|
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
The problem with that approach is as I said 90% of what allows a spellcaster to run amok amongst non-magical folk and which their reply is talking about can be cast in private/hidden then cause problems after you leave it. Not to mention dominate person wands/potions/slotless magic items. Is the rock in my pocket that casts 1/day dominate person when I rub it not a concern? Or does that dominate person have its emanations? What if if I dominate someone in a private area and tell them to start stabbing people in the town square?
The intent just starts falling apart when you consider these things as frankly from my perspective if I had a glowing aura around my hands it'd be annoying but I can cause all the problems the reply is talking about in all sorts of way's without that actually impacting me dominate person from a room with an open window or leaning around an alley way unless the spell itself has the emanations on casting and while said spell is running.
Either you have all active magic emanating or the rule is annoying and largely useless in stopping actual abuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either you have all active magic emanating or the rule is annoying and largely useless in stopping actual abuses.
Uhhhh, are you thinking it's not the case?
Cause I've assumed since that FAQ that items that create magical effects, SLA, etc all also have manifestations. Magic is...obviously magical regardless of it's source (when being cast). I also assume that the emanations only appear during casting, though some spells may have manifestations that are obviously magical after casting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casting has manifestations (including, explicitly, spell-like abilities) for us to use Spellcraft on. I see no reason casting from items should be an exception.
Dominating someone in a private area and telling them to start stabbing people is exactly the sort of thing you should be able to do and get away.
The intent of the FAQ is that spell-users can't act with complete impunity, but if someone allows themselves to get isolated and then fails a Will save, that's on them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either you have all active magic emanating or the rule is annoying and largely useless in stopping actual abuses.
Understand that I'm actually with you in that I think that entire FAQ entry should be tossed. But that isn't a reason to try and create problems as a result of the FAQ that are actually beyond the scope of the FAQ.
But for example, I really dislike that every time this FAQ comes up someone almost immediately jumps in and says "So invisible casters reveal their location whenever they cast a spell". And I always feel obligated to point out that the FAQ doesn't actually make that a rule. GMs are certainly free to rule it that way at their tables, but it is really an unanswered question that the FAQ leaves us hanging to make our own judgement calls. Hence my first post in this thread was my tongue-in-cheek comment of a my spells cause a tatoo on my body to show up of me but taller. If that were indeed the manifestation, I'd like to see the GM argue that invisible does not hide it. Or any of hundreds of other possible interpetations of a manifestation that are different than the giant arrow over my head saying "Spellcaster is standing here" interpetation that, IMO, to many immediately jump to.
I mean, if I'm a caster, and I'm standing in the middle of a crowd, and decide to cast fireball, well its going to be quite obvious I did it. But if its dark outside, and no one has dark vision, I don't feel that glowing lights outlining me in the dark is the appropriate "needed nerf to prevent casters from running amok in the game". I mean do we nerf darkness so that drow assassins "cannot run amok in the game"? Do we nerf fire spells because they are to powerful in campaigns that take place in icy regions that are likely to contain many creatures that have fire vulnerability?
If the GM wants to pit the party against invisible spell casters, knowing full well the party has no means of revealing said casters, that is on the GM to make a fun and approriately challenging encounter. If the players regularly use such tactis it is on the GM to have some encounters where the NPCs/monsters have appropriate counters.
TLDR. The FAQ, IMO, tries to solve a "problem" that should be left up to individual GMs to solve based on the theme and feel for the type of campaign they want to run.
|
|
Either you have all active magic emanating or the rule is annoying and largely useless in stopping actual abuses.Uhhhh, are you thinking it's not the case?
Cause I've assumed since that FAQ that items that create magical effects, SLA, etc all also have manifestations. Magic is...obviously magical regardless of it's source (when being cast). I also assume that the emanations only appear during casting, though some spells may have manifestations that are obviously magical after casting.
I'm saying that the emanation is based on the SPELL not on the SPELLCASTING. You cast light the emanations keep going until that light spell ends not when the casting to create it does. The reason being that since the intent of this is to control spellcasting in groups of non-magical people then the emanations have to be ongoing for the duration of the spell because otherwise all it creates is an annoyance but wont actually stop what the FAQ response says its intended to stop. This part of the response specifcally . . .
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.
If its only the spellcasting that causes this then that's effectively the same as verbal/somatic components now just pushing it a bit more so you need to say cast the spell leaning around a corner. To actually work with the intent then it has to be emanating for the duration of the spell so if you cast from an alleywall the non-magic in a non-combat still have something obvious to show magic as intended here.
Basically spellcasting only makes it annoying but largely useless, spells or spell like effects that are ongoing fights a problem that doesn't really exist, ruins plothooks and can potentially cause arguments about what it does or doesn't work on.
Either you have all active magic emanating or the rule is annoying and largely useless in stopping actual abuses.Understand that I'm actually with you in that I think that entire FAQ entry should be tossed. But that isn't a reason to try and create problems as a result of the FAQ that are actually beyond the scope of the FAQ.
But for example, I really dislike that every time this FAQ comes up someone almost immediately jumps in and says "So invisible casters reveal their location whenever they cast a spell". And I always feel obligated to point out that the FAQ doesn't actually make that a rule. GMs are certainly free to rule it that way at their tables, but it is really an unanswered question that the FAQ leaves us hanging to make our own judgement calls. Hence my first post in this thread was my tongue-in-cheek comment of a my spells cause a tatoo on my body to show up of me but taller. If that were indeed the manifestation, I'd like to see the GM argue that invisible does not hide it. Or any of hundreds of other possible interpetations of a manifestation that are different than the giant arrow over my head saying "Spellcaster is standing here" interpetation that, IMO, to many immediately jump to.
I mean, if I'm a caster, and I'm standing in the middle of a crowd, and decide to cast fireball, well its going to be quite obvious I did it. But if its dark outside, and no one has dark vision, I don't feel that glowing lights outlining me in the dark is the appropriate "needed nerf to prevent casters from running amok in the game". I mean do we nerf darkness so that drow assassins "cannot run amok in the game"? Do we nerf fire spells because they are to powerful in campaigns that take place in icy regions that are likely to contain many creatures that have fire vulnerability?
If the GM wants to pit the party against invisible spell casters, knowing full well the party has no means of revealing said casters, that is on the GM to make a fun and approriately challenging...
I'd agree with that, I'm mainly arguing all the ways this can be interpreted to show the issues with it. Like I said I have other methods of handlnig this in my games that I feel work much better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Senko, your interpretation there is what makes illusion, enchantment, and other magic schools suffer because you think the manifestations persist for the entire duration of the spell.
The idea (as I understand it) is for manifestation to exist during casting, making spell casting (SLA, magic item usage, etc) obvious.
In this way, someone official can at least catch on when their co-worker suddenly does an about face on their opinion of the sketchy looking person who just walked into their shop.
It's meant to prevent you from just openly using magic in front of groups without people knowing.
It's not meant to prevent you, from managing to get the king alone and casting dominate or geas on him. Getting him alone in the first place is supposed to be the challenge.
I'm not sure why you believe it's not accomplishing it's goal if it only applies during casting and not necessarily for spell duration.
I mean, if it did work the way you interpret it, than yes, it would make enchantment magic and illusions a lot less useful, edging close to uselessness.
Which is exactly why I don't think that's the correct interpretation.
how does Invisibility work (granting a bonus to stealth checks and concealment) if there is a visible magical emanation surrounding the effect?
Seems like that would provide it's own glitterdust, which is...problematic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
how does Invisibility work (granting a bonus to stealth checks and concealment) if there is a visible magical emanation surrounding the effect?
Seems like that would provide it's own glitterdust, which is...problematic.
Invisibility is one case where, even with an interpretation on manifestation during casting it does reduce its effectiveness...though not by much.
Consider that if it only lasts during spell casting (and not the duration of the spell) then people knew where you were standing already, so the manifestations which end before someone else's turn, aren't giving away much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I like someone's interpretation from earlier that the visual manifestation of invisibility is that you're not there now, the sudden absence is the manifested effect.
I get wanting to put some limiters on magic, but with some of the way people are interpreting the rules it makes Pathfinder magic behave in a way that is almost completely outside the realms of how such a thing behaves in any form of media.
Like Frodo doesn't shoot off green sparks when he's invisible, nor does the Invisible Man, there isn't a yellow halo around the head of the people Professor X has a telepathic convo with, Loki's illusions don't glow purple and audibly hum, etc...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My interpretation of the FAQ, in conjunction with the Spellcraft skill is that the emanation produces an obvious effect centred on the caster that can be seen whenever a spell, spell like ability, psychic spell or other supernatural or magic like effect is being cast, or enacted. I do not believe that the intention is that the emanation continues once cast. But I am less sure whether the emanation would comtinue of the spell requires active concentration to continue.
My reasoning for this is:
The FAQ describes emanations as obvious, they can be identified as magic by those unskilled in Spellcraft and do not need a perception check.
If a spell has no V,S or M components then how could it be identified? The answer must be that it is the emanation that the spellcraft skill identifies.
If Spellcraft identifies the emanation why does the spellcaster need to be seen? The answer must be that the emanation is centered on the spellcaster AND that the emanation is a visual effect.
The FAQ includes the catch all, 'and the like' when describing the types of thing that produce emanations. So to my reading Bardic supernatural abilities, excluded by someone earlier, would be included.
It makes no sense for spells' emanations to continue for the duration because permanent spells would emanate forever. Every wizard who cast Arcane Mark would forever have an emanation visible to all. However what is less clear is a spell that requires active concentration to maintain. Is it effectively still being cast or not?
Invisibility is one case where, even with an interpretation on manifestation during casting it does reduce its effectiveness...though not by much.
In combat the end difference is almost inconsquential. But out of combat that is a huge difference for the wizard/rogue who is trying to break into a vault under guise of invisibility and wants to cast a metamgic silent knock spell on a door with a guard standing next to it (slipping through the door, even while invis is going to present its own problem).
So again, it really comes back to the type of game you want to GM. But I wouldn't say it can so easily be hand waved away as not important enough to matter.
If Spellcraft identifies the emanation why does the spellcaster need to be seen? The answer must be that the emanation is centered on the spellcaster AND that the emanation is a visual effect.
What if the emanation is a physical change in the way the caster looks? Glowing eyes? Glowing tatoos? Tatoos appearing? Change in skin color? Hair standing up straight like you were touching a globe of electricity? Clothing blowing about despite the absense of wind? Or any hundreds of other ideas that might be conceived of that aren't "sparklers floating in the air". All of those are things that could be seen - so long as you can see the caster themselves.
Would you deny that all of those are possible ways to produce enmanations? When the FAQ itself states it is up to the players/GM to decide what form spellcasting manifestations take?
If Spellcraft identifies the emanation why does the spellcaster need to be seen? The answer must be that the emanation is centered on the spellcaster AND that the emanation is a visual effect.
What if the emanation is a physical change in the way the caster looks? Glowing eyes? Glowing tatoos? Tatoos appearing? Change in skin color? Hair standing up straight like you were touching a globe of electricity? Clothing blowing about despite the absense of wind? Or any hundreds of other ideas that might be conceived of that aren't "sparklers floating in the air". All of those are things that could be seen - so long as you can see the caster themselves.
Would you deny that all of those are possible ways to produce enmanations? When the FAQ itself states it is up to the players/GM to decide what form spellcasting manifestations take?
I'm not going to deny that they are visual effects or that they are centered on the caster. However, they can all be made not to be obvious through mundane means, which would then require a perception check and spotting the emanation does not require a perception check.
Things that affect your perception, also affect your ability to perceive an emanation. Granted, it's still easy to see them, but casting a spell at midnight on a rainy day doesn't automatically alert everyone walking down the street. They would need to be able to see it (thus a perception check should be made).
You're looking at the spellcraft skill but not the FAQ. The emanation itself is obvious and cannot be hidden without special abilities, but determining what spell the emanation represents requires the spellcraft skill and the difficulty is in part distance related, as you have pointed out.
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.
Hi Willuwontu, given your examples I think you missed the seen component. I agree no alarm goes off (that would be auditory) but what I am saying is that providing the spellcaster can be seen then they can be identified as casting 'some form of magic' without a perception check. Just as it is possible to identify someone drawing a bow without a perception check.
As I said in a previous posting I ignore the FAQ and emanations do not exist, but if I was at a game where emanations were a thing then they could be seen at the encounter distance without requiring a perception check. I would not accept any, the emanation is a glowing tattoo on the sole of my foot inside my boot where nobody can see it shennanigans.
PS Lets not go down the rabbit hole that a bowman can can shoot further than perception allows him to see or that a spellcaster (probably) can't cast a long range spell at maximum range because they can't see the target according to RAW.
|
|
Hi Willuwontu, given your examples I think you missed the seen component. I agree no alarm goes off (that would be auditory) but what I am saying is that providing the spellcaster can be seen then they can be identified as casting 'some form of magic' without a perception check. Just as it is possible to identify someone drawing a bow without a perception check.
As I said in a previous posting I ignore the FAQ and emanations do not exist, but if I was at a game where emanations were a thing then they could be seen at the encounter distance without requiring a perception check. I would not accept any, the emanation is a glowing tattoo on the sole of my foot inside my boot where nobody can see it shennanigans.
PS Lets not go down the rabbit hole that a bowman can can shoot further than perception allows him to see or that a spellcaster (probably) can't cast a long range spell at maximum range because they can't see the target according to RAW.
Which is part of what my concern is. The faq specifically says not only is it obvious but that no matter what feats/skills you take there will always be a way to spot it. That causes huge issues with subtle casting, with plot hooks, with certain spells or spell like abilities. It even as said above contradicts with how magic is shown in most media. You say that perception will not necessarily spot the magic but that depends on the magic. The emanation could just as easily be a "tingly feeling my back" for everyone in the room, building, planet. Sure that's getting ridiculous but I've seen arguments over this before between those saying "Its a good limit on magic" and those who feel they're now screwed over in any attempt to be subtle with their spellcasting.
As for the "it doesn't apply to ongoing magic" I quote again the first sentence . . .
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.
Not spellcasting, all SPELLS. that is why I argue the ongoing effect applies because that is what the FAQ say's. Maybe they used the wrong word and meant to say spellcasting but the one in the faq is spells and specifically references fireball and its obvious visual effect. What is the obvious visual effect in the fireball spell?
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point.
The visual effect is a glowing pea sized bead that appears AFTER you cast the spell and a huge explosion that also happens AFTER you cast the spell. Therefore we have the faq specifically stating that the emanation is tied to the spell not the spellcasting and referencing a spell for visual effects where said effects occur after you have finished spellcasting.
That to me is why I am arguing the emanation continues on until the spell is no longer active. Now a case can be made that the emanation is coming from the mage but it as I see it applies for the entire duration of the spell. Further the argument that the mage is the point of origin is rather contradicted again by the faq stating all spells and a spell is not necessarily personal in range. Though I do admit most arwork I looked at had huge massive glowing rings of runes surrounding either the mages hand or their whole body though there were a few with floating leaves and things at a larger distance. That said though if your charm person has a massive ring of thick black runes circling your hand it again ruins any kind of subtle magic.
Again what they talk about wanting to stop in this faq is to me a wonderful plot hook and adventure waiting to happen. I don't want to stop it, I want that mage running amok in the town square slaughtering people with impunity because then the guard has a reason to call in the adventurers who have a way to deal with magic including a mage of their on who then have an investigation adventure in front of them as opposed to "You want to deal with the tanner, we know he did it those massive glowing rings of runes around his floating body is why we just aren't strong enough so go kill him please".
@Willuwonto, I think we're almost agreed. The key line to me is the spell caster can be seen. That to me means the encounter distances found in each environment (on phone so can't link easily) rather than the perception distances. Mainly, because the Perception rules are broken for somebody not trying to hide the and the longer encounter distances are more realistic.
I also think that the emanations though visual do not emit any light. If the spellcaster can't be seen because it is dark then neither can the emanations. Following the same logic, if they are hiding, and cannot be seen (failed perception v stealth) then the emanation cannot be seen. Likewise, to answer the OP, the invisible caster who is not perceived, can cast a spell without the emanations giving them away.
What I would like to understand is how blindsight helps to identify a purely visual effect. Ie one with no auditory, olfactory, touch or other sensory inputs beyond sight. And before you ask, I did watch Daredevil and no I don't know how he identified colours.
Does a Mythic Arcane caster able to cast w/o Verbal, somatic or material components casting while using improved invisability still generate little magic motes while casting? I do not think he does.
By the FAQ he absolutely does, but those little magic motes have the same improved invisibility as the caster by my reckoning.
|
|
Emanations in progress . ..
https://geekandsundry.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Pathfinder-Spells-Feat ured.png
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/plane-hoppers-ha ndbook.jpg
http://geekandsundry.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Pathfinder-Spells-Image .png
Just remove the spaces. Subtle no?
These were the results of my search for pathfiner spells apparently emanations are glowing symbols around the caster presumably their also humming, pine scented and a number of other things I don't have the senses for to allow everyone to notice them.
Given:
Not spellcasting, all SPELLS. that is why I argue the ongoing effect applies because that is what the FAQ say's. Maybe they used the wrong word and meant to say spellcasting but the one in the faq is spells and specifically references fireball and its obvious visual effect. What is the obvious visual effect in the fireball spell?
and
This does not change the level of the spell...
Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn’t need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.
Would you also argue that a wand of fireball and a wand of maximized fireball cost exactly the same? The spell level of a fireball is 3. The spell level of a maximized fireball is also 3. The spell slot required for the maximized version is 6.
While we can be pedantic about actual words used, when there is a clear intent in those words I don't think we are served well by insisting on a counter meaning due to that pedantism.
I would not accept any, the emanation is a glowing tattoo on the sole of my foot inside my boot where nobody can see it shennanigans.
Oh, I wouldn't either. My point was just that manifestations do not necessarily reveals the presence of a hidden/invisible caster. Which I see later in the thread you agree. See the caster (not their square) or your out of luck.
PS Lets not go down the rabbit hole that a bowman can can shoot further than perception allows him to see or that a spellcaster (probably) can't cast a long range spell at maximum range because they can't see the target according to RAW
Indeed lets not, given that isn't what perception is used for. Perception is for finding someone who is hiding, or noticing fine details - not just for being able to see someone who is standing 400' away in a flat open field. This becomes a little more interesting when trying to identify a spell being cast with spellcraft at that distance though. See the caster and know they are casting a spell, no problem due to manifestations. Identify the spell though kicks in perception distance penalties.
...and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
Which I'm fine with. I'd consider the exact nature of the spell more of a fine detail anyway and so perception fully applies.
Something I can’t help but notice is how so many are putting a large emphasis on the manifestations being visual... the FAQ said absolutely nothing about them being visual, just that they are obvious signs of magic. The manifestation of a spell could simply be an uneasy sense that something is not right.
While yes, spellcraft requires you to be able to see the spell effect or caster to determine what the spell is, there is no such requirement for the manifestation. It simply tells you, “magic is happening”. What visual clues you read to determine the spell being cast are their own thing, and that manifestation may very well factor into your assessment of the magic.
Also, I’m inclined to agree with those who say the manifestation persists... but only to a degree... a charmed or dominated person might have a glassy blank stare that gives off a sense that they aren’t actually there. The caster on the other hand shows no obvious signs unless they issue a new command, at which point their eyes might glow, or there may be an unnatural undertone to their voice.
To be perfectly honest... the FAQ does a poor job at answering the question stated, but rather goes off on a tangent to address a different issue by using the stated question as a platform. It feels more like attacking an agenda than answering a question. Ultimately the answer the the question of what exactly are you detecting with spellcraft came down to “it is up to you and your DM”... the rest just set ground work for new feats to deal with an issue that wasn’t seen as an issue before that FAQ.
@Chell, the visual aspect is drawn from putting the FAQ and Spellcraft skill together. Spellcraft identifies the emanation and the caster needs to be seen in order for that to happen. - see my earlier logic post. Also and being really, really pedantic, the FAQ does reference the artwork which of course is visual.
@Willuwonto re: not allowing Stealth, if there are no verbal, somantic or material components would you allow the emanations to remain unseen? Conversely, if there were a verbal component would you allow the spellcraft check even if the caster were unseen, say hidden in a japanese style paper-walled room.
Azothath already mentioned the rules for Perception, Stealth, and Invisibility...
If your Stealth beats their Perception, you remain unnoticed... if you speaking the verbal components of the spell didn't give away your position, neither did any BS emanations, or whatever that stupid FAQ is talking about.
That FAQ, like litetally every other FAQ/Errata just makes things worse, and should rightfully be ignored... like every single other FAQ/Errata.
Magic is scary to the unitiated... deal with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The FAQ in discussion is simply to say that "Yes, even if there are no components, people can tell when you cast a spell/spell-like/psychic magic so you can fire off readied actions or make attacks of opportunity."
The question asked is like 4 questions and I think the FAQ answers most of them if not all.
What does Spellcraft identify when identifying a spell as it is cast? The spell's "manifestation" upon cast whatever that may be.
Is it components? No.
Can I make attacks of opportunity or ready actions vs spells/spell-likes/psychic magic with no components? Yes.
Conceal Spell is a joke. You should be able to do all that without a feat that slows down casting time...
Especially since you are still doing "something" that triggers automatic checks from those around you... it may not be magic they are noticing but they notice "something"... so you just wasted a feat, because at the exact time whatever happened, you were the only one doing "something"... why put this in, at all:
"Since you are concealing the spell’s manifestation through other actions, others observing you realize you’re doing something, even if they don’t realize you’re casting a spell. If there is a verbal component, they still hear your loud, clear voice but don’t notice the spell woven within."
Makes the whole feat useless, in my opinion. Especially considering you should be able to do all what the feat does without investing in such a useless feat... and it has extra useless feats as prerequisites, too!!!
You cannot buy a wand of maximized Fireball as the total spell level is 6th
3 for fire ball and 3 for the metamagic feat maximize. so the only way you can have maximized Fire ball is to have it on a staff.
Technically true, that it can't go on a wand, but you can totally have it on a scroll.
And that does nothing to refute the point bbangerter was making.
Conceal Spell is a joke. You should be able to do all that without a feat that slows down casting time...
Especially since you are still doing "something" that triggers automatic checks from those around you... it may not be magic they are noticing but they notice "something"... so you just wasted a feat, because at the exact time whatever happened, you were the only one doing "something"... why put this in, at all:
"Since you are concealing the spell’s manifestation through other actions, others observing you realize you’re doing something, even if they don’t realize you’re casting a spell. If there is a verbal component, they still hear your loud, clear voice but don’t notice the spell woven within."
Makes the whole feat useless, in my opinion. Especially considering you should be able to do all what the feat does without investing in such a useless feat... and it has extra useless feats as prerequisites, too!!!
All correct, but you are missing one important point. It is expected that rulebooks have something for every class. So of course there had to be an 'Intrigue' way of casting spells. Therefore there had to be a feat but first the feat needed to do something. So before publication a retcon of emanations is slipped out as a 'didn't you know this has always been the case' FAQ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No? It's not even hard to imagine the usefulness or different scenarios and the "automatic checks" are in your favor because the DC is 15+your ranks+Attribute.
It also functions as a way to get around needing to cast defensively with a check the target might not be as good at.
So before publication a retcon of emanations is slipped out as a 'didn't you know this has always been the case' FAQ.
Really? Despite nothing saying otherwise? You may have had houserules otherwise, but nothing in RAW stated so. Nothing says a spell without components didn't provoke before. Spellcraft only says you need to be able to see the spell as it's cast(which indirectly states that magic IS seeable).
I understand the whole "rulebook nerfs a thing to have a reason for existing" POV, but I really don't think it's the case for this.