|
Remember it's not always free to make a perception check
Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
Retry? Yes. You can try to sense something you missed the first time, so long as the stimulus is still present.
One interpretation is that since it was ruled that spellcasting creates 'visible manifestations', you always give away your location if casting while invisible (because there'll be a cloud of magic sparkles in the air). Which reduces the ability of wizards to abuse their power, so it's probably good for game balance.
The wizard can move after casting, so it's still not going to be easy to catch them.
That's not an official source. This is the FAQ it was based on:
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
So when you cast a spell, even if the consequences of the spell would not be visible, you should expect something like the green glow coming from the Sorcerer's hands on the cover of the core rulebook.
This is one of these FAQ rules that was rather frustrating, since it was only delivered after most people had been running it differently for years, and it wasn't clear whether these manifestations were visible in the dark, whether they could briefly light up a dark room, whether they could be magically concealed by invisibility effects, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's one of those FAQ's I ignore. Absolutely ruins illusion spells and many others, including enchantments and anything requiring subtlety.
TBH it felt more like a retcon to make new feats etc so that Ultimate Intrigue would have content.
|
It's one of those FAQ's I ignore. Absolutely ruins illusion spells and many others, including enchantments and anything requiring subtlety.
TBH it felt more like a retcon to make new feats etc so that Ultimate Intrigue would have content.
But ignoring it makes it so easy to control the local ruler with spells that it is counterintuitive to have any powerful figure that isn't a member of a class with a high Will save, and even then he would require some kind of mind protection and high wisdom.
BTW, the FAQ was written before Ultimate Intrigue.
|
Spellcasting is obvious. There are special abilities to suppress/hide spellcasting. There's whole prestige classes for it even. I still think that invisibility hides whatever magical effects that are passively created by spellcasting (so like if you cast shield you wouldn't see any glowy symbols appear in the air), but if you cast something like magic missile they appear right at your fingers and shoot out making it obvious where you cast it from.
As for the modifier "in combat or speaking" is the same modifier. One or both doesn't matter, it's -20 once. Performing multiple different things on that table do stack though, so if you cast your spell and then move, it's only a 10 to pinpoint your location.
Perception checks happen automatically to stimulus, if they fail their free perception check, they can spend a move action to try again, but they will always get a free check to notice you.
It does mention ultimate intrigue though, so it's still possible this was done to make way for that book's content leading up to its release.
That ruling also makes bardic song/masterpieces nice since they're supernatural unless otherwise stated, evading the faq, and there's no rules guiding how they are to be identified. Though there are obvious limits regarding the need to be perceived for many of these abilities to function.
You can still dumb show of garroc from improved invisibility to your heart's content, or dance up a small tornado without giving away your position.
The Suggestion "These aren't the droids your looking for" wouldn't have had quite the same effect with spangly things emanating from Obi Wan and circling the stormtrooper's head. (Even George Lucas didn't stoop that low)
Diego's comment on magical manipulation is a good counterpoint. But in my campaign world at least, the number of casters is low as a percentage of the population, the majority of those casters are at the lower levels and the number of casters who can hide the V,S and M components are even less. The local ruler/VIP is likely to have some form of protection, maybe a Magister, who would be on full radar and counterspell/defence mode during a public event. So yes, magical manipulation would be possible but rare and it would be a risky move by a moderately powerful and therefore known individual.
|
|
Diego's comment on magical manipulation is a good counterpoint. But in my campaign world at least, the number of casters is low as a percentage of the population, the majority of those casters are at the lower levels and the number of casters who can hide the V,S and M components are even less. The local ruler/VIP is likely to have some form of protection, maybe a Magister, who would be on full radar and counterspell/defence mode during a public event. So yes, magical manipulation would be possible but rare and it would be a risky move by a moderately powerful and therefore known individual.
Then the local ruler needs only to fear his Magister. ;-)
The problem is that the only real defense would be a constant Protection from evil that works against all alignments, but that would make enchantment a dead magic school. And the players would want it if it exists.
It doesn't need to be "visible sigils and sparkling lights", it can be "a sensation of dread in that direction", a smell, your hairs charging like for static electricity, it all depends on how you want to depict it, but the basic idea of the FAQ is that the use of magic can be perceived.
Diego's comment on magical manipulation is a good counterpoint. But in my campaign world at least, the number of casters is low as a percentage of the population, the majority of those casters are at the lower levels and the number of casters who can hide the V,S and M components are even less. The local ruler/VIP is likely to have some form of protection, maybe a Magister, who would be on full radar and counterspell/defence mode during a public event. So yes, magical manipulation would be possible but rare and it would be a risky move by a moderately powerful and therefore known individual.Then the local ruler needs only to fear his Magister. ;-)
The problem is that the only real defense would be a constant Protection from evil that works against all alignments, but that would make enchantment a dead magic school. And the players would want it if it exists.
It doesn't need to be "visible sigils and sparkling lights", it can be "a sensation of dread in that direction", a smell, your hairs charging like for static electricity, it all depends on how you want to depict it, but the basic idea of the FAQ is that the use of magic can be perceived.
That it can be perceived as an emanation is what I don't like. Also, as per the Spellcraft skill it must seen to be identified. Therefore it can't be a dread sensation, static effect or a smell.
I have always understood that someone trained in spellcraft could identify a spell as it is cast and imagined it to be by watching the mouth, body movements and components or in the absence of all of those the look of concentration and handwavium over the detail. But I've never accepted that the spell itself had some telltale emanation that any idiot could spot. It ruins too many subtle, roleplay uses of magic.
Re the Magister: Absolutely, but then how many real world leaders have (or at least should have) gone on to regret their closest advisers...
It doesn't need to be "visible sigils and sparkling lights", it can be "a sensation of dread in that direction", a smell, your hairs charging like for static electricity, it all depends on how you want to depict it, but the basic idea of the FAQ is that the use of magic can be perceived.
Those differences sound like more than just fluff. Can a player choose manifestations that will make it easier to baffle enemies who might be blinded by Glitterdust or smoke? If the only magical manifestation is smell, can I throw down a stink bomb first so no-one will know I'm doing Still/Silent casting?
|
|
It doesn't need to be "visible sigils and sparkling lights", it can be "a sensation of dread in that direction", a smell, your hairs charging like for static electricity, it all depends on how you want to depict it, but the basic idea of the FAQ is that the use of magic can be perceived.Those differences sound like more than just fluff. Can a player choose manifestations that will make it easier to baffle enemies who might be blinded by Glitterdust or smoke? If the only magical manifestation is smell, can I throw down a stink bomb first so no-one will know I'm doing Still/Silent casting?
What follows is my way of is a way to bypass the inconsistencies of any way to manage this stuff, as it is something that was tackled to the system well after it was created. It isn't RAW in any way.
I would say it doesn't depend on the caster's choices, but on how the perceiver perceives the sensations of a sixth sense.
To make a futuristic example that maybe will be more clear: if I have a piece of cyber ware in my head that gives me a radar but don't project the image on my retina, it sends it directly to my brain, it is not automatic that I will "see" the classic radar screen. I could feel I have a tactile sense that extends to the limit of the radar and touch everything in range. Or perceive it in other ways.
As I see them, the manifestations of using magic aren't something that can be recorded by a camera, as there is no light emission (unless the specific spell says differently). They are a "signal" that can be perceived by people in the area. Every person has a way to perceive it, but to interfere with the ability to perceive it you need the appropriate ability or item to mess with the signal, not a way to generate "noise" that doesn't affect that sixth sense.
I hope it is clear.
|
Also, as per the Spellcraft skill it must seen to be identified.
This is precisely why universal manifestations were introduced. Otherwise, psychic magic is immune to Spellcraft.
You can't have psychic magic operating on an equal footing with "traditional" magic unless you have universal manifestations.
The choices are:
1. psychic casting is undetectable
2. there is no psychic casting (just disallow all those classes)
3. universal manifestations
Or I suppose, in a home game, you create a magical "arms race" as trad diviners develop new ways to detect psychic casting.
Also, as per the Spellcraft skill it must seen to be identified.This is precisely why universal manifestations were introduced. Otherwise, psychic magic is immune to Spellcraft.
You can't have psychic magic operating on an equal footing with "traditional" magic unless you have universal manifestations.
The choices are:
1. psychic casting is undetectable
2. there is no psychic casting (just disallow all those classes)
3. universal manifestationsOr I suppose, in a home game, you create a magical "arms race" as trad diviners develop new ways to detect psychic casting.
I'm running an AD&D 1e conversion so option 2 is my obvious choice as I don't use those classes. That said, I would like to reintroduce psionics as it was a completely different attack vector used by outsiders. I guess in that scenario I would go with option 1 or create a parallel skill to spellcraft, where one could be attuned to changes in the psychic field (or whatever) and identify abilities being used.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am firmly in the ignore that rule as it (a) contradicts a houserule I've always used, (b) in my opinion rather invalidates detect magic because the minute the party runs into it EVERYONE gets a check to "detect sparkly glitter" or "detect tingly feeling in my back" and (c) as said ruins subtle illusions or the like. Even in a non-combat setting where a wizard's using snap dragon fireworks for a perfomance you don't want the crowd making passive checks to ruin the show. No some magic e.g. fireball has visible effects but others like illusions don't.
That said from my perspective you solve the undetectable psionics with the detect psionics spell that was used in DnD. Sure the psychic classes can use their powers without visible manifestations but (a) there can be non-magic clues e.g. perception that Baron von Schaederfest is acting odd (He never used to execute peasants for fun) and could use some investigation, (b) this is the whole point of subtle magic and (c) you can actively search with detect psionics to see if someone's being influenced.
It's pretty obviously just a bandaid solution to a problem that needed a more thorough explanation.
Psychic casting probably needs some sort of manifestation, maybe an aura of intrusive thoughts for thought components, and a sense motive for emotional components. I figure the verbal component's analogue should also be identified at range without needing to see the caster, and the somatic analogue should still require you to see the caster.
It's probably a good idea to add manifestations to spells that don't seem intended to be used surreptitiously, but that treads on the value of silent and still metamagic, and the sloppy patch we have now doesn't really work in general.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I've never accepted that the spell itself had some telltale emanation that any idiot could spot. It ruins too many subtle, roleplay uses of magic.
Nothing ever said those “telltale signs” have to be super flashy or immediately evident to everyone who can see you. The emanations could be simple and discreet things such as a brief crawl of static electricity across your fingers, a momentary glow to your eyes, a gentle gust of wind around your feet, a discoloration of your fingertips, your eyes changing color. Spells that require subtlety would be far more likely to possess a subtle visual emanation. A Spellcaster would be more keen to spot these small details, while your common drunk bandit may just assume nothing is happening.
Nothing ever said those “telltale signs” have to be super flashy or immediately evident to everyone who can see you. The emanations could be simple and discreet things such as a brief crawl of static electricity across your fingers, a momentary glow to your eyes, a gentle gust of wind around your feet, a discoloration of your fingertips, your eyes changing color. Spells that require subtlety would be far more likely to possess a subtle visual emanation. A Spellcaster would be more keen to spot these small details, while your common drunk bandit may just assume nothing is happening.But I've never accepted that the spell itself had some telltale emanation that any idiot could spot. It ruins too many subtle, roleplay uses of magic.
If there's no perception check required then yeah, they're pretty obvious. Spellcraft appears to be more an 'interpret this sensation' than a 'notice this sensation' since it's based off Int.
When fey can't trick two people in the same location, only ever one alone (and possibly not even that depending on what sort of illusion they're trying to pull off) that's a problem IMO. And since there's so little defined about the manifestations that's only a start of a solution to the wizards-rule-all problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there's no perception check required then yeah, they're pretty obvious. Spellcraft appears to be more an 'interpret this sensation' than a 'notice this sensation' since it's based off Int.
Effects can be subtle but easily seen... just that subtle more discrete spells may manifest an effect that can be easily dismissed by someone who is not well versed in spellcraft. Dust swirling at a casters feet, might be dismissed as a natural breeze by a commoner, but another Spellcaster may recognize that as the telltale sign of a haste spell. Effects don’t have to be subtle in the sense of “you won’t see it unless your looking for it” just in the sense of “you might dismiss it if you don’t know the tells”.
The emanation of illusions are often part of the illusion itself... mimicking the emanation of another spell, though a knowledgeable spellcrafter would identify subtle discrepancies, like the rubble moving from that wall of earth spell is phasing through solid objects so that is actually an illusory wall spell being cast. Failing the check, a Spellcaster could misidentify an illusion as a non-illusion spell that the illusion is mimicking.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there's no perception check required then yeah, they're pretty obvious. Spellcraft appears to be more an 'interpret this sensation' than a 'notice this sensation' since it's based off Int.
Effects can be subtle but easily seen... just that subtle more discrete spells may manifest an effect that can be easily dismissed by someone who is not well versed in spellcraft. Dust swirling at a casters feet, might be dismissed as a natural breeze by a commoner, but another Spellcaster may recognize that as the telltale sign of a haste spell. Effects don’t have to be subtle in the sense of “you won’t see it unless your looking for it” just in the sense of “you might dismiss it if you don’t know the tells”.
The emanation of illusions are often part of the illusion itself... mimicking the emanation of another spell, though a knowledgeable spellcrafter would identify subtle discrepancies, like the rubble moving from that wall of earth spell is phasing through solid objects so that is actually an illusory wall spell being cast. Failing the check, a Spellcaster could misidentify an illusion as a non-illusion spell that the illusion is mimicking.
Actually, the FAQ says that they are recognizable as magic even by those without spellcraft.
Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there's no perception check required then yeah, they're pretty obvious. Spellcraft appears to be more an 'interpret this sensation' than a 'notice this sensation' since it's based off Int.
Effects can be subtle but easily seen... just that subtle more discrete spells may manifest an effect that can be easily dismissed by someone who is not well versed in spellcraft. Dust swirling at a casters feet, might be dismissed as a natural breeze by a commoner, but another Spellcaster may recognize that as the telltale sign of a haste spell. Effects don’t have to be subtle in the sense of “you won’t see it unless your looking for it” just in the sense of “you might dismiss it if you don’t know the tells”.
The emanation of illusions are often part of the illusion itself... mimicking the emanation of another spell, though a knowledgeable spellcrafter would identify subtle discrepancies, like the rubble moving from that wall of earth spell is phasing through solid objects so that is actually an illusory wall spell being cast. Failing the check, a Spellcaster could misidentify an illusion as a non-illusion spell that the illusion is mimicking.
Actually, the FAQ says that they are recognizable as magic even by those without spellcraft.
Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation.
Which is precisely WHY I hate the rule and ignore it. Without it you can cast something subtly and they have to (a) spot it and (b) realize what it is. With this rule they instantly know you did magic. For example . . .
teenage street rat sorcerer locked up in a cell for stealing bread casts an illusion spell to have a high ranked guard member show up and "take her into custody". By the time the one who arrested her realizes she's long gone. Add this rule in and the guard instantly knows hey she did magic and my boss showed up asking me to hand her over. I don't know what she did but "WHAM" knocks her unconcious then turns to hand her over only to find the officer is gone/stopped moving.
It is by its own statement to prevent spellcasters from running amok amongst non-casters in a non-combat situation but that's a great plot hook you've just lost. The evil mage using spells to enrage and turn people against each other. The vizier who's mindcontrolling his sultan. The simple farmers wife who quietly uses her "demonic magic" to help her neighbours. With this rule you stop those and you ruin all those plots.
That's off the top of my head as just a few examples. There are a huge range of magical effects including my earlier example of a magic show with real magic where having everyone instantly know magic is used will just ruin everything. They don't need to know what you did only that you did something.
Not to mention there is ZERO point to still/silent metamgagic as you can now stand there doing nothing and they'll still know you cast a spell instantly.
Its the same reason I hate summoners having this great huge glowing symbol that can only be disguised by makeup/a hat/ a wig/etc telling everyone who looks they aren't normal and hey that thing ripping my troops apart has the same symbol "SHOOT THE OLD MAN WITH A CROSS ON HIS HEAD!" However that's another thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Senko, you know they made feats that allow you to conceal spell casting?
And still and silent were never meant to allow stealthy spell casting. They were meant to allow you to cast when your hands weren't available to provide somatic components, and silent for when you couldn't provide verbal components.
Your sorcerer can still do this thing, they just have to spend a few feats on it.
|
|
What Claxon said for the vizier who's mind controlling his sultan or for the evil mage enraging the people.
For the "teenage street rat sorcerer locked up in a cell for stealing bread", your description lacks a piece of text: "teenage street rat sorcerer capable to cast high-level illusion magic locked up in a cell for stealing bread". The scenario lose a bit when you realize how high is the level of the spells needed to create the illusion of a high rank guardsmen speaking in an intellegible way.
you probably also don't have to perform magic with a captive audience. Wait for the guard to turn his back, get the sultan alone, distract the crowd, blight the crops at night, etc...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Senko, you know they made feats that allow you to conceal spell casting?
And still and silent were never meant to allow stealthy spell casting. They were meant to allow you to cast when your hands weren't available to provide somatic components, and silent for when you couldn't provide verbal components.
Your sorcerer can still do this thing, they just have to spend a few feats on it.
I know full well that they made feats to allow casting to be concealed. The FAQ that announced that emanations were a thing explicitly marketed the upcoming publication containing the feats.
For the "teenage street rat sorcerer locked up in a cell for stealing bread", your description lacks a piece of text: "teenage street rat sorcerer capable to cast high-level illusion magic locked up in a cell for stealing bread". The scenario lose a bit when you realize how high is the level of the spells needed to create the illusion of a high rank guardsmen speaking in an intellegible way.
Not as high as you might think... to do so through a single casting yes it is fairly high level... but she can create the illusion with just two first level spells. Auditory Hallucination to create the voice of the officer and the silent image to create the officer. Starting with Auditory Hallucination to throw the guard off and then the silent image of his superior walking out of a crowd or around a corner to seal the deal...
an invisible spellcaster under a (solid) table is pretty safe unless the foes are short folk or incorporeal.
However, everyone can hear the verbal component or notice the 'spellcasting manifestitations'. Locating the area, square, or precise location of the caster is a different story.I'd check out Illusion of Calm.
this is also my favorite spell to take with the Major Magic rogue talent. Why yes I'll pick this lock in broad daylight, thank you!
Senko, you know they made feats that allow you to conceal spell casting?
And still and silent were never meant to allow stealthy spell casting. They were meant to allow you to cast when your hands weren't available to provide somatic components, and silent for when you couldn't provide verbal components.
Your sorcerer can still do this thing, they just have to spend a few feats on it.
I know full well that they made feats to allow casting to be concealed. The FAQ that announced that emanations were a thing explicitly marketed the upcoming publication containing the feats.
Hugo, my comment wasn't directed at you.
It was directed at Senko, who implied that casting stealthily was impossible. Which is untrue, it is gated behind feats.
However, I do understand your dislike/anger about the FAQ and that those feats exist as a result of it.
For as many people dislike it, I think there are probably a roughly equal number who like it. I am personally a fan, as running it otherwise allowed spellcaster to run roughshod over certain situations where magical should not have been as easily applied, with other people capable of observing.
I think it helped balance things out some, and was a great step.
Hi Claxon
I realise you were responding to Senko bu I share their sentiments on the subject and so saw fit to respond. Looking at the posts, there seem to be three camps.
Those who like the change and have embraced it, like yourself. Those who hate it and have ignored it, like Senko and myself and those who seem to have accepted it as a thing but downplay it's effect, like Diego and Chell.
I guess the OPs question can only be answered by their GM, depending on their interpretation of the FAQ.
|
|
Hi Claxon
I realise you were responding to Senko bu I share their sentiments on the subject and so saw fit to respond. Looking at the posts, there seem to be three camps.
Those who like the change and have embraced it, like yourself. Those who hate it and have ignored it, like Senko and myself and those who seem to have accepted it as a thing but downplay it's effect, like Diego and Chell.
I guess the OPs question can only be answered by their GM, depending on their interpretation of the FAQ.
I am more in Claaxon camp, I think it is needed. I simply dislike how it was bolted on a preexisting system.
|
|
Senko, you know they made feats that allow you to conceal spell casting?
And still and silent were never meant to allow stealthy spell casting. They were meant to allow you to cast when your hands weren't available to provide somatic components, and silent for when you couldn't provide verbal components.
Your sorcerer can still do this thing, they just have to spend a few feats on it.
I know full well that they made feats to allow casting to be concealed. The FAQ that announced that emanations were a thing explicitly marketed the upcoming publication containing the feats.
Hugo, my comment wasn't directed at you.
It was directed at Senko, who implied that casting stealthily was impossible. Which is untrue, it is gated behind feats.
However, I do understand your dislike/anger about the FAQ and that those feats exist as a result of it.
For as many people dislike it, I think there are probably a roughly equal number who like it. I am personally a fan, as running it otherwise allowed spellcaster to run roughshod over certain situations where magical should not have been as easily applied, with other people capable of observing.
I think it helped balance things out some, and was a great step.
Whereas to me it was just adding more feats that my caster now has to take that they didn't before as others have said. On top of the issues with this new assumption causing problems with a lot of other areas. Lets take the full text and then lets look at another example
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
Now that doesn't say spellcasting it say's spells and special abilities, all spells have their own manifestations that will ALWAYS provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse. It prevents spellcaster that use special abilities, psychic magic and THE LIKE.
We're talking about charm person, illusion spells, invisibility, youthful apperance and so on. I assume they also apply to divine spells not just arcane/psyhic but consider the ramifications of an invisbility spell that always lets someone have a chance to see its emnations. Other spells like charm person essentially rely on your being able to cast it without people instantly noticing you did something. We know its not just spells too that succubus using a spell like ability to blend in and seduce a target she's emanating something to allow people to spot her too. Same with the imp using its alter self to appear like a crow. Your not just spotting odd behaviour your spotting there's magic afoot even if your some pig farmer who spent their entire life on the farm.
Yes still/silent spell were to negate the verbal/somatic components but since they were introduced my groups at least have also used to allow you to cast without it being obvious. Now we need to buy ultimate intrigue and the mage has to take more feats to try and misdirect atetntion. Don't have the back so I can't comment on them though.
I am more in Claaxon camp, I think it is needed. I simply dislike how it was bolted on a preexisting system.Hi Claxon
I realise you were responding to Senko bu I share their sentiments on the subject and so saw fit to respond. Looking at the posts, there seem to be three camps.
Those who like the change and have embraced it, like yourself. Those who hate it and have ignored it, like Senko and myself and those who seem to have accepted it as a thing but downplay it's effect, like Diego and Chell.
I guess the OPs question can only be answered by their GM, depending on their interpretation of the FAQ.
I think that's fair. The way it was executed leaves a bit to be desired. I would have liked to have seen it be something that any spell caster can attempt, but was incredibly difficult to accomplish without feats.
Now that doesn't say spellcasting it say's spells and special abilities, all spells have their own manifestations that will ALWAYS provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse. It prevents spellcaster that use special abilities, psychic magic and THE LIKE.
We're talking about charm person, illusion spells, invisibility, youthful apperance and so on. I assume they also apply to divine spells not just arcane/psyhic but consider the ramifications of an invisbility spell that always lets someone have a chance to see its emnations. Other spells like charm person essentially rely on your being able to cast it without people instantly noticing you did something. We know its not just spells too that succubus using a spell like ability to blend in and seduce a target she's emanating something to allow people to spot her too. Same with the imp using its alter self to appear like a crow. Your not just spotting odd behaviour your spotting there's magic afoot even if your some pig farmer who spent their entire life on the farm.
Yes still/silent spell were to negate the verbal/somatic components but since they were introduced my groups at least have also used to allow you to cast without it being obvious. Now we need to buy ultimate intrigue and the mage has to take more feats to try and misdirect attention. Don't have the back so I can't comment on them though.
I think spells like charm person would simply override the awareness of magic. Like "Hey friend, I saw you cast magic, but you're my best friend so it was probably helpful."
As far as the question of Divine or Psychic magic, yes it applies equally to all types of magic. Probably even SLA.
As for invisibility, it was never clarified how it works. It would be equally valid for a GM to say that invisibility superseded, and hid the manifestations.
I think the big thing is, yeah you can't cast in public anymore without people noticing. Which I think it's functioning as intended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
such manifestation would also only occur at the time of casting the spell correct?
There aren't glowing magical sparks popping off the invisible guy for several minutes for instance, only that there is some sort of visible effect when the spell if first cast
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're talking about charm person, illusion spells, invisibility, youthful appearance and so on.
Charm Person? The victim will forgive your spellcasting if the spell works. Having some explaining to do if you foolishly let anyone else see you cast it is a small price to pay for a Level 1 spell that gives you a new ally.
Illusions? If something appears out of nowhere, they'll guess that a spell was cast. If they don't have spellcraft, they won't know if it's an illusion, a summoning or a conjuration. If that's not enough, you could hide behind an object and cast it.
Invisibility? Still useful. You just have to move after casting if you don't want them to be able to track your location.
Youthful Appearance? That's a spell with a multi-hour duration. If they don't see you cast it, they won't see the manifestations.
One big issue is that all the creatures that rely on subtle magic/SLA's but were printed before the ruling and feat publication do not have the feats needed to perform their role. My harpy opera singer (disguised as a fat lady) will have a hard job bringing the house down if sparkly things accompany the final song.
I guess that is a wider issue with new rules and options being added.
such manifestation would also only occur at the time of casting the spell correct?
There aren't glowing magical sparks popping off the invisible guy for several minutes for instance, only that there is some sort of visible effect when the spell if first cast
I don't think any of that was clarified. The rule tells us only that the spell has a manifestation, not for how long, what the perception DC to notice it is, whether or not it provides its own light source, whether or not it indicates the caster, and so on and so forth.
It's like in the pictures. I don't know exactly what that means, but looking through what pops up on an image search of pathfinder spells, you could probably read by the light of a spell being cast.
It's probably worth considering adopting the rule if they ever finish it, but I'm not fond of rules that make non-combat solutions even less likely to be employed.
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
My personal go to is that a tattoo appears on my (casters) body that resembles me exactly, but taller.
|
|
such manifestation would also only occur at the time of casting the spell correct?
There aren't glowing magical sparks popping off the invisible guy for several minutes for instance, only that there is some sort of visible effect when the spell if first cast
I have always applied it that way, but the FAQ isn't really clear about that.
|
|
I have always applied it that way, but the FAQ isn't really clear about that.such manifestation would also only occur at the time of casting the spell correct?
There aren't glowing magical sparks popping off the invisible guy for several minutes for instance, only that there is some sort of visible effect when the spell if first cast
Which is part of the issue as written with it referencing spells in general and spell like abilities you can easily read it to be everything and all ongoing spells e.g.
A thief enters a room and instantly see's the emanations of magic on the clock, the hidden door and the two magical traps on the floor. The FAQ specifically say's describing a spells manifestation not spellcasting is up to the group. Sure its exact details are up to the players but it means they are there. That succubus in the opera using other form? Manifestations. The invisible thief? Manifestations. Charm Person? Manifesations. It ruins all subtle magic because while its vague on the details it does specifically say this is to prevent that very thing being used. Then as said above there's no rules or guidelines on implementing it for previous existing abilities, spells that rely on not being noticed or spells like invisibility which in depictions usually has a chameleonic type outline so the viewer know's where the invisible person is.
I don't like it or want it in my game but my problems with it are as much what Diego said about them bolting this onto an existing system with no real guidelines on what it means or how to use it. You saying invisibility is a special spell that hides the manifestations is just as valid as someone else saying the invisible thief emits sparks from their feat or my saying its that visible invsiibility used in shows so the viewer know's where the person is. There's no guidelines and no way to know DM to DM what the actual rules are. Well unless there's something more in those additional feats published later I admit I never looked at them as I was ignoring the intial FAQ. However its not even from that a RAW vs RAI issue since the RAW is "All magic is always noticeable by everyone but we'll let you decide how".
For me I ignore it especially as I already had rules that for me work much better. Detect Magic is a spell to detect magic, there's a trait/feat combination that allows someone to sense magic or gain the benefits of the detect magic spell if they want to invest, there's a few class abilities that are easily adjusted. However for 99% of the population magic can be completely undetectable because I'm not worried about having to "prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation.". Instead I'll use them as plot hooks, allow players a lot more freedom in resolving non-combat situations and if there is a specific case where I do want to counter that I have existing in world options players and NPC's can take to do just that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have always applied it that way, but the FAQ isn't really clear about that.such manifestation would also only occur at the time of casting the spell correct?
There aren't glowing magical sparks popping off the invisible guy for several minutes for instance, only that there is some sort of visible effect when the spell if first cast
Surely the obvious emanation for invisibility would be a person disappears. Similarly, for any illusion, the emanation would be the illusion. For evocation, conjuration and transformation it would be the thing being evoked, conjured or transformed. The enchantment school appears to be the main issue. A suggestion, charm, domination etc cannot be performed without there being an obvious giveaway, which renders the school all but useless in a roleplay scenario, where it should excel.
|
|
Surely the obvious emanation for invisibility would be a person disappears. Similarly, for any illusion, the emanation would be the illusion. For evocation, conjuration and transformation it would be the thing being evoked, conjured or transformed. The enchantment school appears to be the main issue. A suggestion, charm, domination etc cannot be performed without there being an obvious giveaway, which renders the school all but useless in a roleplay scenario, where it should excel.I have always applied it that way, but the FAQ isn't really clear about that.such manifestation would also only occur at the time of casting the spell correct?
There aren't glowing magical sparks popping off the invisible guy for several minutes for instance, only that there is some sort of visible effect when the spell if first cast
That's probably RAI here but the FAQ directly counters that in its very first sentence requoted here . . .
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.
It defines that spells have (a) obvious visual effects and (b) emenations. Becoming invisible is the obvious visual effect its not the emanation. Therefore an invisible spellcaster still has some obvious manifestation to tell someone showing up later that magic is occuring. Same with all other illusions you have (a) the obvious visual illusion and (b) some other undefined emanation. As you said Enchantment suffers even worse.
EDIT
It's like my little pony the obvious visual effect is floating objects while the emanation is the personally coloured magic aura around the unicorns horn and each floating object telling you exactly who is using telekinesis on these objects. Even there however other spells which are ongoing don't have a visual que like the cloudwalking or transforming a frog into a frog/orange hybrid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Surely the obvious emanation for invisibility would be a person disappears. Similarly, for any illusion, the emanation would be the illusion. For evocation, conjuration and transformation it would be the thing being evoked, conjured or transformed. The enchantment school appears to be the main issue. A suggestion, charm, domination etc cannot be performed without there being an obvious giveaway, which renders the school all but useless in a roleplay scenario, where it should excel.I have always applied it that way, but the FAQ isn't really clear about that.such manifestation would also only occur at the time of casting the spell correct?
There aren't glowing magical sparks popping off the invisible guy for several minutes for instance, only that there is some sort of visible effect when the spell if first cast
Nope. Senko already covered it, but the emanations are those magical signals that occur while you are in the middle of casting the spell (when you could use your readied counterspell, or take an AoO, etc), and an onlooker can use their spellcraft to determine what spell is being cast.
Once the spell is cast those emanations go away, and then the spell itself may have visual effects - this disappearing due to invisibility, the illusion being created, etc.
On a side note, I'm not sure where people get the idea that emanations continue on a spell during the spells duration. I think that is reading way more into the FAQ than it was obviously intended to cover.
The FAQ questions is
What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?
Note that you wouldn't be able to interrupt a casting, or take an AoO, etc after the spell had already been cast but still had duration remaining on it. Clearly the answer to the question is focused around the "at time of casting" a spell, and not around the use of spellcraft in conjunction with a detect magic to identify a magical aura.
Casters complaining they need two feats to perfectly hide their spellcasting.
But yeah, manifestations mean much like attacking or shooting someone with a ranged weapon while invisible, it becomes pretty obvious where you are...until you use a move action to move aside or a 5 ft step.