Simple Request: Clarification On Spell Manifestations


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Quandary wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Based on the dev post in question:

They should be detectable even if you are blind, deaf, unable to smell, even if you have a combination of all the above.
I suggest 'pressure' - as the spellcraft check to determine the spell being cast is supposed to work even in supernatural darkness and you are deaf and can't smell at all.

I'm curious where you derived the 'supposed to work in Su Darkness or even if you are blind' from, since I never was aware of any Paizo statement suggesting that, and I was involved in earliest discussions of it, and later 'recurrence' that led to FAQ. Both somewhat conflict with clear Spellcraft ID requirement "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs [normal Perception] penalties".

The fact that a still silent no material spell can't be clearly seen as it's cast and still gets a check.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

If casting isn't stealthy, then they should to rewrite Charm Person.

In most cases where a new player would think it works, it doesn't.
This isn't strictly true. People you've charmed explicitly put the best possible interpretation on your actions, so they aren't gonna believe their new friendship is a spell.

Exactly. Technically they aren't unaware you cast the spell (if they ID'd it)

but the spell effects making them treat you as friend/ally whose actions are interpreted in best possible way still apply,
so they will make whatever rationalizations are needed to justify their belief that you are ally, even if outsider can see them as poor logic.
"Ha, I gotta tell you I'd almost treat that Charm Person casting as some sort of attack, except I know we're the best of friends,
and sometimes friends cast Charm Person. Now where were we, best friend...?" (not ONLY possible rationalization, but one of many)
Sure, anybody else is free to see it as hostile act but the target isn't going to because that conflicts with treating you as friend/ally.
(RAW doesn't suggest ID'ing a spellcasting informs you of the target, so they wouldn't even know WHO you just Charmed.)
If the target's other friends start fighting the caster (in response to the casting), they might try to stop their "friends" from killing each other
(from "C'mon guys, we're all on the same side, sit down and talk this out!" to Non-lethal attacks like when your ally is Dominated/Confused),
but they wouldn't especially target the Charm Person caster, since they wouldn't see the Charm Person as initiating fight.
The "it doesn't work" line seems intent on ignoring it is a spell which explicitly messes with the target's thought processes.
But it's pretty clear the people making those claims have a problem with spell manifestations IN GENERAL apart from this purported issue.
Which really is another example of rationalizations spontaneously crafted to justify already decided conclusion. :-)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Personally, I'm on board conceptually with it being something you Feat into (which is how it works in PF1), though PF1's feat tree is a bit more onerous than I'd prefer.

I'm against it being a feat, because it just becomes a feat tax for wizards to be functional in social situations. Want to quietly search out the thief in the marketplace with detect thoughts? Too bad, everyone is now staring at you because you just cast a magic spell and the thief has been tipped off that his jig is up. If it is going to be a game mechanic, it should be a standard skill check so anyone can just attempt it when the situation is called for.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Based on the dev post in question:

They should be detectable even if you are blind, deaf, unable to smell, even if you have a combination of all the above.

I'm curious where you derived the 'supposed to work in Su Darkness or even if you are blind' from... Both somewhat conflict with clear Spellcraft ID requirement "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs [normal Perception] penalties".

The fact that a still silent no material spell can't be clearly seen as it's cast and still gets a check.

OK, good to know i wasn't missing anything re: Dev posts. From the FAQ and other dev posts, we know they intend visual manifestations of spellcasting independent of VSM components (thus lack of them is irrelevant - ID'ing based on components used Know:Arcana) and refer in FAQ to "artwork" i.e. floating runes... Which is what Spellcraft ID requires to "see" which blind people are obviously incapable of, and which Deeper Darkness (or a brick wall) block. Obviously Paizo's own FAQ did poor job conveying this to everybody, which I believe makes clear the case for giving CONCRETE definition to these manifestations (i.e. runes) which Paizo avoided previously for whatever reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought being functional in social situations was about having actual social skills.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
I thought being functional in social situations was about having actual social skills.

Come on, this is a fantasy role playing game.


graystone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

I absolutely do not want stealth casting in the game. It causes no end to headaches for GMs when players try to pull it and if pulled against players they will be upset and rightly so.

Don't believe me?

Next time you run for your group, just call for a random Will save.

And tell the player, "You are now dominated. Give me your sheet."

"Who did it?"
"You don't know. You are dominated."
"Where did it come from?"
"No clue. Now hand me your sheet."

Lets try another one.

Tell the player, "Your head is now missing. Give me your sheet."
"Who did it?"
"You don't know. You are dead."
"Where did it come from?"

I don't see ANY difference between improved invisible, long limbed attackers and spells. You either have to get rid of the idea of stealth as an option or expect it to be a viable tactic for various attacks.

That's a disanalogy for variety of reasons:

1) An invisible attacker's attacks are not undetectable. A person who is attacked by an invisible attacker knows from where they were attacked. Without manifestations, there would be no way to detect spell casters eschewing components of mind-altering spells.. If you saved, you get that tingling sensation, but have no idea who or where the spell comes from.

2) GI is a 4th level spell, requiring a 7th level caster. At that level, creatures and PCs will have options for dealing with inviso attackers; scent, see invisibility, flour, or readied actions, etc. There is no counter to undetectable spells. If such a thing were to be allowed in a world with magic, society would be dramatically different than it is now. Social events would not resemble anything that we have in RL.

3) The spell isn't generally available to those who might have an advantage in melee. A 7th level Wizard/Sorc/Bard who casts GI on themselves isn't likely to chop off the head of anything level appropriate in one attack, so GI isn't an "I win" button like dominate would be. An undetectable charm person would reek havoc on any kind of social event.

4) Being able to attack something invisible doesn't generally trivialize an encounter, or to put it more bluntly, scenario authors know that the spell is out there and design scenario so that a Fighter with a bow can just be a one-PC exterminator. In the PFS scenarios I've GM'd and read, there are zero safeguards against undetectable spell casting in social events.

The situations aren't the same. Paizo would be foolish to allow any type of workaround that allows undetectable casting.


It is, but if you want to bluff that guard or diplomacy the bandit lord, it's generally expected you actually have ranks/proficiency in those things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
The fact that a still silent no material spell can't be clearly seen as it's cast and still gets a check.

I don't follow. A still/silent spell has no components, but it is still cast. As you cast the spell, the visual manifestations appear. You need sight to "see" the spell as it is being cast. A blind person can't use Spellcraft to ID spells because they can't "see" the spell as it's being cast.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
I'm against it being a feat, because it just becomes a feat tax for wizards to be functional in social situations. Want to quietly search out the thief in the marketplace with detect thoughts? Too bad, everyone is now staring at you because you just cast a magic spell and the thief has been tipped off that his jig is up. If it is going to be a game mechanic, it should be a standard skill check so anyone can just attempt it when the situation is called for.

Why would anyone without Spellcraft (ie: most people) know what spell you cast? All they know is you cast one. I'd imagine Detect Magic gets cast in marketplaces a lot, and would be shocked if everyone stared at anyone who cast it.

And being able to functionally shortcut social or investigative scenarios with spells even if you can't find an excuse like that is absolutely worth a Feat, and kind of unfair to non-spellcasters if you can do it without one. Indeed, it being a Skill Feat in PF2 would be very appropriate and definitely work with how I imagine and hope most spellcaster Skill Feats are gonna go.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'd imagine Detect Magic gets cast in marketplaces a lot, and would be shocked if everyone stared at anyone who cast it.

It's difficult to agree on what everyday life would be like with spells like charm person and create water available to low level casters.

It's more likely that any spell casting in civilized areas would be illegal. Shopkeepers and merchants would unionize against public casting or simply refuse to operate in cities which allowed it. This would in-turn leave customers susceptible to illusions, so there would have to be a public servant that went around detecting magic to protect the innocent. In addition, constables would have to have rods of absorption and enemy detection.

This means people could not live outside of walled cities. Any individuals or small towns without the resources to guard against mind-altering spells would be victimized by low level casters and entire towns would be run by vampires. So to facilitate anything approach RL normalcy, there'd have to be wards against mind control readily available.

D&D and Pathfinder largely ignore this reality, unless it's the hook for some scenario, and we all just play along.

EDIT: Alternatively, there'd have to be some mechanisms to instantly identify spells that were cast and announce them e.g. a magic mouth with infallible Spellcraft at every street corner and threshold, would probably be sufficient to allow public casting. Using mind-affecting spells would have to be punishable by death along with any refusal to answer questions under a Zone of Truth.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
It's difficult to agree on what everyday life would be like with spells like charm person and create water available to low level casters.

Not that difficult. High level magic is rare, and people can recognize specific magic, and even forensically examine a scene for it. It's difficult to get away with too much illegally exploitative magic if the authorities are remotely competent.

N N 959 wrote:
It's more likely that any spell casting in civilized areas would be illegal. Shopkeepers and merchants would unionize against public casting or simply refuse to operate in cities which allowed it. This would intern leave customers susceptible to illusions, so there would have to be a public servant that went around detecting magic to protect the innocent. In addition, constables would have to have rods of absorption and enemy detection.

This is one way things could go, but it's hardly inevitable. Magic users tend to be very rich and powerful and many of them are backed by actual Gods. Making laws against them in a blanket fashion is sort of like making anti corporate laws stick. It can happen, but it sure doesn't always and assuming that it always would is weird.

N N 959 wrote:
This means people could not live outside of walled cities. Any individuals or small towns without the resources to guard against mind-altering spells would be victimized by low level casters and entire towns would be run by vampires. So to facilitate anything approach RL normalcy, there'd have to be wards against mind control readily available.

Nah. Charm Person is too obvious in retrospect (and to bystanders). Going around using it to cheat people is gonna get you caught and either arrested or lynched very rapidly. And to get better mind control than that you need Dominate Person...well, that requires being a minimum of 9th level. Per the Settlement Rules and the Level Demographics I inferred from them (which are pretty accurate to every published setting thing I've been able to compare them to), 1 in 1,250 people is that high a level. How many of them are gonna have one specific spell? If we assume a very high 1 in 4, that's 1 in 5000 people who can do that...and they can only keep maybe 30 people under their thrall at a time (and often less). And coming close to the limit is dangerous, since someone's gonna roll a 20 one of these days. Really, such things just aren't logistically sustainable.

Now, vampires are a different story in terms of maximum number of people they can keep enslaved...but someone is still eventually gonna get that 20 and run to the nearest non-vampire controlled place for help. At which point the vampire has a huge problem. I mean, coming for them during the day is a thing, after all. So with every thrall a point failure source that could get them killed, they're very incentivized to keep the number reasonable.

And there are, in fact, the Protection From X line of spells readily available if you want unassailable avoidance of mind control.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


Not that difficult.

heh. We're only contemplating two spells here, charm person and dominate. Once you start trying to consider the impact of every spell available, you're not going to get any consensus on how that is going to unfold starting from the Big Bang.

Quote:
Nah. Charm Person is too obvious in retrospect (and to bystanders).

So what? You get zapped, you're under the spell. Bystanders? zap them too. You don't start asking for favors until you've got everyone under lockdown and then you just send the witness out of the store.

Quote:
Going around using it to cheat people is gonna get you caught and either arrested or lynched very rapidly.

And that's exactly why I said the penalty for any mind-control would have to be death. Sure, people who are obvious and stupid about how they use it are going to get caught. (un)Fortunately Wizards are among the smartest.

Quote:
How many of them are gonna have one specific spell?

A spell like Dominate Person that nobody knows you're casting? I'd say....everyone.

Quote:
And there are, in fact, the Protection From X line of spells readily available if you want unassailable avoidance of mind control

Protection spells don't end domination, they just suppress it. So some low level caster protects you for a few minutes, what is the Mayor going to do during that time get themselves locked up? They have no idea who is controlling them because they never saw who cast the spell.

Magic in the world would dramatically and fundamentally change everything. Undetectable casting would essentially compel casters to dominate all aspects of life. Having to pay even three feats to acquire it would be a trivial cost considering the benefits.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
This is one way things could go, but it's hardly inevitable. Magic users tend to be very rich and powerful and many of them are backed by actual Gods. Making laws against them in a blanket fashion is sort of like making anti corporate laws stick. It can happen, but it sure doesn't always and assuming that it always would is weird.

Oh, I agree. I'm saying the only way you'd have a society anything close to what D&D/Pathfinder put forth is if the public could reliably contain public casting. Alternatively, benevolent caster's in power might go along with this to protect their dominions.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
heh. We're only contemplating two spells here, charm person and dominate. Once you start trying to consider the impact of every spell available, you're not going to get any consensus on how that is going to unfold starting from the Big Bang.

It's not that hard to deal with magic in general, honestly. It does require more magic, but that's not actually a problem.

N N 959 wrote:
So what? You get zapped, you're under the spell. Bystanders? zap them too. You don't start asking for favors until you've got everyone under lockdown and then you just send the witness out of the store.

You have unlimited spell slots now?

And by retrospect I meant as soon as it ended. Charm Person only lasts a few hours. As soon as it ends, you can immediately go to the authorities, at which point they can examine you, find enchantment magic, and go arrest that guy.

N N 959 wrote:
And that's exactly why I said the penalty for any mind-control would have to be death. Sure, people who are obvious and stupid about how they use it are going to get caught. (un)Fortunately Wizards are among the smartest.

Getting caught is hard to avoid if the authorities have magic. Divination magic comes online at much lower levels than anti-divination magics that are actually reliable.

I'm not saying nobody would ever get away with this, I'm saying you have to be very careful to get away with it and that most people wouldn't get away with it long term.

N N 959 wrote:
A spell like Dominate Person that nobody knows you're casting? I'd say....everyone.

So Fighters, Rogues, and Paladins will have it?

That 1 in 1250 is of all Classes. I was being generous assuming 1 in 4 are even of a Class that has it on their list.

N N 959 wrote:
Protection spells don't end domination, they just suppress it. So some low level caster protects you for a few minutes, what is the Mayor going to do during that time get themselves locked up? They have no idea who is controlling them because they never saw who cast the spell.

That's only if cast on someone already under a spell. If used prior to the spell being cast it just makes you flat out immune. Indeed, someone who never leaves the area of a hallow (for example) can never be mind controlled by evil creatures at all.

N N 959 wrote:
Magic in the world would dramatically and fundamentally change everything. Undetectable casting would essentially compel casters to dominate all aspects of life.

Even if casting is 'undetectable' it usually involves both weird hand gestures and speaking in tongues. It's less than subtle in most cases even then.


There are many ways to do it socially, I think. XD One nice ruleset I found basically said "anything except Personal spells is illegal in public, and even that is probably going to get a group of guards called on you to see what's going on". (For context, this city also has a Wizard's Guild capable of providing 9th-level casting services to the city, and it has a bunch of money because it's a major trade city. They can afford magical scrying, divination, et cetera, to make life bad for troublemakers of unknown ability.) So, you may not be arrested immediately, but it's very much a Bad Idea to draw that kind of notice.

I think most places are willing to exercise a degree of discretion, though. For example, priests of certain faiths probably get a certain amount of leeway for beneficial spells, with the church itself held accountable for their actions, and most non-evil authorities are likely to give Paladins the benefit of the doubt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm fond of being able to invest in secret casting, especially for enchantments. Feel free to put some more restrictions on it. Maybe the range of hidden spells is very short, for instance. Make it metamagic- then it can't be used on spells like Dominate Person and the summoning spells. (Metamagic now increases the action count by one. Dominate Person, summoning, and other one-round casting time spells will likely be three-action spells, making them ineligible for metamagic.)

Skill DCs are supposed to be balanced now, so you can call for a deception check and have it mean something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
The fact that a still silent no material spell can't be clearly seen as it's cast and still gets a check.
I don't follow. A still/silent spell has no components, but it is still cast. As you cast the spell, the visual manifestations appear. You need sight to "see" the spell as it is being cast. A blind person can't use Spellcraft to ID spells because they can't "see" the spell as it's being cast.

'Manifestations' - which were left up to the GM to define, could be chimes or sounds - not visual.

Nothing about manifestations indicated that they had to be visual - and nothing about the spellcraft check says you are seeing manifestations to identify the spell.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


It's not that hard to deal with magic in general, honestly. It does require more magic, but that's not actually a problem.

Uh yeah...that's a major problem for the general population.

Quote:
You have unlimited spell slots now?

You don't need unlimited spells. You need math to count how many people you can handle. If there too many, you wait until there are less people.

Quote:
And by retrospect I meant as soon as it ended. Charm Person only lasts a few hours. As soon as it ends, you can immediately go to the authorities, at which point they can examine you, find enchantment magic, and go arrest that guy.

1) There is nothing that says a person who has been charmed has any indication that they've been charmed after the spell wears off. To the victim, the effects are no different than someone using Diplomacy to change your attitude.

2) What guy? What makes you think a person who goes around using charm person illegally is going to forgo a disguise? "Hey, if you suddenly think you got swindled, here's my photo ID and DL#." Once you get someone under a charm person it doesn't matter if you're dressed like a clown.

Quote:
Getting caught is hard to avoid if the authorities have magic.

That's exactly why I said people would be forced to live in major towns. Thorps and hamlets would be defenseless. And what few spell casters might exist, you charm/dominate them while you do your business.

Quote:
I'm not saying nobody would ever get away with this, I'm saying you have to be very careful to get away with it and that most people wouldn't get away with it long term.

And I'm not saying people wouldn't get caught, I'm saying that people would commit the crimes, you know, like people do in real life despite the fact that people get caught all the time. Imagine what would have happen to our society if someone could go to school and learn how to charm others via the spell? You really think things would proceed as if the spell didn't exist?

Quote:
So Fighters, Rogues, and Paladins will have it?

Sorry, I thought you were asking what casters that could cast it would learn it Fighter, Rogues, Rangers, etc. would all be Dominated or voluntarily working for casters. Paladins would be humanities last hope.

Quote:
That's only if cast on someone already under a spell. If used prior to the spell being cast it just makes you flat out immune.

1) Protection spells only protect you from the alignment you're protected against.

2) These spells last minutes per caster level, not hours.

That means shopkeepers and politicians and law keepers would have to have a Prot from Evil, Law, Chaos, Good, and Neutral all going at the same time....all day long and all night. "Who could be visiting us this late at night?" "Uh oh, it's that clown again!"

Quote:
Even if casting is 'undetectable' it usually involves both weird hand gestures and speaking in tongues. It's less than subtle in most cases even then.

If there were no manifestations, silent and still spell would be standard practice for evil doers/politicians. You would have no idea the guy standing next to you just charmed you.

Spell manifestations fix that. That let everyone know exactly who/where a spell was cast and let's those Spellcraft readily identify the spell. There's nothing stopping a caster on market patrol from Taking 10 every time they see a spell manifestation.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
... (snip) This is far more favorable than anime glowing runes that even blind people can see.

You keep saying anime... but you know where anime got that from right? It's copy straight from lots and lots of fantasy literature and artwork. You are heavily misattributing that emphasis, and I suspect it's in an effort (intentional or not) to get gritty/old school fans to balk at the idea... but you can find such a representation in old DnD books.

Edit: I however would also like if they heavily clarify or flavor how spell casting actually works in the core rules, to tell us how Golarion spell casting works, but have no preference for if you can be very subtle like in DnD 5e or if it has a heavily manifestation that can be seen/felt.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:

'Manifestations' - which were left up to the GM to define, could be chimes or sounds - not visual.

Nothing about manifestations indicated that they had to be visual - and nothing about the spellcraft check says you are seeing manifestations to identify the spell.

Spellcraft explicitly tells us that you need to "see the spell" as its being cast. It doesn't say you need to hear or be near the caster. You have to, and I quote "see."

The FAQ on which made manifestations a thing, is a FAQ which specifically is answering the question about what Spellcraft is using/triggering off of.

FAQ wrote:
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.

The FAQ doesn't mention or even suggests that the manifestations are anything but visual. This is reinforced here:

Quote:
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

Art in a book cannot be heard, so this is clearly Paizo telling us the manifestations are visual and only visual.

What the GM or player can decide is the visual form i.e. colors, shapes, etc. because these things are totally immaterial to the mechanics.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Uh yeah...that's a major problem for the general population.

Not when one in twenty people is a spell caster. Do you know how many police officers there are per capita in the highest percentage places in the world? Less than 1 in 100 people generally, and far more often less than 1 in 250. All cops could be spell casters really easily, from a per capita perspective. They aren't, but the police forces of various places can certainly have more than enough for those criminals who use magic.

N N 959 wrote:
You don't need unlimited spells. You need math to count how many people you can handle. If there too many, you wait until there are less people.

This works right up until someone walks in unexpectedly. But yes, this works to, say, con money out of a single person or very small group. Assuming they all fail their saves of course.

N N 959 wrote:

1) There is nothing that says a person who has been charmed has any indication that they've been charmed after the spell wears off. To the victim, the effects are no different than someone using Diplomacy to change your attitude.

2) What guy? What makes you think a person who goes around using charm person illegally is going to forgo a disguise? "Hey, if you suddenly think you got swindled, here's my photo ID and DL#." Once you get someone under a charm person it doesn't matter if you're dressed like a clown.

1. Yes there is. After the duration of the spell its effects wear off and you immediately return to your previous opinion of the person, no longer seeing their actions in the best possible light. If they abused your trust it takes only the most basic pattern recognition skills to realize that you started trusting them right after that spell and put two and two together. Will absolutely everyone realize this? No. Will it happen if you do this regularly? Absolutely.

2. Disguises are hardly perfect. Nor does magic necessarily need a picture of someone to find them, depending.

And all this assumes the people fail their saves. One in twenty at a minimum will succeed, and those that succeed can tell they were targeted with a spell...and are likely to be immediately and violently upset about it. So doing this is dangerous.

N N 959 wrote:
That's exactly why I said people would be forced to live in major towns. Thorps and hamlets would be defenseless. And what few spell casters might exist, you charm/dominate them while you do your business.

1 in 20 people is a spellcaster by the settlement rules. If you are capable of making people fail your saves reliably...what in the world are you getting in a town of 20 people that isn't more easily gotten legitimately elsewhere?

I'm seriously curious. This whole train of thought seems to rely on spellcasters mind controlling people for...what? Money? Sex? I'm unclear.

Without breaking a single law, a spellcaster offering spell casting services can make 10 gp per 1st level spell. That's enough to live in style at a single 1st level spell per day.

N N 959 wrote:
And I'm not saying people wouldn't get caught, I'm saying that people would commit the crimes, you know, like people do in real life despite the fact that people get caught all the time. Imagine what would have happen to our society if someone could go to school and learn how to charm others via the spell? You really think things would proceed as if the spell didn't exist?

No. They'd proceed knowing its a risk. Watching out for people spelling you would be like watching for drugs to be put in your drink...but people still get drinks and they'd still wander around knowing they could get charmed. It would change society inasmuch as people would be aware of the threat of being enchanted, but wouldn't become the kind of

N N 959 wrote:
Sorry, I thought you were asking what casters that could cast it would learn it Fighter, Rogues, Rangers, etc. would all be Dominated or voluntarily working for casters. Paladins would be humanities last hope.

My point was that at 1 in 5000 people maybe have the ability to use mind control beyond the level of charm person. And that one such person can mostly keep less than 20 people under control reliably.

So either this is a very small number of people being controlled, or people are falling out of their control regularly (or they leave a trail of bodies behind them). Which was sort of my whole point.

And, again, that assumes a lot of 9th level Wizards are controlling people for...some reason? Really, it's just unlikely for all that many people to want to do that.

N N 959 wrote:

1) Protection spells only protect you from the alignment you're protected against.

2) These spells last minutes per caster level, not hours.

That means shopkeepers and politicians and law keepers would have to have a Prot from Evil, Law, Chaos, Good, and Neutral all going at the same time....all day long and all night. "Who could be visiting us this late at night?" "Uh oh, it's that clown again!"

1. Absolutely true. I never said they were perfect, just that they were a valid and readily available defense.

2. Which would be why I mentioned hallow, which is permanent and gives everyone within it Protection From Evil.

As for people like politicians and the like, people casting spells right at them seem quite likely to run into bodyguards, don't you think?

And most shopkeeps don't give things away even to their friends, so the best you're probably getting at less than 9th level is a discount or something like that.

N N 959 wrote:
If there were no manifestations, silent and still spell would be standard practice for evil doers/politicians. You would have no idea the guy standing next to you just charmed you.

If we're talking PF2, it seems likely that the combination of the two is impossible on most spells since you can't get more than 3 actions and Metamagic effects add an action. That's speculative, though.

But I do agree that having no manifestations would do weird things to the world, I'm just saying that the default world actually works as described.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like to see some clearifications on how spells manifests aswell, i dont mind how it looks like spesifically, but rather in how spells are observed. Observing spells in how visual the somantics are, how firm the vocals have to be, the visual manifestation of the spell, etc.

Just having a proper structure around the basics on how magic is observed can allow any table to basically have the magic they want, and yet have proper mechanics around it.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Not when one in twenty people is a spell caster

"a caster' not the specific type of caster that can foil or thwart mind-affecting spells. More to the point, that person isn't mandated to be someone upholding the law or having any duty to protect others from magic. So while it may be 1 in 20 with an ability to cast spells, there's no stats on how many of them are actively protecting others.

Quote:
Do you know how many police officers there are per capita in the highest percentage places in the world? Less than 1 in 100 people generally, and far more often less than 1 in 250.

Yup, and they've all but eliminated crime haven't they?....oh...wait.

Quote:
All cops could be spell casters really easily, from a per capita perspective.

That's not how the stat works. You don't get to assign those 1 in 20 to the same job or the same motivation. It represents a random distribution throughout a population.

Quote:
1. Yes there is. After the duration of the spell its effects wear off and you immediately return to your previous opinion of the person, no longer seeing their actions in the best possible light.

I don't see that any where in the spell description (seriously hope I'm not blind). Is it in a FAQ?

Quote:
2. Disguises are hardly perfect. Nor does magic necessarily need a picture of someone to find them, depending.

The disguise doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to prevent you from being recognized for who you are. Fake hair and some skin pigment are all it takes it's irrelevant if it looks fake or obvious as a disguise. I'm not going to approach you until I've cast the spell and it worked. If it fails, I probably leave and try again later with a different disguise.

Quote:
I'm seriously curious. This whole train of thought seems to rely on spellcasters mind controlling people for...what? Money? Sex? I'm unclear.

For all kinds of things. Political favors, access to someone's house. Information on someone's business, the list goes on.

And it's not just charm person. Command, illusions in general, Suggestion, Sleep, and a host of others that if one could cast without detection, would cause serious problems.

Quote:
2. Which would be why I mentioned hallow, which is permanent and gives everyone within it Protection From Evil.

As mentioned, Protection From Evil does squat if the caster isn't evil, and an area can only have one hallowed spell active at time. Also, Hallow is a 5th level spell, so probably only have one per town. But yeah, a Hallow with Dispel Magic seems like something that would be common in Golarion for town squares and such. Surprised I've never seen it in a PFS scenario.

Quote:
I'm just saying that the default world actually works as described.

Even with manifestations, I'm inclined to disagree. Mainly because I've read "white papers" on what magic would actually do to the medieval economy.


N N 959 wrote:
As mentioned, Protection From Evil does squat if the caster isn't evil

Protection From Evil protects against all forms of mind control regardless of alignment.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
"a caster' not the specific type of caster that can foil or thwart mind-affecting spells. More to the point, that person isn't mandated to be someone upholding the law or having any duty to protect others from magic. So while it may be 1 in 20 with an ability to cast spells, there's no stats on how many of them are actively protecting others.

Sure. Just as we have no numbers on how many are abusing others with them.

N N 959 wrote:
Yup, and they've all but eliminated crime haven't they?....oh...wait.

I...never said they would? I specifically said the opposite?

But you're acting like policing magic is impossible without draconian laws restricting it. Which isn't true.

N N 959 wrote:
That's not how the stat works. You don't get to assign those 1 in 20 to the same job or the same motivation. It represents a random distribution throughout a population.

Magic is not randomly distributed. This is like saying that forensic scientists are distributed throughout the population. Or mathematicians. Or priests.

None of those three statements is true. Sorcerers may be distributed randomly, but Wizards and Clerics are not, and you can become one specifically to protect society from this hypothetical abusive magic user. Indeed, I'd expect such a motivation to be common if such abuses are (I wouldn't expect such abuses to be that common, but if they were people arising to combat them seems very likely).

N N 959 wrote:
I don't see that any where in the spell description (seriously hope I'm not blind). Is it in a FAQ?

It's inherent in the spell's wording. The spell does not actually change the target's attitude to friendly, you treat the target's attitude as friendly for the duration of the spell.

N N 959 wrote:
The disguise doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to prevent you from being recognized for who you are. Fake hair and some skin pigment are all it takes it's irrelevant if it looks fake or obvious as a disguise. I'm not going to approach you until I've cast the spell and it worked. If it fails, I probably leave and try again later with a different disguise.

You need to be within 30 feet to cast the spell. Maybe 40 or 50. 75 feet if you're 20th level. That's close enough anywhere but the busiest streets to see a bad disguise and get suspicious. And we've already established that this requires isolation rather than a busy street to work.

N N 959 wrote:
For all kinds of things. Political favors, access to someone's house. Information on someone's business, the list goes on.

Again...why? I mean, yeah, I'd expect espionage services to use spells extensively (as, indeed, they are shown to do in Pathfinder Tales novels and the like)...but so would counterintelligence services.

In the real world, most people can be suborned by trained intelligence assets with enough effort or have their data hacked. And this happens. But it happens in numbers that are small enough that society still functions, because it's not worth the time or effort for the really good spies and hackers to focus on ordinary people. The fact that the people doing this sort of thing use magic does not change that basic equation that the really good ones don't have unlimited time to waste doing it to random people.

N N 959 wrote:
And it's not just charm person. Command, illusions in general, Suggestion, Sleep, and a host of others that if one could cast without detection, would cause serious problems.

With the exception of suggestion, none of those are at all subtle. They no more change the nature of society than being able to point a gun at someone and force them to do or say things.

N N 959 wrote:
As mentioned, Protection From Evil does squat if the caster isn't evil, and an area can only have one hallowed spell active at time. Also, Hallow is a 5th level spell, so probably only have one per town. But yeah, a Hallow with Dispel Magic seems like something that would be common in Golarion for town squares and such. Surprised I've never seen it in a PFS scenario.

That's just one example. Other protective measures are also very possible, including just having good saves. I mean, per the Gamemastery Guide your average mayor or noble has a +8 Will Save and your average Shopkeep a +4. The shopkeep has a better than even chance to save vs. most random NPCs charm person, and the mayor or noble more like 70%. Given the likely responses to a failed charm person, those are bad odds to play unless you're desperate or alone with them with a contingency plan.

Now, some people are gonna be way better than that in terms of Save DCs, obviously, but a Save DC of 24 (which is fairly optimal for level 10) still gives a 25% chance for the Mayor or Noble to save. And that's still not great odds given the likely consequences of failure.

I mean, this is a thing people would do, but like mugging someone it's not a sure thing at all and can go very wrong, making most people who can do it unwilling to risk it.

N N 959 wrote:
Even with manifestations, I'm inclined to disagree. Mainly because I've read "white papers" on what magic would actually do to the medieval economy.

Golarion doesn't have a medieval economy. Like, at all.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Indeed, I'd expect such a motivation to be common if such abuses are (I wouldn't expect such abuses to be that common, but if they were people arising to combat them seems very likely).

Especially for clerics of good deities who are against people doing evil stuff.

Honestly, what I'd find rather weird would be that, with mind control allegedly being so prevalent, law forces didn't literally require their personnel, or part of it, to be trained as spellcasters (mostly clerics, as you can build a temple to a deity in pretty much anywhere) to counter/investigate it properly.

It's easier to find a house equipped with a security system than someone wanting to rob that particular house.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:


The FAQ on which made manifestations a thing, is a FAQ which specifically is answering the question about what Spellcraft is using/triggering off of.

The FAQ didn't make manifestations a 'thing' they were always there - just almost no one read them correctly or understood what that the consequences of them were - because previously the 3.x rules had many options for hiding your casting and people tended to *assume* that casting a spell without any S,M, or V components was in fact hidden.

FAQ wrote:
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.

This doesn't say what you are trying to say it does - regardless doesn't mean *as like*.

Quote:
Quote:
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
Art in a book cannot be heard, so this is clearly Paizo telling us the manifestations are visual and only visual.

Artwork doesn't make official rules - it never has - neither do the fiction books - they never have - nor do the comics - they never have either. This all despite the best attempts to make them work within the rules framework.

Quote:


What the GM or player can decide is the visual form i.e. colors, shapes, etc. because these things are totally immaterial to the mechanics.

Incorrect - they are the mechanics - thus this thread.


2Zak wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
As mentioned, Protection From Evil does squat if the caster isn't evil
Protection From Evil protects against all forms of mind control regardless of alignment.

Nah, just from evil sources. The wording isn’t great, but there’s an FAQ to clarify that, yes, Protection from Evil only protects you from evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Nah, just from evil sources. The wording isn’t great, but there’s an FAQ to clarify that, yes, Protection from Evil only protects you from evil.

Jesus christ, I wish my brain stopped doing this thing where it just doesn't acknowledge the last sentence in a paragraph.

Thanks for pointing that out. I've read that description around 20 times last week from various sources and never even realized there was a sentence after "This spell does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling the target.". If I didn't know it was impossible I'd swear you just went and added it to d20pfsrd, paizo's prd, my pdfs and printed copies of the CRB.


If it makes you feel better, my brain does a thing where I completely skip over the first word or letter in a sentence.

Bad enough when I'm reading, but it's really annoying that I do it when I'm talking. I'll try to say "I need that" and it'll come out "Need that." Who needs the thing, Animated? Sentences need at least an inferred subject to be complete. You have a degree in this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If only English hadn't lost its inflections. Then we could tell the subject by how the verb is conjugated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I, too, would like to know how spells manifest, especially spells that on the sufrace seem rather subtle. But a spell being subtle doesn't make as much sense unless you have the Subtle Spell metamagic going on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'd imagine Detect Magic gets cast in marketplaces a lot, and would be shocked if everyone stared at anyone who cast it.

It's difficult to agree on what everyday life would be like with spells like charm person and create water available to low level casters.

It's more likely that any spell casting in civilized areas would be illegal. Shopkeepers and merchants would unionize against public casting or simply refuse to operate in cities which allowed it. This would in-turn leave customers susceptible to illusions, so there would have to be a public servant that went around detecting magic to protect the innocent. In addition, constables would have to have rods of absorption and enemy detection.

This means people could not live outside of walled cities. Any individuals or small towns without the resources to guard against mind-altering spells would be victimized by low level casters and entire towns would be run by vampires. So to facilitate anything approach RL normalcy, there'd have to be wards against mind control readily available.

D&D and Pathfinder largely ignore this reality, unless it's the hook for some scenario, and we all just play along.

EDIT: Alternatively, there'd have to be some mechanisms to instantly identify spells that were cast and announce them e.g. a magic mouth with infallible Spellcraft at every street corner and threshold, would probably be sufficient to allow public casting. Using mind-affecting spells would have to be punishable by death along with any refusal to answer questions under a Zone of Truth.

It's difficult to agree on what everyday life would be like with tools like swords and armor available to low level martials.

It's more likely that any metal weapons/armor in civilized areas would be illegal. Shopkeepers and merchants would unionize against possession of the most effective weapons or simply refuse to operate in cities which allowed them. This would in turn leave everyone susceptible to murder and conquest, so there would have to be a government that went around armed to protect the innocent and enslaving or closely regulating all smiths.

This means people could not live outside of walled cities. Any individuals or small towns without the ability to raise a state apparatus to control and suppress metal weapons and armor would be conquered by outsiders and the entire towns would be run by invading barbarians. So to facilitate anything approaching RL normalcy, they'd all have to allow metal weapons and armor for defense.

D&D and Pathfinder largely ignore this reality, unless it's the hook for some scenario, and we all just play along.

EDIT: Alternatively, there'd have to be some mechanism to instantly see when someone is using a sword to hack someone apart and announce them e.g. you eyes see manifestations of light reflecting from the movement of the sword and you heaer the dying screams of the victim ringing in your years, would probably be sufficient to allow public carry of metal weapons. Using weapons to kill would have to be punishable by death along with any refusal to accept trial by jury, ordeal, or combat.

Grand Archive

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

One good example of what some people could do with mind control with no manifestations would be the first season of the Marvel-Netflix series "Jessica Jones". The villain Killgrave is exactly that... Ok, he basically have Mass Dominate at will that ignore the "still have survival instinct" part (but with a range), but an intelligent spellcaster could reproduce most of his actions with the right preparations.


Quote:

It's more likely that any metal weapons/armor in civilized areas would be illegal. Shopkeepers and merchants would unionize against possession of the most effective weapons or simply refuse to operate in cities which allowed them. This would in turn leave everyone susceptible to murder and conquest, so there would have to be a government that went around armed to protect the innocent and enslaving or closely regulating all smiths.

This means people could not live outside of walled cities. Any individuals or small towns without the ability to raise a state apparatus to control and suppress metal weapons and armor would be conquered by outsiders and the entire towns would be run by invading barbarians. So to facilitate anything approaching RL normalcy, they'd all have to allow metal weapons and armor for defense.

That's actually not too far from how peasants lived for a good chunk of history. So if your argument is that magic wouldn't be treated as described, you should get a new argument.

Maybe magic wouldn't be outright banned. But if there was a ruling noble class they sure as shit would have regulations on who can use what magic.


Corrik wrote:
Quote:

It's more likely that any metal weapons/armor in civilized areas would be illegal. Shopkeepers and merchants would unionize against possession of the most effective weapons or simply refuse to operate in cities which allowed them. This would in turn leave everyone susceptible to murder and conquest, so there would have to be a government that went around armed to protect the innocent and enslaving or closely regulating all smiths.

This means people could not live outside of walled cities. Any individuals or small towns without the ability to raise a state apparatus to control and suppress metal weapons and armor would be conquered by outsiders and the entire towns would be run by invading barbarians. So to facilitate anything approaching RL normalcy, they'd all have to allow metal weapons and armor for defense.

That's actually not too far from how peasants lived for a good chunk of history. So if your argument is that magic wouldn't be treated as described, you should get a new argument.

Maybe magic wouldn't be outright banned. But if there was a ruling noble class they sure as s$%* would have regulations on who can use what magic.

If your campaign world doesn't allow the common people to carry weapons, I agree, it also shouldn't allow them to learn or use magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
If your campaign world doesn't allow the common people to carry weapons, I agree, it also shouldn't allow them to learn or use magic.

That's any campaign world based on Medieval fantasy. Commoners exist under the heel of the ruling class. Weapons and armor are very much restricted, and more than a few steps are taken to ensure they don't have access to them. I mean hell, Nobles took offense for commoners just learning how to use weapons. Unless of course said noble needed to send said commoners to war. Why do you think mobs of villagers are always armed with pitchforks and torches? That in almost every story where a commoner has a sword, they used to be a soldier?

If you walk in to a metropolis fully armed and armored, you might very well run in to trouble with the guard, especially for the "nice" parts of town. Just like in the "Wild West" everyone wasn't actually walking around strapped with iron.

And swords and chain mail have no where NEAR the destructive effects even low level magic would have on society. Murderous command is a 1st level spell. Assuming a lv 1 cleric with only 12 Wis, that gives all those lv 1 commoners a 60% chance of killing someone. That leaves the lv 20 fighter with a 25% of killing someone. Unless of course he has some sort of magic to help out. Things like that would ripple throughout society. Claiming that swords and chain mail are the same thing as magic is disingenuous.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

presumably stealth casting would allow a perception check to notice something happening.

If that is how its written up, then I'd be all for stealth casting.


Xenocrat wrote:
stuff

All of this is essentially a disanalogy. The discussion is about what effect non-voilent, undetectable magic manipulation would have on the fabric of society.

Weapons are essentially obvious. You attack someone with a weapon, you're obvious. Undetectable charm person is not obvious. There's no way to know that someone in the armory cast it on the shop keeper or on the president of the local union if you're not set up for it a priori. Last I checked, you have to pull a sword out of scabbard to use it. If you walk into any store with a sword in your hand, the cops/warriors will probably shoot/attack you on sight. What's more, the shopkeeper might pull the shotgun/<insert magic item here> from behind the counter.

More to the point, this conversation centers around a societies reaction to tools that allows individuals to be manipulated non-voilently and without forewarning. Our society doesn't have anything like that or even close to it.

And FYI, there are entire regions in the Forgotten Realms where weapons had to be peace bonded upon entering a town. Of course, you can't peace bond a sorcerer or a monk, so the whole thing was fundamentally flawed.


Elfteiroh wrote:
One good example of what some people could do with mind control with no manifestations would be the first season of the Marvel-Netflix series "Jessica Jones". The villain Killgrave is exactly that... Ok, he basically have Mass Dominate at will that ignore the "still have survival instinct" part (but with a range), but an intelligent spellcaster could reproduce most of his actions with the right preparations.

Several times I was on the verge of mentioning this, but his power is way beyond charm person, as you note. I was more curious exploring the effects of low level magic. I think it should be obvious to all that if there really where high level magic users in the world, they would have to be authorized by local governments. There's no way free societies would tolerate unauthorized individuals roaming the cities with the ability to alter reality. Just wouldn't happen. Perhaps the best example of this is the Mutant Registration Act and how comics explore societies reactions to super powered beings functioning in society.

Or, these high level magic users would be the government, in which cast they would absolutely not tolerate an uncontrolled potential threat to society/their power, be they good or evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Why do you think mobs of villagers are always armed with pitchforks and torches? That in almost every story where a commoner has a sword, they used to be a soldier?

Economics, mostly. Swords are expensive.

Also, it's easier to gut someone without hurting yourself with short spike of sharp metal attached to a 5 foot pole than with a 5 foot piece of sharp metal attached to a short handle. So stuff like pitchforks are useful improvised weapons for people without proper sword training.

Torches are on fire, which is very dangerous, that makes anyone you're confronting instantly afraid of catching fire.

Besides that, any farmer will have a torch or a pitchfork lying around, which makes getting one fairly trivial as opposed to the same farmer finding an actual sword.

And besides all of that, yeah, there's also the fact that at some points in history, when economics were favorable to commoners and they could afford actual weapons, weapon control laws were created.

The biggest factor here is availability. Would literally undetectable magic more easily available to everyone in Golarion than, say, short swords? I seriously doubt so.


2Zak wrote:
The biggest factor here is availability. Would literally undetectable magic more easily available to everyone in Golarion than, say, short swords? I seriously doubt so.

My supposition is not dependent on the availability of magic. it hinges on the degree of fear such an option would create in a general population, in the hands of a limited few.

Imagine some anarchist invented a phone app for charm person. Let's say the app was coded to only work randomly such that the availability of the app was exactly the same as charm person in Golarion. What do you think would happen once society realized that some percentage of people could use charm person without being able to detect its casting?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If Paizo does not give manifestation to magic, I will put it in my games.

Magic is cooler with it

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
It's difficult to agree on what everyday life would be like with tools like swords and armor available to low level martials.

Not really. I mean, in the US many people have common access to firearms, which serve many of the same functions. It remains a functional society.

It certainly won't result in a traditionally feudal medieval society. But then, I don't think Golarion actually has any of those. I mean, some are feudal, but small villages have school houses, literacy is nearly universal, there don't seem to be serfs almost anywhere, and so on and so forth. The economy and social structure resemble those of actual medieval times in only the most superficial way.

Frankly, any medieval peasant (especially a woman) who wound up in any non-Evil country in Golarion (and maybe even a few of the evil ones) would likely think they'd died and gone to heaven. Even with all the monsters, dangers, and witchery. The quality of life is just so much higher on just about every possible level.

Elfteiroh wrote:
One good example of what some people could do with mind control with no manifestations would be the first season of the Marvel-Netflix series "Jessica Jones". The villain Killgrave is exactly that... Ok, he basically have Mass Dominate at will that ignore the "still have survival instinct" part (but with a range), but an intelligent spellcaster could reproduce most of his actions with the right preparations.

This isn't really doable due to limited spell slots, such control being detectable, and people being able to protect against it for long enough to kill you if they have prep time. One of Killgrave's biggest advantages was that nobody believed in his ability...which is simply not an applicable advantage in a world that believes in mind control magic.

A vampire can do this due to having unlimited dominate person uses per day, mind you, but one who's actually as careless as Killgrave won't last long in a world that believes in magic.

Neither of these mean nobody would ever try it, but it's not gonna end well. Also, Killgrave was a sick f$%$, and the number of people who are that messed up is limited, so a lot of people who could do what he did simply won't.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
It's difficult to agree on what everyday life would be like with tools like swords and armor available to low level martials.

Not really. I mean, in the US many people have common access to firearms, which serve many of the same functions. It remains a functional society.

Whoosh.

Liberty's Edge

Xenocrat wrote:
Whoosh.

No, I got what you were doing. But I disagreed with the part that said:

Xenocrat wrote:
D&D and Pathfinder largely ignore this reality, unless it's the hook for some scenario, and we all just play along.

Maybe that's what I should've quoted, upon reflection.

Anyway, I don't think Pathfinder ignores the implications of most of the world stuff at all, certainly not the implications of widespread weapon ownership. Which is what that post is about.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

No, I got what you were doing. But I disagreed with the part that said:

Xenocrat wrote:
D&D and Pathfinder largely ignore this reality, unless it's the hook for some scenario, and we all just play along.

Maybe that's what I should've quoted, upon reflection.

Anyway, I don't think Pathfinder ignores the implications of most of the world stuff at all, certainly not the implications of widespread weapon ownership. Which is what that post is about.

He was quoting me in his attempt at parody. I agree that weapon ownership in Pathfinder is not entirely divorced from reality. That part of the game I don't have need to examine. Magic, on the other hand...who really knows.

Liberty's Edge

N N 959 wrote:
He was quoting me in his attempt at parody.

I knew that. I guess I missed the final line though, I thought that was a departure. Huh.

N N 959 wrote:
I agree that weapon ownership in Pathfinder is not entirely divorced from reality. That part of the game I don't have need to examine. Magic, on the other hand...who really knows.

I think the implications of magic actually get examined fairly well in a lot of Pathfinder stuff, personally.

51 to 100 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Simple Request: Clarification On Spell Manifestations All Messageboards