Languages for spellcasting

[donato]

I'm wondering if spells with verbal components use an exclusive "language" or if any language known could be used for the verbal components. I know certain spells, such as Command, are language dependent. It seems that is mostly for giving orders, etc. rather than the actual casting.

Any clarification on this?

[Ughbash]

donato wrote:

I'm wondering if spells with verbal components use an exclusive "language" or if any language known could be used for the verbal components. I know certain spells, such as Command, are language dependent. It seems that is mostly for giving orders, etc. rather than the actual casting.

Any clarification on this?

There is not a spevific language that spell casters must learn to do the verbal components.

Your Int 8 Cleric (Or sorceer) who only speaks common can cast spells fine. His spellcraft may be a bit off..... but he can cast his normal alotment of spells fine.

[donato]

Well, the reason I ask is for spells that only have a Verbal components. If an enemy caster casts a spell using a language that is not understood, one could argue that a player has no way of identifying the spell.

[Necromancer]

donato wrote:

Well, the reason I ask is for spells that only have a Verbal components. If an enemy caster casts a spell using a language that is not understood, one could argue that a player has no way of identifying the spell.

If you're referring to shout, one could argue that the verbal component becomes the source of sonic energy necessary for the spell. Language wouldn't matter in this case.

[Troubleshooter]

This just came up in our group (as well as coming up two campaigns ago when we were playing 3.x). Although I seem to recall having brought the first discussion to a conclusion, I can no longer find whatever text I cited then. The best text I could find to support my case now is under Arcane Magical Text, wherein it specifies that they are written in a universal language regardless of the scriber's native language or culture. I think 3.x had an extra line of fluff about this language being a language of magic that was discovered, not created.

But that's all moot! One of the changes Pathfinder made I don't terribly agreed with is that it forces you to *see* a creature cast a spell to attempt identification of a spell it casts -- you can no longer just hear a spell being cast, which means that an Invisible creature casting a spell does not risk having it be identified.

On the other hand, since all you need to do is see the spell, that also renders the question of what language a spell is in moot. Whether you're using The Universal Language Of Magic, or you're casting spells in your language with Wicca-style incantations, being heard is unnecessary.

[reefwood]

donato wrote:

I'm wondering if spells with verbal components use an exclusive "language" or if any language known could be used for the verbal components. I know certain spells, such as Command, are language dependent. It seems that is mostly for giving orders, etc. rather than the actual casting.

Any clarification on this?

A verbal component is used to cast the spell. You can cast a spell regardless of whether the target understands your language. This is the case either way - if you rule that verbal components use a special magic language or a standard language.

However, some spells require you to communicate with the target, and communication usually happens through a shared language:

Quote:

A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says, the spell fails.

Basically, you can cast the spell, but it may not work if the target needs to be able to understand you. Although, I believe some spells let you use other forms of communication, such as miming and other visual cues (and these spells say so in their description).

.
.
.
As for my own games, I say that magic has its own universal language, but everyone has their own particular spin/inflection/accent on it. That is why you can't automatically read a scroll or someone else's spellbook. Casters don't write their spells in Common or Draconic or any other standard language. Everything is there to read it, but you can have to make sense of it with a Spellcraft check or read magic spell. This also makes sense (to me) why a Spellcraft check can be used to identify a spell that is being cast. If you only understand Common and someone else cast a spell in Draconic, there's really no way you could decipher that, but if you both speak Magickish or Magickese*, you just have to recognize the spell and maybe figure out their "accent" too.

*and you need to see the spellcaster too, so I guess somatic components and material components (or the lack thereof) must be seen too, but you wouldn't be able to identify the spell if there wasn't a universal magic language to understand the verbal component. (EDITED FOR CORRECTION)

[Mojorat]

a Verbal Component for a spell and Language dependant (ie something like charm) are seperate things.

But pretty sure its the language of magic.

[Troubleshooter]

reefwood wrote:

As for my own games, I say that magic has its own universal language, but everyone has their own particular spin/inflection/accent on it. That is why you can't automatically read a scroll or someone else's spellbook.
Casters don't write their spells in Common or Draconic or any other standard language. Everything is there to read it, but you can have to make sense of it with a Spellcraft check or read magic spell.

Correct. This text can be found under Arcane Magical Writings, I believe in the Magic chapter.

reefwood wrote:

This also makes sense (to me) why a Spellcraft check can be used to identify a spell that is being cast. If you only understand Common and someone else cast a spell in Draconic, there's really no way you could decipher that, but if you both speak Magickish or Magickese, you just have to recognize the spell and maybe figure out their "accent" too.

No longer correct. In Pathfinder, you must be able to see a spell being cast to be able to identify it.

[donato]

So what I'm getting is that to identify a spell, you must see it being cast. You can identify it regardless of what components it has, as long as you can see it.

[Troubleshooter]

Correct.
Source: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/spellcraft

[Adam Ormond]

What do you know about a spell if you successfully identify it? Everything? A Level 1 Wizard can identify and know everything about a L9 spell they don't have on their spell list?

This came up the other day when the Bard successfully identified enemy clerics casting Divine Favor. The Bard's player felt he wouldn't know the duration, so thought it'd be metagaming to have us wait a couple minutes before jumping into the room to attack.

[Andrew Besso]

I think the Harry Potter books are a good analogy here. For example, the incantation "wingardium leviosa" (verbal component), in conjunction with a specific wand motion (focus and somantic components) casts a levitation spell. The language the wizard (these characters have more in common with the sorcerer class, but whatever) happens to speak is irrelevant.

[Elven_Blades]

Adam Ormond wrote:

What do you know about a spell if you successfully identify it? Everything? A Level 1 Wizard can identify and know everything about a L9 spell they don't have on their spell list?

This came up the other day when the Bard successfully identified enemy clerics casting Divine Favor. The Bard's player felt he wouldn't know the duration, so thought it'd be metagaming to have us wait a couple minutes before jumping into the room to attack.

The bard would know that the spell has a duration, and there for could make a reasonable guess about how long it will last. What he does not have, is a cursor that he can point at the caster, and have a little bubble come up saying "your target is level 7, and his spells will last for 7 minutes exactly". Same way that you can't see a fire ball cast and say" he's only got 5d6, so don't bother burning any special abilities unless your below 30 hp"

I suppose you could argue that a lv 1 character is isn't skilled enough to know about spells being cast by a lv 17+ caster, but i don't think there is an actual rule on that, just GM discretion. Besides, if your lvl 1, you don't need to worry about that big bad spell. It's either gonna kill you dead, help you in some way, or have no effect on you, cuz it wasn't targeting you.

( Edited to clarify example )

[Troubleshooter]

Heheh, I think there already is something in place to prevent first level characters from understanding the parameters of a level 9 spell ... the DC 24 Spellcraft check : )

Granted, a first-level genius specialist wizard who has trained as hard as he can in arcana (1 rank, +3 class, +5 Int, +2 school specialty) has a pretty good chance of getting that DC. A whopping 40% chance : )

Which I don't think is unreasonable. I consider it a soft-benefit of being a member of the class known to withdraw into towers to study as a sage for decades.