to, so maybe that isn't surprising that your response takes my words completely out of context.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Do you really think the PDT would rule that you can react to something you can't see with this feat?
2. One of your party members might be able to see the invisible creature, and opponent might be moving away from them while being adjacent to both of you.
To be honest, I'm on the fence with this one. Step up is very niche, so I lean towards the solution that benefits the player (or NPC) that actually took the feat, since I think that a specialized character should be able to benefit from their specialization.
The key here is that if the invisible creature is not percieved, then they can just walk away with no reaction from Step Up. This instance only arrives because the GM is trying undermine the player's amazing perception and taking of the Step Up feat (Basically, GM is denying the PC the option to excel in their specialized role/build). Seems like the GM is metagaming. That's how it looks to me, anyway.
I still wouldn't tell the player why they were able to take the 5-foot step if they couldn't percieve the invisible creature. Step Up doesn't grant any knowledge on that subject.
Regarding reacting to things you can't see, let's try the opposite, would you allow Step Up to function with an illusion of a creature? As is, if they can see a creature that isn't there, can they use the feat when that creature appears to take a 5-foot step?
I would not. I don't think the feat functions if the creature isn't really there, even if the character with Step Up thinks they are.
I have zero interest in the hypothetical of strategy and motivations. This is a rules questions, not a "how should I play a character" advice thread.Already answered, I'd give it to the player. If they bothered to take Step Up, and you/your NPC didn't plan a counter, then let them use their reactive feat when it is triggered.
The thread has it well covered, there are lots of counters to this feat and your NPC could reasonably attempt to execute one of them to avoid this feat. If the NPC doesn't counter, the feat should work.
Your response makes zero sense to me. Almost like you're discussing something completely different than what I was discussing.
Of course, you removed the context of what I was replying to, so maybe that isn't surprising that your response takes my words completely out of context.
It could be out of context, but I think I got it right. To me, Step Up is a very niche feat that the GM (and their NPCs) can easily avoid if they actually try to. So, when the feat does come up, I'd let the feat function as written (which doesn't require being able to percieve the target). That's the RAW answer with no "hypothetical strategy or motivations."
As GM, you could still rule it another way. But I think Step Up is niche enough where further nerfing isn't really needed.
Regarding reacting to things you can't see, let's try the opposite, would you allow Step Up to function with an illusion of a creature? As is, if they can see a creature that isn't there, can they use the feat when that creature appears to take a 5-foot step?
RAW - no.
Illusions (controlled by a player) can't take a 5 ft step. Hence step up would not fire.If there was an autonomous illusion; and if the GM were giving it 5 foot steps, yes step up would function.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, Step Up can't be used against things you can't perceive, Invisibility included.
/thread
Now you're mixing in 4 parts flurry of red herring with your 1 part on-topic. I'm no longer convinced this is a good-faith rules discussion.
I could equally say you are arguing in bad faith.
My point: show me anywhere in the FAQ ruling where they modify spellcraft, or location or anything.
Rather than concede the point that the FAQ does not in fact do anything other than handwave, you accused me of arguing in bad faith. But the truth of the matter is that the FAQ is silent on any kind of meaningful rule.
What you say is red-herring is me giving an example of the kinds of issues this ruling raises, without doing anything to resolve these questions.
Honestly.
The party enters the room with an undisturbed pile of dust, scattered with bits of bone, and a skull.
In the old days - the lich would Magic Jar the barbarian, and combat and fun - would ensue.
Nowadays, the lich Magic Jars the barbarian and half the table erupts in argument....