|
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.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.*sigh* (I'll agree with your first 16 words...)
Spellcasting Manifestations ARE RAW. What they look like is totally left to the GM etc and that's RAW too.RAW intentionally doesn't address specifics like what words are used as somatic components or what gestures are used for somatic components. Every caster having their own set of verbal and somatic components is not a close to RAW or a simple reading of RAW IMO. Assuming the components change with the caster would be contrary to an INT based skill that identifies spells using sight and would sensibly use some kind of standardized components (like the material components). It also runs contrary to the existing material component and foci descriptions which are standardized. There are feats to make identifying a spell more difficult and/or to add thematic/stylistic visuals to spell effects. I think it's well within the GMs prerogative to adjust that.
There is no such thing as a definable RAI, the designers/writers read existing OGL RAW, wrote & cribbed, edited, got published & printed, then issued some errata...
Could we take this somewhere else as there's quite bit here I do want to respond too, I'm just not going to do so in this thread.
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[sic] is saying manifestations are not RAW, they're barely even RAI.
I will just add that FAQs are technically valid changes/updates/etc. to RAW, but f- the police, bad RAW deserves to be culled. That is my official stance, alongside the fact that the RAW is so bad and indecisively uninterpretable that discussions like this (read: the original discussion, not what this devolved into) even have to happen in the first place.
... bad RAW deserves to be culled...that's a valid stance for your Home Game and part of the beauty and innovation of running it your way. But, yeah, Rules forum...
why not just take my advice?
I gave the RAW, pointing out how it is lacking for a even basic complete rule that is internally consistent, and then gave my suggestion, how is that not what your advise implies?
I was even pointing out where someone said I wasn't quoting RAW (in previous posts), that FAQ's are in fact RAW rules sources/changes.
The problem is the spell manifestation argument is in no way a new issue unlike someone encountering a weird rules interaction for the first time, even if people still encounter spell manifestation's problems for the first time. The consensus pretty much is "yeah it's an incomplete and thus difficult to interpret rule" no matter what side you are on, which many people have tried to explain to the OP who was very insistent these questions they posted have clear and universal answers (despite the fact they were in the rules forum asking the question?)
Also, people are allowed to give their opinion if they think a rule is bad in a rules forum. How else are faulty rules to be corrected? Maybe that is a moot point in a game that devs have abandoned, but having opinions about alternatives to problematic rules in the same place as questions about those rules is incredibly valuable to people who may want another options when encountering a problem. The "no houserule" rule of this space is not to stop people from theorizing about the rules but to separate totally new inventions of rule subsystems into a space that is not intentionally in comparison to RAW.