RAW he is correct that you have to see the spell being cast.
The verbal components of a spell are not necessarily actual words. Each spell caster could have different incantations for the same spell. Think of it like a verbal shorthand.
I tend to agree with your GM, it specifically states you must be able to SEE a spell to identify it. I might Allow a check with the normal +20 to DC for not being able to see it (per perception/invisible), but that's the best I'll give, and I would also make a point of stating its not RAW.
According to the FAQ spells have a manifestation that they produce. When you identify a spell that is what you use.
|
As I see it (non-RAW) you hear the words and see the manifestations. That gives you an idea of the spell Schools and approximately what it does. Then you use your Spellcraft skill and knowledge to deduce the spell that was cast. Doing it that way unique or very rare spells can't be identified by name, but it is possible to get an idea of what they do.
It is something that not be implemented by the rules, as it requires a lot of evaluations on the GM part and is somewhat arbitrary, but it works well with an experienced GM and experienced players.
In your situation (blinded) the Spellcraft check DC would increase by 10 or 20 points, depending on the spell.
The verbal components of a spell are not necessarily actual words. Each spell caster could have different incantations for the same spell. Think of it like a verbal shorthand.According to the FAQ spells have a manifestation that they produce. When you identify a spell that is what you use.And in the same FAQ it stated that any caster could have uniq manifestation effect. So why would it be possible to identify spell based on a random manifestation, but not on the used chant (which ofc could be different from caster to caster as well).
Because spell manifestations is a "have your cake and eat it to" mechanic. More reasonably, no matter how the spell "manifests", there are some giveaways to the actual effect going on. A fireball still looks like a fireball, mirror images still are mirror images, even if they have a little trickle of lightning in their formation for shocking images variant, etc.
I will add on top of TxSam that there are plenty of ways a blind character could reasonably glean context clues a to the spell just cast, but it's still based on the effect, not necessarily the verbal components. You might hear a lightning crack, feel a damaging spell hit you, save against a Will effect, etc. that all give very big context clues, to the point that I wouldn't give all of them a +20 DC.
Or, maybe, game designers can clarify it (but I know this is not likely)
Sorry bud, that ship sailed half a decade ago, a decade ago if you're cynical.
|
I guess this will rely on GM decision. RAW never explain how the identification works in detail. Is the manifestation unique for each spell ,or can it vary but have a method to decrypt it? If it is unique, can everyone just simply memorize some common spell with verbal component, and identify it without really skilled in spellcraft?
RAW didnt explain at all, it will also be complicated if we argue every details, like if I cast a spell with metamagic to bypass somatic/verbal/material components, will this increase the DC of spellcraft? What exactly is needed to identify a spell? Its aura? Its sound? Do i need all or just some of it to identify?
By RAW, it stated you need to clearly see it and didnt mention the weightage of components. So perhaps you can ask your DM to give a check with higher DC, if unfortunately he not allowing it, then you maybe need to just accept it.
I hate manifestations and all rules associated with them so in my games they don't exist. I say this to make it clear at the start where I'm posting from is partially house rules however they work for RAW as well, you just swap magical energy only a caster can sense to manifestation anyone can.
Now the DM has final say in their game and what your DM has done is RAW however hopefully my explanation will help you see how that could work. Personally I treat magic users as using a magic sense either innate or learnt. That's what your "seeing" the whirls of magic, channeling of power. You aren't identifying the spell because the caster gave you the middle finger and said fireball. Your identifying it because you see the magic being channeled into that finger, shifting in hue, texture and shape to that associated with explosive fire and then being unleashed. So you need to see the spell being cast not because your looking at what the caster is saying/geasturing but at how the magic is responding to those actions. It doesn't matter if they say Lumos, Lux Maxima, Light, Hitodama or Lki MERK BAROOSH. What matters is the magic will always react the same way to create a light spell and that's how you identify it not the words. When your blinded you can't see that magic shaping and so you don't know what is happening.
As I said my explanation works with manifestations its just that instead of the caster seeing magic, everyone is seeing that massive green loopy half circle with three lines that say's you are about to speak with dad.
You could ask your DM if they'll let you make a check at penalties to identify somatic spells from what's said but that'd be house rules territory.
|
|
Now the DM has final say in their game and what your DM has done is RAW however hopefully my explanation will help you see how that could work. Personally I treat magic users as using a magic sense either innate or learnt. That's what your "seeing" the whirls of magic, channeling of power. You aren't identifying the spell because the caster gave you the middle finger and said fireball. Your identifying it because you see the magic being channeled into that finger, shifting in hue, texture and shape to that associated with explosive fire and then being unleashed. So you need to see the spell being cast not because your looking at what the caster is saying/geasturing but at how the magic is responding to those actions. It doesn't matter if they say Lumos, Lux Maxima, Light, Hitodama or Lki MERK BAROOSH. What...
Note that spellcraft is a trained skill that anyone can use. If you limit it to magic users you do a disservice to a lot of characters.
In my current campaign, I use a very non-RAW solution. Noticing spellcasting or magic using is an untrained spellcraft check that uses either your spellcasting modifier or your highest mental stat as the skill ability with a base of 0 and all the Perception modifiers (so noticing the spellcasting of an invisible person casting a spell within 9' from you has a DC of 20).
Recognizing what spell was cast, instead, requires skill ranks.
The base idea is similar to what you do, but anyone can sense active spellcasting (the classical "shiver down the spine"). That way, in that campaign, we do away with manifestations, but magic is generally noticeable even by laymen.
Not perfect, but it does away with "magic users rule the world controlling the figureheads on the thrones". Without specialized abilities, manipulating rules without anyone noticing is hard.
|
|
it IS a Game and there are better ways to spend your time.
By not playing because they're having bad wrong fun to ask if the DM would allow something, by your definition?
Note that spellcraft is a trained skill that anyone can use. If you limit it to magic users you do a disservice to a lot of characters.In my current campaign, I use a very non-RAW solution. Noticing spellcasting or magic using is an untrained spellcraft check that uses either your spellcasting modifier or your highest mental stat as the skill ability with a base of 0 and all the Perception modifiers (so noticing the spellcasting of an invisible person casting a spell within 9' from you has a DC of 20).
Recognizing what spell was cast, instead, requires skill ranks.
The base idea is similar to what you do, but anyone can sense active spellcasting (the classical "shiver down the spine"). That way, in that campaign, we do away with manifestations, but magic is generally noticeable even by laymen.Not perfect, but it does away with "magic users rule the world controlling the figureheads on the thrones". Without specialized abilities, manipulating rules without anyone noticing is hard.
Which is pretty similar to what I do. Spellcasters get it with their first level, anyone else who wants it spends a rank in spell craft to learn it like say a wizard does with their first level. I'm not excluding other people players or NPC's from it I just require they actually invest something to learn how to do it (a level or 1 skill rank). Its just if you don't have that investment you wont be able to sense magic being used and it also allows for plots like the grand vizier hypnotizing the ruler if the caster has feats. Still/silent spell hides the casting from anyone who hasn't had basic training to sense magic manipulation (most royal bodyguards) and the stealthy spell feat allows you to even hide the manipulation of magic (roll off casters spell craft vs anyone nearby with training to notice). I've not had a chance to test the later enough to tell if its better as spellcraft vs spellcraft or sleight of hand vs spell craft.
This is active magic so its more noticeable if you have the training hence being able to sense/identify it with spellcraft even if you have no magical ability yourself, dormant magic e.g items, existing spells, etc require detect magic because its settled and is no longer disturbing the flow of ambient magic.
I just have a personal hatred for the "chill down the spine" idea and in my games (run not played obviously) magic doesn't have an inherent "unnatural feeling" with it. Train yourself and you can sense an active spell, learn to be a magic user and you can detect dormant magics, otherwise you'll have no idea if a spell is being used except by obvious things words, geastures, a glowing spark of fire flying from someone and exploding on your house.
Note that spellcraft is a trained skill that anyone can use.I'm probably misreading this unless you are just saying this is how you do it in your game (but you don't mention that until the next paragraph). I think that if it's a trained skill then that means that not anyone can use it. I couldn't see if you were referencing something in your reply, but I couldn't see where Senko was limiting it specifically to magic users in their reply (spellcasters are just the ones that can train the skill more easily).
Trained just means you have to have spent a rank. Anyone can spend a rank, but is Bob the Commoner likely to spend his second rank in craft (tools) to repair the hoe he broke last week when using Profession (farmer) or is he more likely to want to know exactly what the local kook is doing with Spellcraft?
spellcasting or magic using is an untrained spellcraft check that uses either your spellcasting modifier or your highest mental stat as the skill ability with a base of 0 and all the Perception modifiers (so noticing the spellcasting of an invisible person casting a spell within 9' from you has a DC of 20).
To me, just noticing someone casting (we're assuming non-combat instead of a combat situation where a character is assumed to be watching all around them), this would just be a Perception check. The way they frame the Identify Spell part of Spellcraft already implies it receives Perception penalties, for distance and what-have-you. It just seems to me that the best choice would be to make it Perception, which is something that is used untrained and everyone has anyway, and bonuses to Perception are for more common than ones to Spellcraft.
Only my opinion, though. It's obviously your houserule. I am just opining.
This is a very "modern movie magic" point of view. Even if we go back to as recent as the Salem witch trials, spells were not meant to be these obvious flying people, bolts of energy to hurt people, etc. It was just meant to be some sort of ritual done with material ingredients that would cause some unseen disturbance in reality that could either help (white magic) or hurt (black magic) someone or something in subtle ways. You could make them sick but you wouldn't make them catch on fire. This was the western Christian view on magic, which is where most of our magical themes come from, though obviously not the only view; while the nuances of magic were different for different religions and cultures, it was still this very hidden/taught thing without anything blatantly obvious like a manifestation (a la Dr. Strange sigils everywhere) except for the direct effect of the spell, e.g. a fireball exploding or as more realistic to what medieval, renaissance, and pre-enlightenment people were more likely to accuse of being magic: causing a sickness.
|
|
Note that spellcraft is a trained skill that anyone can use.I'm probably misreading this unless you are just saying this is how you do it in your game (but you don't mention that until the next paragraph). I think that if it's a trained skill then that means that not anyone can use it. I couldn't see if you were referencing something in your reply, but I couldn't see where Senko was limiting it specifically to magic users in their reply (spellcasters are just the ones that can train the skill more easily).
It's not my clearest text. What I mean is that it is a trained skill (so it can't be used without training), but anyone can train it. It isn't restricted like Fly, which requires a way to fly.
Reading what Senko wrote I had thought that only spellcasters were able to learn the skill in her world. Her following post clarified that doubt.
By RAW, it stated you need to clearly see it and didnt mention the weightage of components.Well, this is exactly why I wrote the post - because RAW looks pretty stupid, but it is RAW, and master is sort of RAW-person. So I hoped someone had similar situations and could show me where it was clarified.
Or, maybe, game designers can clarify it (but I know this is not likely)
this is a Rules forum, so all opinions need to be set aside. RAW - you must see a spell to identify it. Full stop.
|
|
In General-
> There's RAW and then the large Grey Area that the GM is responsible for (also known as "Home Game" territory).
> There are also decisions made in the moment (as a Game is ongoing and expediency is important) and then those made leisurely with or without group debate.Negotiation and debate are part of the Game as it is a social game. You also have to recognize some practical aspects of that environment and that the other players may have differing opinions, differing goals, sense of style, etc etc...
Part of playing the Game is being a "Good Sport" when it comes to decisions made in the moment or later if things don't turn out as you expect after a long discussion. Most of the times it is not all that important. It is just a Game that tries to have some simple reasonable rules to implement what is a rather complicated game of "Let's Pretend". Sometimes it is too simplistic and not well defined.Obsessing over a decision made in play (and debating that expedient decision in the forums) is just a waste of time (see my above statement and later mischaracterization by another poster). This topic is a bit too subtle and pervasive as soon as you step beyond RAW into the Gray Area as it touches on theme, style, and a lot of little things as to how magic actually works in your world(Game setting).
I'm not the biggest fan of Spellcasting Manifestations as written but I understand why they are there and that they fulfill a necessary control on covert spellcasting. Shoot, designers tried to write rules around casting covertly and ofcourse they are overly complicated and not all that effective but I sincerely applaud the effort.
So given time and discussion I'm sure most GMs would provide a path to add a bit of flexibility for Spellcraft. Part of that is trying to decide what exactly Spellcasting Manifestations are in Game Terms and the result lands squarely in Home Game territory. I'd also advise GMs to read;
the Spellcraft
...
The issue is manifestations as written break not just builds or plots but actual creature abilities and existing AP's if you use them. On top of which there are no actual rules for things that need to be defined if your using them instead its just left up to the DM. Are there penalties for range, can you sense them through a wall, do they become more obvious with more powerful spells, do magic items have manifestations if used, do magic items have manifestations if they're always on and more.
@AwesomenessDog
As you said this is modern movie magic of glowing glyphs in the air where anyone instantly knows you cast a spell when you try to charm person someone making subtle magic either a feat tax or failure. I'd prefer only spell casters can sense magic but wizardry is a learn spell caster and the game needs to be fun so you can learn how to sense magic but if you don't invest that for me you don't have the ability. Referencing the original post can you sense manifestations when blinded? If not why can you sense them with still/silent spell feats applied to a spell, if so then why can't you identify spells in fog or the like?
I'd be more inclined to use manifestations if they had actual rules on how they are used so they're at least consistent game to game.
Not having manifestations breaks the game more than having them does. Casters can just go around charming people in public without consequences, rather than having to make an effort to get that person on their own, or take feats and use deception skills. That kind of thing leads to caster-martial disparity.
can you sense manifestations when blinded?
No, because manifestations are visible magic sparkles.
If not why can you sense them with still/silent spell feats applied to a spell
Because still/silent spell doesn't stop the magic sparkles from appearing.
why can't you identify spells in fog or the like
Because ten feet of fog creates full concealment, which prevents you from seeing the magic sparkles.
@AwesomenessDog
As you said this is modern movie magic of glowing glyphs in the air where anyone instantly knows you cast a spell when you try to charm person someone making subtle magic either a feat tax or failure. I'd prefer only spell casters can sense magic but wizardry is a learn spell caster and the game needs to be fun so you can learn how to sense magic but if you don't invest that for me you don't have the ability. Referencing the original post can you sense manifestations when blinded? If not why can you sense them with still/silent spell feats applied to a spell, if so then why can't you identify spells in fog or the like?
Well some of us do find the manifestation rules to be a stupid retcon and not even supported by the rules as written otherwise. As loosely touched on above by someone else, before manifestation rules existed, there was no RAW for what exactly let you tell what spell someone was casting; GMs generally just assumed it was based on components (S, M, V, etc.) and the use of the spellcraft skill because that's all we had. This would fall into perfect alignment to how I and historically spells have been understood as to be extremely niche incantations combined with specific gestures and/or esoteric foci or components that you absolutely cannot otherwise see (unless the spell would create a visually obvious effect).
Then we got the spell manifestation FAQ post out of nowhere in 2016 entirely to justify the printing of an extra book that added back in the ability to do everything you always could before hand by eliminating V and S components that the FAQ post had removed by making pathfinder into a marvel movie.
The problem now to the OP, is that even though spells do now have something that blatantly says "A SPELL IS BEING CAST, LOOK OVER HERE AND PANIC BECAUSE A MAGIC CHARACTER DID ANYTHING" (despite this being a high magic setting with not only a myriad of spellcasters anywhere, even in small towns but also where even where the NPC classes include a spell caster, but I digress) that we never got a clarification as to what actually tells you what the spell does. On one hand, the intent of spell manifestations seems to be inherently regressive in this regard, as if the intent is to make spellcasting in public seem even more taboo, that would imply its even harder than just looking at the spell being cast or hearing the words/seeing the flapping hands (even if it is still just a skill check) because you can rule that the V/S components are all unique to the caster. On the other hand, they still cleared up nothing in this regard and its still entirely up to GM interpretation as to what exactly someone needs to notice (if even anything at all) to identify the spell being cast (and if to even include the problematic mess of a rule change that manifestations is in the first place).
|
|
Not having manifestations breaks the game more than having them does. Casters can just go around charming people in public without consequences, rather than having to make an effort to get that person on their own, or take feats and use deception skills. That kind of thing leads to caster-martial disparity.
can you sense manifestations when blinded?No, because manifestations are visible magic sparkles.
If not why can you sense them with still/silent spell feats applied to a spellBecause still/silent spell doesn't stop the magic sparkles from appearing.
why can't you identify spells in fog or the likeBecause ten feet of fog creates full concealment, which prevents you from seeing the magic sparkles.
Your opinion and something I am vehemently opposed to (Magic sparkles do NOT exist in my game or whats the point of detect magic). That aside though and assuming you do have magic sparkles that means you should be getting penalties for distance, weather, crowds or anything else that would interrupt vision of the sparkles. Yet per the non-existent rules for manifestations none of these penalties exist implying its not glowing sparkles. They don't even address if the manifestation is more noticeable with more powerful spells or why they don't exist for magic items. Hence the problem.
In my gaming experience a lack of "manifestations" has never resulted in wizards running amok, has resulted in a good plot hooks and hasn't bothered any of the martial characters because they're usually having fun slaughtering their enemies.
|
|
Just to point it out [i]Spellcasting provokes AoOs[/].
Even animal intelligence creatures and people without spellcasting get that AoO. So, from 3rd edition onward spellcasting and the lack of attention while doing it was automatically perceptible for a long time before the glowing sigils (casting a swift spell is an exception).
The glowing sigils are a gift for "poor martials" to help them fight invisible casters.
There is nothing in the rules that state that a verbal component has any meaning or is in any way understandable. There is no language magic or anything similar in Pathfinder. The same is true with somatic components. The only components that are actually defined by the game are M/F/DF and those are done by the individual spell.
The Harry Dresden novels explain that wizards use words as a way to focus the mind. The actual words don’t really matter; they are just a way to create a specific mindset. Using actual words for this makes it more difficult so the caster actually makes up words and assigns those words meaning. The act of saying the word the caster created helps in focusing his mind on the spell. This Idea fits well into the way spell casting works in Pathfinder.
Looking at the M/F/DF component I see that spells with those components often vary depending on who casts them. Take the spell light it has a V and M/DF component. I can apply the feat silent spell to remove the V component so all that is left is the M/DF. If I am a cleric use a holy symbol, if I am a sorcerer I use a firefly, and if I am an oracle I don’t need anything to cast the spell. Here are 3 different spell casters casting the same spell, but none of them are using the same component. One of the casters is not actually using or doing anything, one of them is using the same thing he uses to cast most of his spells, and lastly one is using a bug. A spellcraft roll will still allow someone to identify each caster is casting light. How can spell craft identify the spell being cast when each of the casters is using a different item and one is not using anything? This seems to imply that spell craft does not use the components of a spell to identify it.
Spells: A bard casts arcane spells drawn from the bard spell list presented in Spell Lists. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time. Every bard spell has a verbal component (song, recitation, or music).
The bolded section from the bard’s class backs up the idea that the components for each spell can be unique to the individual caster. It actually lists three different ways to satisfy the V component one of which is not even a spoken. But a bard’s spell can still be identified with spellcraft. The bad could not use silent spell on light, but if he had eschew material, he would be able to cast the spell without using the material component.
Now I have four casters casting the same spell (light), but each of them does so in a different way. One caster touches his holy symbol to a rock, one rubs a stick with a firefly, one plays a harp that begins to glow and the last just touches coin. Someone with spell craft can identify they are casting light before the object begins to glow and counterspell it to prevent the caster from casting light. I used light as an easy example because almost all spell casters have the spell, and it only has V and M/DF components. In practice this will probably never happen but still proves the point. Replace light with any other spell and the results are the same.
Spell Manifestation is a way to explain how things work. What the special effect is, is up to the GM.
The Harry Dresden novels explain that wizards use words as a way to focus the mind. The actual words don’t really matter; they are just a way to create a specific mindset. Using actual words for this makes it more difficult so the caster actually makes up words and assigns those words meaning. The act of saying the word the caster created helps in focusing his mind on the spell. This Idea fits well into the way spell casting works in Pathfinder.
Wait, I actually like this mindset now that wizards (and sorcerers, etc.) are just schizophrenic people that by just muttering to themselves enough don't make the reality real just in their mind, but are schizophrenic enough to make it real for others.
Just to point it out [i]Spellcasting provokes AoOs[/].
Even animal intelligence creatures and people without spellcasting get that AoO. So, from 3rd edition onward spellcasting and the lack of attention while doing it was automatically perceptible for a long time before the glowing sigils (casting a swift spell is an exception).
The glowing sigils are a gift for "poor martials" to help them fight invisible casters.The attack of opportunity for spellcaster has never had anything to do with the contrived manifestations. Spellcasting always provoked before that FAQ editor tried to imply there were visible sparkles (but even they state it's not in the rules and that it it's just something).
The attacks of opportunity come from the character diverting their attention, focusing on spellcasting instead of defending themselves. The turn their attention away momentarily and it it allows an attacker to slip in a strike. When you try to defensively cast, it isn't you suppressing whirly-glowing trails, it's you trying to focus on defense and casting, at the risk of botching the casting.
Just to tack onto this, it's an AoO to drink a potion. I can damn well describe how someone could hold up their defenses while they drink the potion, especially if they have a shield to literally interpose with, but the game says AoO happens anyway. You aren't taking 1-4 swings with a sword based on your BAB every 6 seconds, you are getting swings that might reasonable connect plus bonus swings that would otherwise zone someone's offenses/defenses except for some reason they were doing something else (like casting a spell or drinking a potion) that took their focus away from your "weaker/zoning" swings. Thus, instead of being zoned away, they *might* get hit an extra time.
|
|
While it doesn't need to create glowing sigils to do that, the lack of attention for casting a spell is easily discernible. You can't benefit from an opponent's lapse in focus unless you notice the lapse in focus. So, I feel that the rules in 3rd edition already implied that spellcasting was noticeable.
|
|
While it doesn't need to create glowing sigils to do that, the lack of attention for casting a spell is easily discernible. You can't benefit from an opponent's lapse in focus unless you notice the lapse in focus. So, I feel that the rules in 3rd edition already implied that spellcasting was noticeable.
True but its also noticeable when a guy is staring at a girl even though he's not geasturing, speaking or throwing bat guano at her. There's a lot of body language to show someone is focusing on something other than not getting stabbed by the pointy end of your sword. You don't need glowing sparkles or manifestations, a term used differently in the core rulebooks and as I said not defined anywhere. Going by the faq a barbarian can start randomly swinging because they sensed magic being used on the other side of the world.
Speaking personally I've always treated magic words, geastures, etc as being aids to focus by people not something inherent to the spell itself. Its why children can manfifest without using actual spells because they have a powerful imagination and can easily see the world not as it is. Adults have trouble with that so for them its easier to visualize a fireball going off if they have words and geastures to acompany it. They're not necessary but they make the process easier. Plus it helps avoid wizards accidentally blowing up the pub in a drunken rage.
assuming you do have magic sparkles that means you should be getting penalties for distance, weather, crowds or anything else that would interrupt vision of the sparkles.
Same as if partial obstacles interrupted seeing the somatic components in a no-manifestations game. Same as anything else in the world. If someone lights a fuse on a bomb or a firework, would I be able to identify what they're doing when there's distance, weather and crowds involved? What's the DC of the Perception check? That's time for a GM ruling.
Magic sparkles do NOT exist in my game or whats the point of detect magic
Detect Magic, among other things, allows you to identify magical effects that are permanent (like magic items) or spells you didn't see being cast but the duration hasn't expired yet (since the magic sparkles are gone within a second or two). Still the best cantrip.
I've always played as if there were magic sparkles, and it's never caused any issues or broken any plots. A clever caster can cast from behind cover, or bluff casting something innocent to trick someone with no Spellcraft. An invisible caster gives away their position briefly, but they can move after casting.
Lately this forum has focused on RAW, but it is not the RAW forum. Questions on rules also include RAI and other discussions on the rules. If the only thing that was allowed to be discussed in this forum was RAW it would not have much content. About the only posts that would be allowed would be those where the person had trouble understanding the language of the rules.
Rule zero gives the GM the right to decide to use any particular rule. Since rule zero is actually written in the book discussing whether to use or ignore any rule in the book is technically a discussion on RAW.
IMC the manifestation and the components all contribute to identifying spells. Spells without verbal or somatic get -2. Spells with no verbal and no somatic (including SLAs) get -5.
The (house?) rule I've never been able to decide on is how it works identifying a spell in the dark. If there are visual manifestations, and these are usually described as glowing sigils or magic sparkles, do those provide enough of a flicker of light to be seen and identified?
Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.
This was the rule for 3.5.
|
|
assuming you do have magic sparkles that means you should be getting penalties for distance, weather, crowds or anything else that would interrupt vision of the sparkles.Same as if partial obstacles interrupted seeing the somatic components in a no-manifestations game. Same as anything else in the world. If someone lights a fuse on a bomb or a firework, would I be able to identify what they're doing when there's distance, weather and crowds involved? What's the DC of the Perception check? That's time for a GM ruling.
Magic sparkles do NOT exist in my game or whats the point of detect magicDetect Magic, among other things, allows you to identify magical effects that are permanent (like magic items) or spells you didn't see being cast but the duration hasn't expired yet (since the magic sparkles are gone within a second or two). Still the best cantrip.
I've always played as if there were magic sparkles, and it's never caused any issues or broken any plots. A clever caster can cast from behind cover, or bluff casting something innocent to trick someone with no Spellcraft. An invisible caster gives away their position briefly, but they can move after casting.
Fine show me where this is written in any of the rule books, or the FAQ given manifestations can be a "chill on the neck".
IMC the manifestation and the components all contribute to identifying spells. Spells without verbal or somatic get -2. Spells with no verbal and no somatic (including SLAs) get -5.The (house?) rule I've never been able to decide on is how it works identifying a spell in the dark. If there are visual manifestations, and these are usually described as glowing sigils or magic sparkles, do those provide enough of a flicker of light to be seen and identified?
Or to use as a light source?
Fine show me where this is written in any of the rule books, or the FAQ given manifestations can be a "chill on the neck".
This is a problem with the FAQ, I admit. A (house) rule that manifestations are visible light is a lot more consistent than a rule that manifestations can be literally anything. People could try to game the system by saying "my magical manifestations are my eyes turning black" and then saying, "I wear dark glasses so no-one can see my magical manifestations".
All we have to go on is:
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...
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
From the art, it seems like spellcasting emits a glowing aura.
And:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
This suggests that manifestations must be visual, because if they could be some other kind of sensation like a 'chill' then you could identify a spell without needing to see it being cast.
|
|
Fine show me where this is written in any of the rule books, or the FAQ given manifestations can be a "chill on the neck".
This is a problem with the FAQ, I admit. A (house) rule that manifestations are visible light is a lot more consistent than a rule that manifestations can be literally anything. People could try to game the system by saying "my magical manifestations are my eyes turning black" and then saying, "I wear dark glasses so no-one can see my magical manifestations".
All we have to go on is:
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...
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
From the art, it seems like spellcasting emits a glowing aura.
And:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.This suggests that manifestations must be visual, because if they could be some other kind of sensation like a 'chill' then you could identify a spell without needing to see it being cast.
Which is just one of the problems with the whole thing. Look lets take those like me who despise the very concept out of the conversation based on what we've been given you literally can't use this "core concept" of the game without house ruling it.
Does it work like a normal perception check? House rules.
Do higher level spells have more noticeable manifestations? House rules.
If you need to be clearly seen does being partially hidden hide manifestations? House rules.
Do magic items and consumeables like scrolls have manifestations? House rules.
Do non-magic magic users like the quingong monk have manifestations? House rules.
Since you use spellcraft to ID a spell is it used to notice manifestations? House rules.
Are the manifestations glowing runes, glowing eyes, a creeping sense of the unnatural? House. Rules.
We have literally zero rules on how they need to be handled which means every game is going to treat them differently. In one they're glowing runes that grow in size and complexity with higher level spells. In another they're just a creeping sense of unease felt by anyone in 60 feet and don't change with spells. In another magic items don't have them but spell completion items do and so on.
You can't just slap a bandaid on something many don't consider an issue especially one that breaks a lot of actual game mechanics for players and NPC's including actual written adventure encounters and then leave it up to the GM's to figure out all the rules on how it actually works because that's just going to lead to player and GM frustration. You'll have people joining your game who are playing or not playing a caster only to find out how you handle manfifestations and then suddenly wanting to change their character because they didn't realize your doing it that way as their group always ran things differently and what happens if its a society character where two different GM's have different ideas of how they work?
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
Does it work like a normal perception check?
It's a spellcraft check that has the same modifiers as a perception check.
Do higher level spells have more noticeable manifestations?
No. There's no rule saying they do, so they don't.
If you need to be clearly seen does being partially hidden hide manifestations?
It can partially hides manifestations. If you're partially hidden in such a way that it would make it harder for a perception check to work on you, apply the same modifier to the spellcraft check.
Do magic items and consumeables like scrolls have manifestations?
Yes. Spells cast from objects work like spells unless otherwise stated.
Do non-magic magic users like the quingong monk have manifestations?
Quingong monks use Spell-Like Abilities. The FAQ makes it clear that these do have manifestations.
Since you use spellcraft to ID a spell is it used to notice manifestations?
Noticing manifestations is easy. Spellcraft is used to identify spells from the manifestations.
Are the manifestations glowing runes, glowing eyes, a creeping sense of the unnatural?
(1) Maybe. (2) Probably not. (3) No.
Because manifestations are visual clues that are hard to conceal without a feat.
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.Does it work like a normal perception check?It's a spellcraft check that has the same modifiers as a perception check.
Do higher level spells have more noticeable manifestations?No. There's no rule saying they do, so they don't.
If you need to be clearly seen does being partially hidden hide manifestations?It can partially hides manifestations. If you're partially hidden in such a way that it would make it harder for a perception check to work on you, apply the same modifier to the spellcraft check.
Do magic items and consumeables like scrolls have manifestations?Yes. Spells cast from objects work like spells unless otherwise stated.
Do non-magic magic users like the quingong monk have manifestations?Quingong monks use Spell-Like Abilities. The FAQ makes it clear that these do have manifestations.
Since you use spellcraft to ID a spell is it used to notice manifestations?Noticing manifestations is easy. Spellcraft is used to identify spells from the manifestations.
Are the manifestations glowing runes, glowing eyes, a creeping sense of the unnatural?(1) Maybe. (2) Probably not. (3) No.
Because manifestations are visual clues that are hard to conceal without a feat.
Still no sources on those opinions house rules. You're welcome to decide that's how it works in your game, but me thinks you won't find anything RAW to back any of those (valid) interpretations up over many other (valid) interpretations.
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors
@Senko many of your objections are actually covered in the rule. It takes the same penalties as perceptions, so things like distance, cover and other modifiers function like perception. Identifying a spell only works on spells being cast, so magic items that cast spell do have a manifestation, but others do not, nor do special abilities that are not spells.
Identifying spells requires you to be trained in spellcraft. That means kind of answers the question of higher-level spells having a stronger manifestation. Since someone without spell craft cannot determine the power level of the spell logic says that higher level spells do not have stronger manifestations.
So, while some of your objections are valid many of them are in fact covered in the rules. Someone without spell craft notices the manifestation, but in order to use it to identify the spell you have to be trained in spellcraft. This is no different than using perception to notice a person and knowledge (local or noble) to recognize who they are.
|
|
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors
@Senko many of your objections are actually covered in the rule. It takes the same penalties as perceptions, so things like distance, cover and other modifiers function like perception. Identifying a spell only works on spells being cast, so magic items that cast spell do have a manifestation, but others do not, nor do special abilities that are not spells.
Identifying spells requires you to be trained in spellcraft. That means kind of answers the question of higher-level spells having a stronger manifestation. Since someone without spell craft cannot determine the power level of the spell logic says that higher level spells do not have stronger manifestations.
So, while some of your objections are valid many of them are in fact covered in the rules. Someone without spell craft notices the manifestation, but in order to use it to identify the spell you have to be trained in spellcraft. This is no different than using perception to notice a person and knowledge (local or noble) to recognize who they are.
Yes but the very fact a "manifestation" works under that rules is in itself a house rule. That FAQ while a dev's opinion on how things should work is an answer to a question not an actual rule as it say's itself "ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details." So while you can identify a spell via the manifestation if speak with dead makes this glyph appear in mid-air you can't identify if if the manifesation is every time Rilede casts a spell you see flakes of blood drop around them and smell the stench of corpses. That is the FAQ doesn't actually say the manifestation is spell specfiic rather than caster specific just that its obvious magic is being used. The only RAW I am aware of is in the conceal spell feat from ultimate intrigue which came out after the FAQ.
Conceal Spell
Source Ultimate Intrigue pg. 80
You can hide the evidence of spells you cast.
Prerequisites: Deceitful, Bluff 1 rank, Disguise 1 rank, Sleight of Hand 1 rank.
Benefit: When you cast a spell or use a spell-like ability, you can attempt to conceal verbal and somatic components among other speech and gestures, and to conceal the manifestation of casting the spell, so others don’t realize you’re casting a spell or using a spell-like ability until it is too late. The attempt to hide the spell slows your casting slightly, such that spells that normally take a standard action to cast now take a full-round action, and spells that normally take longer than a standard action take twice as long. (Swift action spells still take a swift action.) To discover your ruse, a creature must succeed at a Perception, Sense Motive, or Spellcraft check (the creature receives an automatic check with whichever of those skills has the highest bonus) against a DC equal to 15 + your number of ranks in Bluff or Disguise (whichever is higher) + your Charisma modifier; the creature gains a bonus on its check equal to the level of the spell or spelllike ability you are concealing.
If your spell has a somatic component, any creature that can see you receives a Perception or Spellcraft check (whichever has the highest bonus) against a DC equal to 15 + your number of ranks in Sleight of Hand + your Dexterity modifier; the creature gains a bonus on its check equal to the level of the spell or spell-like ability you are concealing. 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. If an opponent fails its check, your casting also does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and an opponent that fails its check can’t use readied actions that depend on realizing that you’re casting a spell or using a spell-like ability, or readied actions such as counterspelling that require identifying the spell you’re casting. Spells such as fireball that create an additional obvious effect (aside from the manifestation of casting that all spells and spell-like abilities share) still create that effect, though it might not be obvious who cast the spell unless it emanates from you.
If a character interacts with you long enough to attempt a Sense Motive check without realizing you have been casting spells, that character can use Sense Motive to gain a hunch that you’re behaving unusually.
This is quite literally the ONLY rule as written we have on manifestations I have been able to find. This one allows perception, sense motive or spellcraft whichever is highest vs bluff or diguise + charisma (shame if your not a charisma based caster). They also do get bonuses for higher level spells. Which would run counter to what both you and Awesomenessdog just assumed which was that they don't have stronger manifestations for higher level spells.
However it states since the manifestation is concealed they're realizing your actions through OTHER things such as speaking or body langauge. So the problem here is this our only RAW states the manifestation is hidden with this feat so all the information in it applies to other things. Yes we can if you want to use manifestations infer from this information but again its just house rules and as I hope I have demonstrated the problem with that because if someone is playing in your or awesomnessdog's game higher level manifestations are not more noticeable but in someone elses game they might be.
Meanwhile someone just using the core rulebook will have no reason to even think manifestations are a thing because they are never once even referenced in the players guide, DM's guide or monster manual. Even in ultimate intrigue that feat is the only real guidance on manifestations as the term "manifestation" itself is used in different ways and to refer to the physical manifestation of a spell like the glowing orb of a fireball or the physical manifestation of someone's guilt elsewhere in the book.
Still no sources on thoseopinionshouse rules.
Claim: It's a spellcraft check that has the same modifiers as a perception check.
Source: The rule I quoted at the top of the comment.Claim: Higher level spells do not have more noticeable manifestations.
Source: The spellcraft check isn't easier, there's no listed perception check modifiers that could be applied, there's no rule that says they do or what difference this would make, so saying that they do would be a house rule.
Claim: Spellcraft is used to identify spells from the manifestations.
Source: The FAQ. Q: "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?" A: "many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations"
Claim: Quingong monks use Spell-Like Abilities which have manifestations.
Source: The above FAQ and the Quingong monk rules.
Claim: Manifestations cannot just be a creeping sense of the unnatural.
Source: The spellcraft rule that says you have to see a spell being cast to be able to identify it.
Etc.
|
|
Still no sources on thoseopinionshouse rules.Claim: It's a spellcraft check that has the same modifiers as a perception check.
Source: The rule I quoted at the top of the comment.Claim: Higher level spells do not have more noticeable manifestations.
Source: The spellcraft check isn't easier, there's no listed perception check modifiers that could be applied, there's no rule that says they do or what difference this would make, so saying that they do would be a house rule.Claim: Spellcraft is used to identify spells from the manifestations.
Source: The FAQ. Q: "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?" A: "many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations"Claim: Quingong monks use Spell-Like Abilities which have manifestations.
Source: The above FAQ and the Quingong monk rules.Claim: Manifestations cannot just be a creeping sense of the unnatural.
Source: The spellcraft rule that says you have to see a spell being cast to be able to identify it.Etc.
Claim: It's a spellcraft check that has the same modifiers as a perception check.
Counterclaim: That's to IDENTIFY a specific spell being cast. Manifestations are to merely be aware of magic being used and per the feat I posted you can somehow using sense motive against someone with still, silent, eschew materials AND conceal spell (four feats) know they're using magic.Claim: Higher level spells do not have more noticeable manifestations
Counterclaim: The conceal spell feat specifically to hide manifesations states "the creature gains a bonus on its check equal to the level of the spell or spelllike ability you are concealing." therefore higher level spells are with their manifestation RAI more noticeable than lower level ones.
Claim: Quingong monks use Spell-Like Abilities which have manifestations.
Counterclaim: The monk is casting the spell using UMD skill to cast from a scroll hidden as part of a prayer book. There are no manifestations to tell you he just cast dominate on the king.
Claim: Manifestations cannot just be a creeping sense of the unnatural.
Counterclaim: You can somehow know the person eating dinner using still, silent, eschew materials and conceal spell is casting a spell from your perception/sense motive/spellcraft check rather than chewing on a bit of gristle but don't know their casting a spell when using somatic, verbal and material components because they stepped behind the bigger half orc barbarian. Why is it easier per the rules to identify magic use in a person sitting quietly eating a meal than one who is speaking loudly and and throwing bits of diamond dust out from behind the person in front of them. What if they're standing behind a large desk and you can see their legs but not their upper body?
I get it you like these rules but for many of us they cause a lot of probelms, don't fix an actual issue since there are other better ways to control out of control player casting and are so badly written you can have a dozen variations in how their interpreted in 2 tables. Here's just a couple of interpretations from a thread on these very forums. . .
Bitter lilly
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.
This to me is the core of the ruling. So it's enough if there's something that says "magic is on the move" without actually giving away what it is, or exactly where the caster is, for that matter. (I'm taking the position that you only get to pinpoint an invisible caster's five-foot square if you're adjacent, the same as with a melee attack. Bystanders farther away will know that "there's some magicker in this room," but that's it.)
the sideromancer
p.s. nowhere in the CRB are there pictures of illusions being cast. almost all spells that got drawn were evocation. I just checked.
Edit: I was going to be the first response, but then i decided to check every page in the CRB for pictures of illusions
lemeres
Short answer- magic glows. Even if you eliminate the verbal and somatic components, anyone can tell you cast a spell. Because there is a big glow going about.
Now, whether you cast an illusion, or a summoning, is all about spellcraft checks. Without spellcraft, they do not necessarily have a reason to believe there isn't suddenly a giant dragon in front of them (and in fact, I would use bluff when I actually summon to convince them it is an illusion...)
Spellcraft often goes off of verbal or somatic components, but it works without those. So maybe there are characteristic colors and shapes for schools and specific spells.
cdkc in response to lemeres
i wouldn't say that all magic glows. since there is no set rules for this it seems up to the gms how spells manifest but i would rule the manifestations of spell casting are very subtle (except the actual spell as a fireball seems pretty obvious) hence the spell craft check to identify it. if you are someone who doesn't study magic you wouldn't exactly know what to look for to tell if it was magic. if you could, spells like charm person, and illusions would be pointless as everyone would know it originated from the caster.
lemeres in response to cdkc
Glowing, whispers in the wind, smell of fire and brim stone, whatever.
General point- it isn't subtle. I just go more with glowing since it is nice, simple, and easy to write off mentally for most people.
And as I said- without spellcraft, how do you tell illusions apart from conjurations spells taht actually summon a physical object?
That, and the idea that you sent out the spell before they were looking. That should also mess with identification.
For charm spells... that mostly works because you cast the spell, and the spell makes them believe you when you said 'oh, you seemed a bit pale, I cast a minor healing spell on you', because they always take your actions in the most positive light. That also works to make them write off the fact that you are now their best friend despite just meeting you, since they think 'well ain't he just a swell guy for doing that for me!'
Shroudedinlight
So I think it is important to break this down through the use of existing feats and concepts of magic that are established.
From the wording of Concealed caster "When you cast a spell or use a spell-like ability, you can attempt to conceal verbal and somatic components among other speech and gestures, and to conceal the manifestation of casting the spell, so others don't realize you're casting a spell...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."
This suggests that manifestation can be concealed. However, this feat notes that even on a successful check the magical manifestation occurs upon the completion of the spell. This allows for spellcraft checks even against concealed spells, however, for the feat to work it does suggest that the manifestation does not center around your character. After all, you are not concealing your spell very well if the manifestation identifies you as the caster.
Now, my belief is that without LoS you cannot identify a spell purely off magical manifestation. Concealed Spell suggests that you can identify the action of concealing a spell with a perception or a spellcraft check. However, the perception/spellcraft check will not work if you are not capable of sensing the caster. Invisibility or total cover will block line of sight, usually, but even so if the spell has verbal components it could still be identified. However If a spell is cast that has no verbal components, and you cannot see the caster, you should not be able to identify the spell off anything except the result.
So if Mage A is behind a brick wall and casts a silent spell, none of my players get a spellcraft check to identify the spell before it is cast only after the effect takes place. After all, otherwise Arcane Trickster's kind of suck otherwise.
That is how I suggest these work based off the Ultimate Intrigue feat.
plausiblepseudonym
Disagree. I've suggested black, tattoo-like runes appearing on your skin as a potential manifestation that would not give away invisible casters but meets the FAQs requirement to give away social casting. That sort of manifestation you could easily justify hiding with one of the concealment feats.
"Casting a spell? No, my good friend, I'm just scratching an itch on my forehead. You thought you saw a magical rune there? Shadow or perhaps dirt I wiped away. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to talk to my good friend here. Uh, friend, what was your name again?"
slyme
The whole manifestations thing seems like a crock to me. It goes against nearly everything I have seen in my 35+ years of gaming and reading fantasy fiction.
I intend to fully ignore the FAQ, and will likely not play with a DM who chooses to use it to penalize casters.
and on and on. If manifestations were part of the intent there should have been rules in the core book there aren't. Its a FAQ introduced at a very late stage that's ill thought out and left very much up to individual interpretation. Your interpretation isn't wrong but it isn't any more right than anyone elses reading of that FAQ and the sole feat that exists for it. Manifestations are just going to cause issues because its apparently a core mechanic that requires you ask every single GM you play with if they use it and if so how they use it.
|
|
really... it is the rules forum.
Personally you should take the discussion over exactly what Manifestations are and what you think the Rules to Spellcraft should be over to the General Discussion forum.
Once you come up with something sensible I'd post it in the Homebrew forum.
True and I'll drop it here since I'm not trying to argue for any particular interpretation just got caught up trying to make it clear that contrary to what Asomenessdog is saying manifestations are not RAW, they're barely even RAI. What is RAW is that if you cast a spell there is a spellcraft check to identify it and that check is blocked if your vision is. Anything beyond that is house rules up to the GM. Rule wise you can't identify a spell while blinded because per my original post while they may have a somatic component what that is can differ caster to caster and isn't actually required see silent spell.