spells, spell like abilities, and invisibility?

[kinderschlager]

as spell manifestations are stated as always visible, how does this interact with a caster being invisible? a bonus to a perception check to feret them out? instantly allow location of the last occupied spot of the caster? and even more so with SLA's with no audible components or movement

[Magicdealer]

Caster is invisible - spell manifestations are visible. I'd suggest moving after casting a spell. In order to conceal spellcasting you need one of a very small number of feats or abilities.

[kinderschlager]

Magicdealer wrote:

Caster is invisible - spell manifestations are visible. I'd suggest moving after casting a spell. In order to conceal spellcasting you need one of a very small number of feats or abilities.

would they not at LEAST need to do a pinpoint perception check? not even screaming at someone allows them to auto pinpoint an invisible person, it only makes it much easier to do so

[Volkard Abendroth]

kinderschlager wrote:

Magicdealer wrote:

Caster is invisible - spell manifestations are visible. I'd suggest moving after casting a spell. In order to conceal spellcasting you need one of a very small number of feats or abilities.

would they not at LEAST need to do a pinpoint perception check? not even screaming at someone allows them to auto pinpoint an invisible person, it only makes it much easier to do so

Sound is not particularly effective at pinpointing a location.

Visual effects are.

[Kayerloth]

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

... <snipped a bunch> ... Sound is not particularly effective at pinpointing a location.

Visual effects are.

A great deal of that is because we are humans (or humanoids in general) and we are, first and foremost, visual creatures. I doubt a bat, for example, couldn't use sound extremely well for a pinpoint check (i.e. echolocation). They do it, in fact, so well that invisibility is not even relevant. Or an owl, which can hear well enough to find its prey from the sound it makes moving under the litter on the forest floor in the dark of a moonless night.

And in short I strongly dislike the ruling/FAQ (but I'll live with it) and it should be tossed out. Or it should be more thoroughly codified so things like Invisibility give off entirely invisible manifestations and Silent Image (and other Illusions) shouldn't give off anything that disrupts the 'illusion' etc., etc.. A bag of worms they should not have opened but did.

[kinderschlager]

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

kinderschlager wrote:

Magicdealer wrote:

Caster is invisible - spell manifestations are visible. I'd suggest moving after casting a spell. In order to conceal spellcasting you need one of a very small number of feats or abilities.

would they not at LEAST need to do a pinpoint perception check? not even screaming at someone allows them to auto pinpoint an invisible person, it only makes it much easier to do so

Sound is not particularly effective at pinpointing a location.

Visual effects are.

my problem with it is how visual are these manifestations? they exist.......and are up to you describing them yourself. the rule is so darn vague. i'd argue it shouldnt be more obvious than the spell that is being cast. a fireball manifestation shouldnt be brighter than the itty bitty pinprick of light a fireball is as it zooms to the target. and by that logic visual manifestations shouldnt let people pinpoint invisible spellcasters without a check at the minimum

[Dave Justus]

Spell manifestations apply to being able to use spellcraft to identify a spell regardless of what casting components there are. That is all the FAQ that invented them says they do, therefore they don't do anything else.

The don't pinpoint or even identify a square where a caster is (although of course since they identify a spell is being cast they certainly imply the existence of a caster.)

I'll reiterate, all we know about spell manifestations is they exist and are identifying characteristics of spells for the purpose of spell craft and general knowledge that some sort of magic is happening. We don't know where they manifest (near the caster? near the target? all around in the general area? some in one place, some in anther?) how visible they are, or even what senses they use (it wouldn't be against the text in the FAQ to have the manifestations be smells, for example.)

[Decimus Drake]

I get the feeling the FAQ was poorly thought out.

[kinderschlager]

Dave Justus wrote:

Spell manifestations apply to being able to use spellcraft to identify a spell regardless of what casting components there are. That is all the FAQ that invented them says they do, therefore they don't do anything else.

The don't pinpoint or even identify a square where a caster is (although of course since they identify a spell is being cast they certainly imply the existence of a caster.)

I'll reiterate, all we know about spell manifestations is they exist and are identifying characteristics of spells for the purpose of spell craft and general knowledge that some sort of magic is happening. We don't know where they manifest (near the caster? near the target? all around in the general area? some in one place, some in anther?) how visible they are, or even what senses they use
(it wouldn't be against the text in the FAQ to have the manifestations be smells, for example.)

try telling that to any GM though and see how far that gets you. as far as i'm aware it's one of the few things a PFS GM rule on anyway they like due to just how poorly written the FAQ is

[blahpers]

Been hoping for some clarification on this one for quite a while.

Decimus Drake wrote:

I get the feeling the FAQ was poorly thought out.

Considering that it utterly breaks an encounter in Rise of the Runelords: Anniversary Edition, yeah, I don't think the ramifications became apparent until post-FAQ.

[kinderschlager]

blahpers wrote:

Been hoping for some clarification on this one for quite a while.

Decimus Drake wrote:

I get the feeling the FAQ was poorly thought out.

Considering that it utterly breaks an encounter in Rise of the Runelords: Anniversary Edition, yeah, I don't think the ramifications became apparent until post-FAQ.

did the errata come out after or before the anniversary addition?

[Xenocrat]

Dave Justus wrote:

(it wouldn't be against the text in the FAQ to have the manifestations be smells, for example.)

It would be against the spellcraft skill description, which says you see a spell being cast (not the components of the spell being cast) when you identify it.

[Dave Justus]

Xenocrat wrote:

Dave Justus wrote:

(it wouldn't be against the text in the FAQ to have the manifestations be smells, for example.)

It would be against the spellcraft skill description, which says you see a spell being cast (not the components of the spell being cast) when you identify it.

That is fair, although I tend to take that as a generality that really means you have to perceive the spell. 'You have to perceive the spell being cast' would sound clunky.

Certainly I think the most common manifestations would and should be visual and that is clearly the default they had in mind.

That doesn't change my point at all that a spell manifestation doesn't provide any targeting information about the caster of the spell.

[blahpers]

kinderschlager wrote:

blahpers wrote:

Been hoping for some clarification on this one for quite a while.

Decimus Drake wrote:

I get the feeling the FAQ was poorly thought out.

Considering that it utterly breaks an encounter in Rise of the Runelords: Anniversary Edition, yeah, I don't think the ramifications became apparent until post-FAQ.

did the errata come out after or before the anniversary addition?

After. But that doesn't mean that design noticed the issue (or felt that it was worth affecting the decision).

[kinderschlager]

blahpers wrote:

kinderschlager wrote:

blahpers wrote:

Been hoping for some clarification on this one for quite a while.

Decimus Drake wrote:

I get the feeling the FAQ was poorly thought out.

Considering that it utterly breaks an encounter in Rise of the Runelords: Anniversary Edition, yeah, I don't think the ramifications became apparent until post-FAQ.

did the errata come out after or before the anniversary addition?

After. But that doesn't mean that design noticed the issue (or felt that it was worth affecting the decision).

so anyone doing that adventure can straight cheese a cannon fight? this is why a perception check still seems the most reasonable interpretation of spell manifistations

[Azothath]

there are many threads about this... I'd suggest reading those.

[kinderschlager]

Azothath wrote:

there are many threads about this... I'd suggest reading those.

no one can seem to agree because the FAQ is too ambiguous

[Volkard Abendroth]

kinderschlager wrote:

Azothath wrote:

there are many threads about this... I'd suggest reading those.

no one can seem to agree because the FAQ is too ambiguous

And will never be clarified.

Your table needs to come to an agreement and stick to it.

[kinderschlager]

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

kinderschlager wrote:

Azothath wrote:

there are many threads about this... I'd suggest reading those.

no one can seem to agree because the FAQ is too ambiguous

And will never be clarified.

Your table needs to come to an agreement and stick to it.

isnt that where you need a FAQ for the FAQ? :P

[blahpers]

kinderschlager wrote:

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

kinderschlager wrote:

Azothath wrote:

there are many threads about this... I'd suggest reading those.

no one can seem to agree because the FAQ is too ambiguous

And will never be clarified.

Your table needs to come to an agreement and stick to it.

isnt that where you need a FAQ for the FAQ? :P

Nope. All you need is the will to make a decision and run with it. And love. Mostly love.

[Unbegreiflich]

I can't wait for Voldemort to do Dr. Manhattan's first trick...

[blahpers]

If it were that easy, Thanos would be in for a heck of a surprise.

/"Mr. Stark! I feel fine!"

[Cevah]

My understanding was that the FAQ was made to prevent spellcasters being able to abuse mundanes. If no one knew a spell got cast, then mundanes would not stand a chance against a caster.

As to dealing with the manifestations, Cast-Move-And-Touch is a thing allowing you to cast out of sight and applying the touch later. So is Cast-While-Obscured, for example you are within fog when you cast. Lastly, the manifestations only identify the square. They do not allow an AoO if one is not already allowed. They do not break invisibility.

/cevah