Spell Manifestations, here we go again!

[Thewms]

I'd hate to start this up again but...

While invisible, are spell manifestations you create visible and thus making you Hidden until you Sneak to become Undetected?

CASTING SPELLS p302
"When you Cast a Spell, your spellcasting creates visual manifestations of the gathering magic..."

CONCEAL SPELL p210
"...material, somatic, and verbal components are usually noticeable and spells normally have sensory manifestations that would make spellcasting obvious to those nearby."

SNEAK p252
"If you speak or make a deliberate loud noise, you become hidden instead of undetected."

EDIT
As an aside, It looks like per Identifying Spells p305, you can notice a spell and thus identify it "by seeing it's visual manifestations or hearing it's Verbal casting components." I don't know if the latter was possible post-manifestation-FAQ in PF1. Good to know!

[Mark Seifter]

They are visible, and we've made that clearer now, so you might want to Sneak afterwards if you cast invisibly in plain sight.

[Thewms]

Mark Seifter wrote:

They are visible, and we've made that clearer now, so you might want to Sneak afterwards if you cast invisibly in plain sight.

Thank you Mark. You've squished any arguments before they could start!

[Tectorman]

I'm sorry, but I disagree that that's clear at all. "They're present and visible" is the only thing I've seen from the text itself. Mark's post above is the first inkling I've seen that this "visible" status is something that applies whether the caster is visible or not, rather than being only as visible as the caster is.

So do the manifestations create light? If so, how much? What if I'm behind cover (i.e., how much cover would I need to prevent the manifestations from being seen as well as the light reflected off of nearby surfaces)? If they don't cast light, what happens if I'm casting a spell in pitch black (and not being observed by someone with darkvision)? Does the "must be visible" requirement just override how seeing normally works?

[Azothath]

I don't think a physics chat about luminosity, Rayliegh criterion, or exactly how darkvision works is going to help... it's a game and it is a descriptive work of art.

At least its clear that a common observer of a spell casting or spell effect may attempt to determine the spell name and other details.
It will be interesting to see where this goes with Psychic spellcasting.

[Tectorman]

Azothath wrote:

I don't think a physics chat about luminosity, Rayliegh criterion, or exactly how darkvision works is going to help... it's a game and it is a descriptive work of art.

At least its clear that a common observer of a spell casting or spell effect may attempt to determine the spell name and other details.
It will be interesting to see where this goes with Psychic spellcasting.

"Spellcasting manifestations create light, even if the caster is invisible. The light is enough to illuminate the square the caster is in, but not nearby squares."

"Spellcasting manifestations do not create light, but remain visible even if the caster is invisible. These manifestations can only be seen if the caster is within some amount of light, unless an observer has darkvision."

When did any of that require a physics chat? Those are simple gameplay issues that, frankly, have been repeatedly brought up since Ultimate Intrigue tried to tell us manifestations (as a requirement and not simply artistic license) had been there all along. Gameplay issues that I made sure to bring up repeatedly in the playtest in the hopes that we might finally have consistency (that is, consistency beyond "they're, um, there, I guess"). Tactical considerations that do have a real distinction in what their ramifications are, depending on how they're supposed to work.

[Azothath]

Tectorman, your first post("They're(manifestations) present and visible", perceiving casting) is a different topic than the second post(consistency in PF1(?) materials). They are on the same subject matter. perceiving spell casting.
IF the second quotes are from PF2 please post page numbers.
My comments are based on what you've posted in this thread.

As to the second post, I maintain that the printed materials are not uniformly consistent. This only proves my stance that it's a game and not a science textbook.
The implications and details of the rules have to be interpreted and that very much relies up the knowledge of the GM. It also creates a lot of useless debate about which is more correct -OR- gives a reader choices.
I understand your lamentation but history shows this is authorial license and isn't going to get any better. One can only ask that PF2 does a better job of it.

The developers have made it clear over various posts over the years that spellcasting is noticeable under normal conditions (*grumble* something about preventing spellcasters from running amok).

IMO(aka In My Game) as sight, scent, touch etc are grouped together under Perception(PF1) that any of those will do based on the methods used to cast.

[The Raven Black]

Tectorman wrote:

I'm sorry, but I disagree that that's clear at all. "They're present and visible" is the only thing I've seen from the text itself. Mark's post above is the first inkling I've seen that this "visible" status is something that applies whether the caster is visible or not, rather than being only as visible as the caster is.

So do the manifestations create light? If so, how much? What if I'm behind cover (i.e., how much cover would I need to prevent the manifestations from being seen as well as the light reflected off of nearby surfaces)? If they don't cast light, what happens if I'm casting a spell in pitch black (and not being observed by someone with darkvision)? Does the "must be visible" requirement just override how seeing normally works?

Spell manifestations are present and visible. How does this depend on the caster being visible or not ?

Seems pretty clear cut to me and Mark clarified it even further.

[Wheldrake]

All you need to do is use the Conceal Spell mechanics (p210).

Don't forget to max Stealth and DEX.

[Franz Lunzer]

The Raven Black wrote:

Spell manifestations are present and visible. How does this depend on the caster being visible or not ?

it doesn't depend on the caster, true.

The Raven Black wrote:

Seems pretty clear cut to me and Mark clarified it even further.

That still leaves space for the questions Tectorman brought up:

- If a spell is cast in (natural) darkness and an observer has normal sight (not low-light or darkvision), does he observe the manifestations?
- What if the observer has low-light vision? Or Darkvision?
- What if the spell is cast in magical darkness?

[Wheldrake]

page 302, Casting Spells wrote:

Casting a Spell is a special activity that takes a number of actions defined by the spell. When you Cast a Spell, your spellcasting creates obvious visual manifestations of the gathering magic, although feats such as Conceal Spell (page 210) and Melodious Spell (page 101)can help hide such manifestations or otherwise prevent observers from noticing that you are casting.

And

page 210, Conceal Spell feat wrote:

Hiding your gestures and incantations within other speech

and movement, you attempt to conceal the fact that you are Casting a Spell. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell, attempt a Stealth check against one or more observers’ Perception DCs; if the spell has verbal components, you must also attempt a Deception check against the observers’ Perception DC. If you succeed at your check (or checks)against an observer’s DC, that observer doesn’t notice you’re casting a spell, even though material, somatic, and verbal components are usually noticeable and spells normally have sensory manifestations that would make spellcasting obvious to those nearby.

I'll leave it to someone else to poke around and figure out how the Hidden (and associated) conditions and light conditions interact with Perception DCs.

But it seems like without the Conceal Spell feat, an invisible caster or a caster in darkness still makes visible spell manifestations that can be seen regardless of darkness.

[The Raven Black]

I would rule that it is visible even in darkness, even magical one, but not enough to gain any advantage.

[Unicore]

Necroing this thread instead of starting a new one:

I really like the idea that the manifestations are sensory, but the visibility specifically thing is problematic and does basically require this to be a conversation at every table before play: what are your casting manifestations?

For example, I think letting players choose one or maybe two from a list of possible manifestations would be much better than just insisting that they are nebulously present. Insisting that they be always visible is weird and confusing, especially in relationship to whether they give off light. Many works of fiction have magic give off strong and particular odors for example, which feels like it should at least be an option.

The bigger question feels like it should be whether the spell can work if it’s manifestations are not sensible by the target of the spell. It doesnt make sense to me that every spell cast has to be visibly detectable, regardless of lighting, without momentarily giving off light/acting as a light source, but it would make sense that you couldn’t charm someone without them being able to see your hypnotic patterns, or hear your magically melodious voice, or smell your enchanting perfume, or feel the warm smooth sensation of a hand on your cheek.

I think players would have a lot more fun connecting their magic to their manifestations if they got to have some choice in it and have it play a thematic role in their character, as well as help create more clear guidelines for how and when people can identify when a spell is being cast, as well as how characters could use skills to fake it.

Requiring manifestations always to be visible feels a little hokey and excessively Hollywood centric. Having them connect to spell targeting would reduce the undetectable magic cheese. You could just say that any manifestation has to be clearly detectable to any character with a rudimentary working corresponding sense, within x feet (60?) when the spell is cast.

Otherwise, I think the wording as is requires further official wording specifying if the visual manifestations must give off light, and what giving off that light means in terms of attempts at perception.

[Shadowfoot]

I treat the visible aspect as if it was glitter or coloured mist appearing by the caster. Have a look at images of Holi festival for an idea of what I mean.
It doesn't give off light so it's not detectable in the darkness without darkvision but obvious if you can see it.

[Ravingdork]

.
.
.

Salagadoola mechicka boola
Bibbidi-bobbidi-boo

Put them together and what have you got?
Bibbidi-bobbidi-boo…