Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sunblast 05-01-07, 10:29 AM	Detect Evil (Sp): At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. When you have a character that can use an ability "as the spell," what exactly does that mean? Does it mean you must provide the verbal and somatic components just as if you were casting the spell? Could you even use a spellcraft check to identify it as detect evil? This has come up because we have two paladins in our group and we're wondering if an observer can tell when a paladin is activating his detect evil ability.
Seeker95 05-01-07, 11:56 AM	When you have a character that can use an ability "as the spell," what exactly does that mean?It means that, unless otherwise stated or changed via other rules (especially those governing spell-like abilities), the ability functions mechanically as the spell -- duration, range, effects, etc. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component. A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. The last line (that it cannot be counterspelled) would seem to imply that you cannot tell it is being used. No component, no countering. However, it does trigger an Attack of Opportunity. So there is something that can be noticed. Until seeing a published rule to the contrary, I would house rule that a spellcraft check at -5 to the roll (or +5 to the DC) would allow you to identify what is being activated *as it is happening*. The normal checks for identifying an effect (20 + spell level) already in place apply.
Vegepygmy 05-01-07, 12:23 PM	However, it does trigger an Attack of Opportunity. So there is something that can be noticed.All that means is that using a spell-like ability distracts the user from concentrating on his own defense. The attacker notices that the user has let down his guard; it doesn't necessarily follow that he has any idea why. I would not allow someone to use Spellcraft to identify a spell-like ability as it is being activated, since the skill specifies that you must be able to see or hear the spell's verbal or somatic components (which spell-like abilities don't have).
Kouk 05-01-07, 12:42 PM	You could house-rule that the Paladin's eyes glow or something, so NPCs would know something was happening. If an NPC suddenly jumps out of the way when a Paladin starts using Detect Evil, then most likely he is an evil NPC right?
Seeker95 05-01-07, 01:00 PM	it doesn't necessarily follow that he has any idea why.While it does not necessarily follow, it does possibly follow. And possibly follow is sufficient to make a house rule in the absence of an explicit published rule on the matter.I would not allow someone to use Spellcraft to identify a spell-like ability as it is being activated, since the skill specifies that you must be able to see or hear the spell's verbal or somatic components (which spell-like abilities don't have).Since they don't have components, I upped the DC requirement. Your house rule is perfectly legitimate. It is a house rule only because the RAW is silent on this. You have perfectly good reasons for ruling as you choose. But you present your house rule and objection as if my house rule is wrong. It is not wrong. It is simply different from how you choose to rule.
Someone 05-01-07, 01:14 PM	In this case, "as the spell" means the ability to detect evil is already covered by a spell (named detect evil), so no new mechanics have to be made up. So yeah, you have to stand there for 3 rounds to pinpoint.
Vegepygmy 05-01-07, 02:46 PM	While it does not necessarily follow, it does possibly follow. And possibly follow is sufficient to make a house rule in the absence of an explicit published rule on the matter.I agree that it could follow (that's why I wrote "doesn't necessarily follow"), and that you are well within your rights to rule that way if you like. Your house rule is perfectly legitimate.I'm not proposing any house rules. I'm offering my interpretation of the RAW. If I said, "The RAW say one thing, but I prefer to do it another way," that would be a house rule. It is a house rule only because the RAW is silent on this.The RAW are not silent on the issue of making a Spellcraft check to identify a spell as it is being cast. The RAW speak to that issue, and state that there must be a verbal or somatic component that you can see or hear; the RAW do not state, suggest, imply, or even hint that in the absence of such a component you can still make the check, only at a higher DC. (There were some rules to that effect proposed in 3.0's Tome and Blood, but the fact that those rules didn't make it into the 3.5 revision suggests they have been officially rejected.) The RAW state that you cannot sunder armor worn by someone else. It would be misleading (at best) to claim that they are "silent" as to whether you can sunder someone's armor if you take a -1 on your attack roll to do so. You have perfectly good reasons for ruling as you choose. But you present your house rule and objection as if my house rule is wrong. It is not wrong. It is simply different from how you choose to rule.Whoa, whoa...calm down! Nowhere did I say (or even imply) that your house rule is "wrong." I said I would not rule the way you would, and I gave my reasons why. Nothing more.
ArcTan 05-01-07, 03:23 PM	The last line (that it cannot be counterspelled) would seem to imply that you cannot tell it is being used. No component, no countering. However, it does trigger an Attack of Opportunity. So there is something that can be noticed. AoOs happen whenever someone stops concentrating on defending themselves and provide an opening for an attack. They have nothing to do with being able to notice *what* it is they're doing, just with the fact that they're no longer paying attention to you. The Spellcraft skill *explicitly says* that you must see a spell's verbal or somatic components in order to be able to make a check. If someone casts a Stilled Silent Spell, no Spellcraft check is possible -- just as if a psionic character succeeds on her Psicraft check to manifest without a display, no opposed Psicraft check is possible. This is, in fact, one of the only real advantages you get for having both Silent Spell as a metamagic feat (Still Spell can sometimes be useful if grappled or tied up, I suppose) and allowing Spellcraft to somehow observe a purely mental action seems to me like an unnecessary nerf. Until seeing a published rule to the contrary, I would house rule that a spellcraft check at -5 to the roll (or +5 to the DC) would allow you to identify what is being activated *as it is happening*. The published rule to the contrary is the Spellcraft skill description, which specifically says what you can do with Spellcraft -- unless a rule exists saying you *can* do something with a skill, the assumptioni should be that you can't. SLAs, Stilled Silent spells (or Stilled spells without verbal components, etc.), psionic powers manifested without display, and so on are all unobservable by Spellcraft and, in the case of Stilled Silent spells, can't be directly counterspelled (i.e. you have to use dispel magic).
ArcTan 05-01-07, 03:28 PM	While it does not necessarily follow, it does possibly follow. And possibly follow is sufficient to make a house rule in the absence of an explicit published rule on the matter.Since they don't have components, I upped the DC requirement. Your house rule is perfectly legitimate. It is a house rule only because the RAW is silent on this. You have perfectly good reasons for ruling as you choose. But you present your house rule and objection as if my house rule is wrong. It is not wrong. It is simply different from how you choose to rule. It's not "silent", Seeker. The skill says you have to be able to see the verbal or somatic components. If you can't, you can't use the skill. It's no more "silent" than the rules are silent when they don't provide rules for using Intimidate to make someone frightened as opposed to shaken on a really high check (because you can't) or to use Tumble to aid in a Disarm check (because you can't) or whatever. All of these are reasonable houserules in that you can make consistent claims for how they would work and that they don't necessarily break the game if you come up with a system for how they would work. They're still houserules, though, and they do subtly change the power balance of taking ranks in various skills. Right now, the RAW is that you *can't* use Spellcraft to identify SLAs, because the description of the Spellcraft skill specifically says you have to be able to see components and SLAs don't have components. If the RAW doesn't say you can do something, it means you can't -- this is the most basic assumption of a ruleset like D&D, since otherwise the rules would have to be thousands of pages long to account for all the things you might try to do that weren't intended to be possible.
ArcTan 05-01-07, 03:29 PM	You could house-rule that the Paladin's eyes glow or something, so NPCs would know something was happening. If an NPC suddenly jumps out of the way when a Paladin starts using Detect Evil, then most likely he is an evil NPC right? You could. I prefer not to. For Paladins' detect evil to be at all useful in most ordinary situations it needs to be something they can do stealthily.
Seeker95 05-01-07, 03:55 PM	The RAW are not silent on the issue of making a Spellcraft check to identify a spell as it is being cast.Right. But they are silent on the issue of making a Spellcraft check to identify a spell-like ability as it is being used. Any ruling, including the ruling to not allow it, is a houserule. However, it is a houserule that does not contradict RAW, as there is no RAW to contradict.
Seeker95 05-01-07, 04:05 PM	AoOs [...] have nothing to do with being able to notice *what* it is they're doing, just with the fact that they're no longer paying attention to you.To take an attack of opportunity, you must recognize your opportunity. As such, they have quite a bit to do with being able to notice what they are doing. How much AoOs have to do with it is debatable (but not requiring debate). The Spellcraft skill *explicitly says* that you must see a spell's verbal or somatic components in order to be able to make a check.Yep. They sure do. But we're talking about a spell-like ability. And the rules are silent on this. We may infer quite a bit from other rules. But we are presented with no rules explicitly on the subject at hand. If someone casts a Stilled Silent Spell, no Spellcraft check is possible -- just as if a psionic character succeeds on her Psicraft check to manifest without a display, no opposed Psicraft check is possible.Yes. That's right. But we're talking about a spell-like ability. And the rules are silent on this. We may infer quite a bit from other rules. But we are presented with no rules explicitly on the subject at hand. This is, in fact, one of the only real advantages you get for having both Silent [and Still] Spell as a metamagic featTrue. It among the other only real advantages are casting while grappled, casting while in a zone of silence and casting while grappled in a zone of silence. How frequently any of these conditions come up varies from campaign to campaign. The published rule to the contrary is the Spellcraft skill description, which specifically says what you can do with Spellcraft -- unless a rule exists saying you *can* do something with a skill, the assumption should be that you can't.I disagree with this. The rules are far from comprehensive in many areas, including skill use. In such circumstances, the DM must adjudicate. Any two DMs may come to radically different adjudications, and such rulings may fit perfectly within their individual campaigns, yet fit not at all in the other. in the case of Stilled Silent spells, can't be directly counterspelled (i.e. you have to use dispel magic).Yet if they are completely unobservable, how would you know to counter with dispel magic in the first place? You have identified one of those areas in which the rules do not fully cover the circumstance.
Seeker95 05-01-07, 04:08 PM	Right now, the RAW is that you *can't* use Spellcraft to identify SLAs, because the description of the Spellcraft skill specifically says you have to be able to see components and SLAs don't have components.You rule with confidence. I suspect your players like that. But your ruling is a houserule. It is a perfectly reasonable houserule. It is derived from existing rules on other subjects. Related subjects, but still other. With no rule that explicitly states that Spell-like Abilities cannot be identified with Spellcraft, the rules remain silent. In the absence of an explicit rule, *any* ruling is a houserule.
jaelis 05-01-07, 04:33 PM	I don't know Seeker, if you carry your logic a bit further, then you would say it is a houserule to not allow a wizard to, say, use a spellcraft check to recover a spent spell slot. Or not not allow a fighter to use a jump check to fly. In some sense that's true enough... the books are silent, so any rule is a houserule. But I think typical use of the word is a little more restricted than that.
allenchan 05-01-07, 04:35 PM	You rule with confidence. I suspect your players like that. But your ruling is a houserule. It is a perfectly reasonable houserule. It is derived from existing rules on other subjects. Related subjects, but still other. With no rule that explicitly states that Spell-like Abilities cannot be identified with Spellcraft, the rules remain silent. In the absence of an explicit rule, *any* ruling is a houserule. What? ... No, that makes no sense. The rules dont say you cant shoot lasers out of your eyes and have plutonium-infused blood. But you dont. Saying you dont is not a house rule. Why? Because D&D rules are inclusive. You can do only what is spelled out (thats why jokes about not needing to sleep and being able to act while dead are so common). You are suggesting they are exclusive (you can do everything except these limitations), which is incorrect.
KurenaiYami 05-01-07, 04:41 PM	I agree wtih allenchan. If there is no rule saying you can do something, then you can't (aside from houserules). It's pretty dangerous to assume that if it doesn't say that you can't, then you can. Then you could basically do anything, you'd just have to word your argument in such a way that the current rules don't explicitly say you can't do something.
Seeker95 05-01-07, 04:57 PM	I agree wtih allenchan. If there is no rule saying you can do something, then you can't (aside from houserules).So, you can't pee in a dungeon. No rule says you can. Peeing in a dungeon must require a houserule. It's pretty dangerous to assume that if it doesn't say that you can't, then you can. Then you could basically do anything,No. You could do anything your DM adjudicates as allowable. Which is why I said it is a houserule no matter how you rule on any issue that is not explicitly stated in the rules. It is the DM's job to do so. And while things like peeing in a dungeon are pretty straight-forward (most DMs should allow it), some things the rules are silent on have a degree of subjectivity.
Thiez 05-01-07, 05:00 PM	So, you can't pee in a dungeon. Off course you can't. Imagine the smell :eek:
Vegepygmy 05-01-07, 05:42 PM	The rules are neither completely inclusive nor completely exclusive. That's why you need a DM, to apply a certain measure of well-reasoned judgment. That having been said, I think Seeker's ruling is less well-reasoned than my own (and I suspect from the responses posted here that the majority agrees with me).
KurenaiYami 05-02-07, 01:22 AM	So, you can't pee in a dungeon. No rule says you can. Peeing in a dungeon must require a houserule. Right. Though that's more of a description than a house rule, as it doesn't have any mechanics. If you make it so that there are actual mechanics to peeing, then yes, it would require a house rule. The rules are silent on it, and none of my players have ever peed in a dungeon. This does not make it a house rule. No. You could do anything your DM adjudicates as allowable. Which is why I said it is a houserule no matter how you rule on any issue that is not explicitly stated in the rules. It is the DM's job to do so. And while things like peeing in a dungeon are pretty straight-forward (most DMs should allow it), some things the rules are silent on have a degree of subjectivity. This only works with rules. The hard mechanics. The fluff is a separate issue.
allenchan 05-02-07, 02:14 AM	So, you can't pee in a dungeon. No rule says you can. Peeing in a dungeon must require a houserule. Fluff. Flavor text. Unless there is a mechanical benefit/penalty ("You take a -2 to dex since you have to pee badly"), then it has no effect on rules. And if there was a mechanical effect, then yes, it would be a house rule.
ArcTan 05-02-07, 04:28 AM	To take an attack of opportunity, you must recognize your opportunity. As such, they have quite a bit to do with being able to notice what they are doing. How much AoOs have to do with it is debatable (but not requiring debate). You notice that the guy has dropped his defenses and is just standing there looking weird. This is enough to infer that he may be casting a spell. This doesn't give you *any* information as to what spell he's casting, because movements or sounds that are linked to what spell you're casting are called components, and SLAs don't have those. Yep. They sure do. But we're talking about a spell-like ability. And the rules are silent on this. We may infer quite a bit from other rules. But we are presented with no rules explicitly on the subject at hand. Nonsense. The rules say Spellcraft lets you identify a spell based on components. The rules say SLAs are just like spells except they have no components. It's not that hard to connect the dots. True. It among the other only real advantages are casting while grappled, casting while in a zone of silence and casting while grappled in a zone of silence. How frequently any of these conditions come up varies from campaign to campaign. In any case, it has no bearing on the fact that you can't use Spellcraft on something without components. I disagree with this. The rules are far from comprehensive in many areas, including skill use. In such circumstances, the DM must adjudicate. Any two DMs may come to radically different adjudications, and such rulings may fit perfectly within their individual campaigns, yet fit not at all in the other. DMs can *houserule* whatever they like, but they have to be aware when their houserules change the assumed balance in RAW. The main thing here is that if the rules don't tell you you can do something, houseruling so that you *can* do it changes the balance of the game. The rules make it pretty clear that they don't expect you to be able to Spellcraft SLAs. If you could, then you could Psicraft powers manifested without display (which it explicitly says you can't) and you could Spellcraft Stilled Silent spells (which it explicitly says you can't). Yet if they are completely unobservable, how would you know to counter with dispel magic in the first place? You have identified one of those areas in which the rules do not fully cover the circumstance. You know he's doing something that provokes an AoO -- i.e. dropping his defenses -- and so you try to counterspell. It doesn't mean you actually know for sure that he *is* casting a spell -- he could, in fact, be using an SLA or manifesting a psionic power, in which case your counterspell attempt is wasted.
ArcTan 05-02-07, 04:30 AM	So, you can't pee in a dungeon. No rule says you can. Peeing in a dungeon must require a houserule. Creating a rule to cover peeing and to cover the negative medical effects of not peeing absolutely is a houserule. *Saying* "I pee in the corner" doesn't mean anything ruleswise and therefore never touches the rules. Whatever way you *describe* watching someone cast an SLA is fine as long as it's consonant with the rules. No. You could do anything your DM adjudicates as allowable. Which is why I said it is a houserule no matter how you rule on any issue that is not explicitly stated in the rules. It is the DM's job to do so. And while things like peeing in a dungeon are pretty straight-forward (most DMs should allow it), some things the rules are silent on have a degree of subjectivity. It's a houserule to say that you can't make a Spellcraft check to regain a lost prepared spell? Or that you can't make a Concentration check to turn into a 200-foot-tall Megazord and fly?
ArcTan 05-02-07, 04:32 AM	With no rule that explicitly states that Spell-like Abilities cannot be identified with Spellcraft, the rules remain silent. In the absence of an explicit rule, *any* ruling is a houserule. When it comes to *using skills*, Seeker, the rules are supposed to clearly define what you can do with skills. If not, then the potential uses for skills are unbounded (the word "Bluff" can mean all kinds of ridiculous things, as does the word "Concentration"). In this case, there are very, very strong implications of saying that you can do X if Y, namely that you *can't* do X if not Y. What would be the point of saying that Spellcraft checks can be used on spells with verbal or somatic components you can observe if Spellcraft can *also* be used on spells without verbal or somatic components you can observe? And yes, SLAs are basically spells without verbal or somatic components. I.e. nothing to observe.
Seeker95 05-02-07, 08:44 AM	The rules say SLAs are just like spells except they have no components. It's not that hard to connect the dots.That's my point. You have to connect the dots. That you may connect the dots differently than someone else further attests to the nature of the ruling. It is a houserule. DMs can *houserule* whatever they like, but they have to be aware when their houserules change the assumed balance in RAW. Again, that's my point. If you must assume the balance in the RAW (because you must also assume the RAW), it is a houserule. RAW spells it out. Houserules either change the RAW (remember, the AW = As Written) or they adjudicate in the absence of RAW. In the case of Spellcraft and Spell-like Abilities, the rules are silent. There are rules you may refer to in supporting a houserule, by, as you put it, "connect the dots". Such a ruling is still a houserule. The rules make it pretty clear that they don't expect you to be able to Spellcraft SLAs. If you could, then you could Psicraft powers manifested without display (which it explicitly says you can't) and you could Spellcraft Stilled Silent spells (which it explicitly says you can't).Again you've made my point for me! The rules explicitly say you can't for both of these circumstances. They rules say nothing about a spell-like ability. No "explicitly" about it. To rule as you have requires inference. Inference is a houserule.
jaelis 05-02-07, 10:08 AM	Inference is a houserule. Your logic is not assailable, given your definition of a houserule. But your definition doesn't quite match that used by most of the community here. As part of that community, you have some obligation to use the common definitions if you expect to be understood.
Seeker95 05-02-07, 11:27 AM	As part of that community, you have some obligation to use the common definitions if you expect to be understood.There are multiple common definitions, all used and shared on these Boards, sometimes in a haphazard fashion, sometimes interchangeably, and sometimes explicitly. I have on many occasions laid out three definitions and uses of the term houserule. I also explicitly share the specific definition I am using in any given thread in which I am using the term. A houserule is any adjudication that can be known only in the game in which it is used. Your cannot "know" such a rule from the text, and may find two very contradictory rulings on the same subject in two different games. There are three types. 1. Deviation/Contradiction from RAW. This houserule explicitly changes an existing published rule. (Granting eschew materials as a bonus feat to sorcerers is an example of this.) 2. Clarification of RAW. This houserule offers an interpretation of RAW that does not contradict it. (Shapechange balor sword mining requires such a houserule, whether you rule it can be done or cannot.) 3. Adjudication in the Absence of RAW. This type covers any ruling that is not covered in the published rules. The interaction between spellcraft and spell-like abilities falls into this category. As does mid-air collisions in aerial combat, casting spells with verbal components under water, and how long a character can go without sleep. Logic, common sense, and derivations of other rules can all contribute to this type of rule. Your logic is not assailable, given your definition of a houserule.Such is the reason for presenting the definition in the first place. Because others find the vehemence with which they deliver their objections nullified by the definition I am using, they often refuse to acknowledge that I am using such a definition, no matter how clearly I state it. Being "right" (equally couched in insistences that others are "wrong") often seems to be more important to such people than operating within the framework of the discussion established by such an explicit presentation of the definition. Rather than say "I disagree with your houserule, here is mine" they insist they are "right" and that their houserule is RAW. For some inexplicable reason, they appear to fear acknowledging that they are indeed adjudication on a matter outside the rules -- making a houserule.
ArcTan 05-02-07, 11:32 AM	*shrug* Whatever, I don't really care at this point. It still seems funny to me that you're actually making it easier to identify something that doesn't involve casting a spell at all than to identify a spell that's had a couple of feats slapped onto it. There's also no rule that says you can't use Spellcraft to identify a potion when an enemy drinks it -- are you going to rule that as a +5 DC or something?
ArcTan 05-02-07, 11:34 AM	Rather than say "I disagree with your houserule, here is mine" they insist they are "right" and that their houserule is RAW. For some inexplicable reason, they appear to fear acknowledging that they are indeed adjudication on a matter outside the rules -- making a houserule. It's not "inexplicable" that people get upset when someone bullheadedly refuses to accept something relatively obvious. It's actually pretty common and predictable.