| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in mid- to late-P1E, spells were explained as having spell manifestations by which they could be identified and spellcrafted independent of how the spell was cast (whether a Psychic spell or a Silent and Stilled spell or an SLA). While it may have been intended for spells to operate this way from day one, it was never apparent in the game until OA and UI came out.
Well, we’re barely past day one of P2E, so I want to make sure this gets asked (I had mentioned it in another thread, but I think it warrants its own topic):
Will spell manifestations be a part of the game? If so, what do they look like? Are they on the caster’s body? Floating around him/his hands/the ground at his feet? Do they glow? How brightly? Does invisibility obscure this? What about when metamagic comes into play? What about SLAs (assuming SLAs are going to be a thing)? What about spells cast from magic items? What about spells cast from magic items by an invisible caster?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a totally important matter. To me manifestations should be cosmetic and vary from caster to caster, in a way that wether you can actually "see" the manifestations or not you can still identify the spell looking at the gestures, words, and materials employed. Otherwise even the simplest spells become a pyrotechnic show. If the caster doesn't use gestures and or other components? Well, that should be one of the advantages of Silent/Still Spells. But I agree that wether or not it works this way, the rules on manifestation should be clear from the Core Rulebook.
look at the artwork, all that glowiness when someone is casting a spell, that's the manifestations.
look at the artwork, all that glowiness when someone is casting a spell, that's the manifestations.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean that every spell in the game has to have manifestations. Or that a caster can't try to suppress manifestations when convenient.
hmmmm......hang on a sec getting and old book
here we go
Sensory Effects of Casting
Spell____Visual/ ____Olfactory
Level____Aural ____ Tact ______ Add'l _____ Grand
1 - 3____ Yes _______No ______ No ______ No
4 - 6____ Yes _______Opt ______ Opt______ No
7 - 9____ Yes _______Yes ______ Opt______ Opt
10 ______ Yes _______Yes ______ Opt ______ Yes
(stupid forum not designed for tables)
look at the artwork, all that glowiness when someone is casting a spell, that's the manifestations.
Yup, totally see it. Do they have to glow or could they also be the caster’s eyes turning black or her hair briefly floating up and turning blue? Do we have any artwork of a glowing circle of magic glyphs around a Susan-Storm-invisible-person outline? Could that glowiness be on the caster’s person (like Seoni’s tattoos) instead of floating near them? What, precisely, does an SLA look like? Are those just examples of how the manifestations could look or the default expectations of how they must look?
Not attacking you, just pointing out how the artwork was insufficient to clarify those details both before and after spell manifestations were made into a concrete thing.
look at the artwork, all that glowiness when someone is casting a spell, that's the manifestations.Yup, totally see it. Do they have to glow or could they also be the caster’s eyes turning black or her hair briefly floating up and turning blue? Do we have any artwork of a glowing circle of magic glyphs around a Susan-Storm-invisible-person outline? Could that glowiness be on the caster’s person (like Seoni’s tattoos) instead of floating near them? What, precisely, does an SLA look like? Are those just examples of how the manifestations could look or the default expectations of how they must look?
Not attacking you, just pointing out how the artwork was insufficient to clarify those details both before and after spell manifestations were made into a concrete thing.
Have to agree with Tectorman, but I don't think the designers need to specify what do the manifestations actually look like, just when they appear. Do they have to appear to all spells or kinds of spells? Can they be suppressed?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And from their descriptions, some spells were originally intended to be covertly cast, and don't really work if they are accompanied by a light show. Core spells like Charm Person and Suggestion are really screwed up if the victim first sees that you're casting a potentially hostile spell on him, before even trying or failing to make his saving throw.
Although I totally understand the logic behind the spell manifestations FAQ, it seems like a no-brainer to revisit the question in a robust and nuanced fashion now that PF2.0 is scarcely 18 months over the horizon.
Perhaps it would be useful to start making a list of spells that aren't really compatible with the concept of overtly visible spell manifestations.
And as soon as we get a feeling for how skill mechanics are going to work, a proposal could be made for handling covert spellcasting as a native system, and not as an option hidden behind a few disparate feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever the effect, if they are part of spellcasting, they'd better darn well show up in the magic chapter just like the explanation of verbal and somatic components so we don't have the same debacle all over again.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If spell manifestations are a thing there needs to be a core way to suppress/conceal them.
Also they should only rule on their existence, the specific manifestation should be thematic to the character and chosen by the player - suggest the form they take, don't mandate their form.
Whatever the effect, if they are part of spellcasting, they'd better darn well show up in the magic chapter just like the explanation of verbal and somatic components so we don't have the same debacle all over again.
If spell manifestations are a thing there needs to be a core way to suppress/conceal them.
Also they should only rule on their existence, the specific manifestation should be thematic to the character and chosen by the player - suggest the form they take, don't mandate their form.
Couldn't agree more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If spell manifestations are a thing there needs to be a core way to suppress/conceal them.
Also they should only rule on their existence, the specific manifestation should be thematic to the character and chosen by the player - suggest the form they take, don't mandate their form.
Agreed, with the proviso that the choice of form should not convey an inherent advantage or disadvantage over other choices unless that sort of thing is intentional. What’s more visible, a caster with a big two foot glowing circle of glyphs or a caster with blacked out eyes? If I don’t have a Light spell, but I need a glow of light just long enough to read something quickly, what creates more light? A big two foot glowing circle of glyphs, or the caster’s eyes going black?
Granted, the Starfinder Solarian has the same choice with his solar weapon. Presumably, that was intentional, and it wouldn’t be problematic if that sort of degree of choice is also intentional in the case of spell manifestations. But however it’s hashed out, it needs to be decided ahead of time rather than accidentally fumbled into.
And what happens to spell manifestations when:
- the caster is in shadow or in darkness?
- the caster is invisible?
- the caster is using stealth?
- the caster's face and/or hands are hidden?
- somatic and/or verbal components are absent (metamagic feats, psychic magic, SU powers or other)?
Also, some spells were written to be intrinsically covert, and need to address the question of spell manifestations if they are retained in PF2.0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I don't want them to get into detail about what manifestations look like, since I feel like a lot of this should be left up to players- there's no reason every fireball should look the same, each caster will have their own technique and spin on it. So I'd prefer to leave "what manifestations are like" as an avenue for player creativity.
What I want rules for is the following:
- What someone who doesn't know anything about magic can glean from your manifestations (regardless of form)
- What someone who knows a lot about magic can glean from your manifestations (regardless of form)
- How can one hide their manifestations or otherwise mislead people who are looking for them.
Given what they've said about the setting going on as normal, I'd say manifestations are likely to stay.
I like Wheldrake's suggestion for covert casting to be native to casters, consider it seconded.
Given what they've said about the setting going on as normal, I'd say manifestations are likely to stay.
Absolutely. There's no reason that the logic behind the Spell Manifestations FAQ wouldn't continue to be just as valid.
When I say that covert casting should be "native to the system", what I really mean is that some mechanism should exist for hiding spellcasting based on skills like stealth, spellcraft, slight of hand and/or bluff, and facing off against things like perception (sight-based and hearing-based), detect magic and true seeing.
I could definitely see having one or more feats that would *enhance* the ability to succeed at covert spellcasting. But it should come as a modifier to a ground-floor system that takes into account such factors as presence and absence of various components, invisibility, darkness, stealth and so on.
Not to mention the specificity of certain spells that rely on covert casting to have any logical chance of succeeding.
That's what I figured you meant. As you said earlier, we really need to see the skills 1st before we can get a better idea of what that would look like in the new system.
If they're there, put them there in the beggining.
it would be nice if the spells gave a general idea of what was coming, so that you could cast prestidigitation on your clothes without the peasant thinking you were going to fireball him. Something nice white and soothing for a healing spell so the wounded lizard person doesn't try to gank you...
Agreed. I would like something like we see in the 3.5/Dreamscarred psionics system, where spells come listed with visual, auditory, etc manifestations in their block... but casters then get to customize it according to their "personal magic style."
I imagine suppressing manifestation to make a spell "subtle" would continue to be a metamagic feat.