AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic - Spells vs Visual Effects and "Recognition"

There was a debate once (or, two, I guess) about whether or not people could see the red circle that identifies an Aura of Despair of a BlackGuard and then outright identify a PC as an evil bastard to be smitten.

I don't remember the ruling of the staff, but I do think that if people cannot see the aura, they will feel its effects when stepping on it.

My question is about other spells and their visual effects. The list goes on, but I will cite some of those with obvious visible effects:

- Freedom of Movement
- Elemental Protection/Energy Buffer
- Premonition
- True Seeing
- Shield
- Shadow Shield
- Improved Invisibility

Right, now on to the matter at hand.

Improved Invisibility is only visible when you have True Seeing or when the PC attacks and get half concealed. That one you can see it's an Improved Invisibility Spell.

Now, the others on that list, and many more. When you as a player can see, it's a technicality. However, any kind of PC would be able to see and identify those spells?

Would they, for instance, see the green disc under a PC's foot and say he is wearing a Freedom of Movement spell?

When I am playing as a Sorcerer, I emote "feeling" the tingling of spells on the Weave, but I never say anything that hints I can see that PC is wearing Spells X, Y, and Z. The most my PC says is "*whistles* The Weave is heavy around you" or "I see you are heavily warded".

Can any PCs, mages and non-mages, see the visual effect of a spell and promptly identify it?

Not sure if I worded the question correctly, but I hope you understand what I mean.

I would say: If you have the spellcraft to determine if the spell wasc cast, you can tell if the spell is up.

That said, adventurers aren't stupid and eventually seeing someone with Stoneskin up enough times is gonna go "duh, that's stoneskin" and etc.

TormakSaber wrote:

I would say: If you have the spellcraft to determine if the spell wasc cast, you can tell if the spell is up.

That said, adventurers aren't stupid and eventually seeing someone with Stoneskin up enough times is gonna go "duh, that's stoneskin" and etc.

Yes, I know about stoneskin. That one is obvious to the PC as it is to the player.

Same goes for Ghostly/Ethereal Visage.

When it is being cast, I agree with you. But what about when they are not seeing them being cast?

Ron replied in game to me. I just put it up here so all the players might be on the same boat concerning this matter.

I have had the same question... its kinda wierd to see eyes appearing over someone's head and I've wondered if thats just a mechanical thing to be treated OOCly or if my character see those ridiculous eyes.

blackvswhite wrote:

I have had the same question... its kinda wierd to see eyes appearing over someone's head and I've wondered if thats just a mechanical thing to be treated OOCly or if my character see those ridiculous eyes.

There. He said it better than I did. ^^;

Which spells are IC visible and which ones are an OOC mechanical thing?

I've always RP'd that spells with obvious visual changes to the recipient of the spell are fair game. Someone is running around with a stoneskin (or ethreal visage, etc.) on them is going to be rather obvious to the knowing adventurer that there is that enchantment on them. The less obvious spells (true sight, freedom of movement, bull's str, etc.) are not nearly as obvious.

If I remember the previous discussions about this correctly, the verdict was that the vast majority of visual effects for spells were put into the game so we, the players, can tell what buffs our characters have active a little easier and that there aren't 12 people standing around Cordor, or wherever, doing their best imitation of talking christmas trees.

I suppose it just kinda comes down to common sense... and we all know how dangerous that is.

I've always treated it as WYSIWYG: if the spell has a visual effect that appears on you, everyone can see it and if they know what it is, well then they know what it is.

I think the visual effects help the player in casting as much as everyone else to see what's there. Alot of the time when I'm playing a caster, for one reason or another, spells cancel in the middle of casting a whole load of them. It's a real bitch to go back and try to pick through where you got up to in the spells. So seeing spells helps there.

But yeah, in game I generally accept people seeing everything that's running as fair. Too easy to tell what they have going, whether you're trying to or not. Once the spells are in your head, you can't help but choose -not- to cast Hold Person on someone with a green disk around their feet.

There are some spells which probably shouldn't be seen though. Things like Premonition, True Sight, Freedom, like mentioned above. It'd be great if these spells had an effect like Bull's Str or something where you see a little animation when it's cast, but not after. I'm assuming it'd be alot of work to go through and work out which spells need to keep effects and which should loose them.

All spell effects emit a slight arcane aura so it can be detected, some spells do actually not have a visual effect at all but the VFX is there to represent the spells arcane aura or divine. IIRC.

It's WYSIWYG*. No need to make it more complicated than that.

Though, I also concur Tormak's point about people recognising the spells after seeing it many times. If you aren't a mage and never saw a Freedom spell before, you don't know what it is (ICly, that is; OOCly the player would perhaps know, but that'd be metagaming, mm?). Spellcraft recognition is handier for counterspelling on the spot and RPing more complicated magical knowledge, IMO. It's the simplest method, at the least.

* What You See Is What You Get

Nekhy wrote:

It's WYSIWYG*. No need to make it more complicated than that.

Though, I also concur Tormak's point about people recognising the spells after seeing it many times. If you aren't a mage and never saw a Freedom spell before, you don't know what it is (ICly, that is; OOCly the player would perhaps know, but that'd be metagaming, mm?). Spellcraft recognition is handier for counterspelling on the spot and RPing more complicated magical knowledge, IMO. It's the simplest method, at the least.

* What You See Is What You Get

Amen, mama

I doubt auras are visible. Their boundaries are set for the player of the PC to know where their mechanical effect lies, not for any other purpose. They are an "aura", not a warding circle that follows you. I don't know about you guys, but the only time people can see an aura is when they're a hardcore Pentacostal or a New Age Hippy.

That said, you'll probably not even get a chance at a "Detect Evil" PC-spell with it up.

Without spellcraft it'd be impossible to determine the exact spell, but seeing as alot of spells share the same visual effect, I think a visual identification by someone who's seen the same spells over and over again over time and has been told what they do and such, would be able to guess on which spell it is. Like the floating eyes over your head, most would probably guess at see invis or true seeing. When Clairaudiance and clairvoyance and ultravision share it's effect too. But as the two are less common than the first two, people would probably guess the first or second in most cases, I think. Same applies for all spells with visual effects, and auras I think.
If you've fought fifty blackguards, and someone with the same malign aura walk past you, emitting it, you'd probably recognize it. Just like all people, regardless of int, eventually recognizes a GS when it's cast in combat, and start whirlwinding or AoEing close to where it was cast.

I've seen visual effects removed on other servers, to conceal what buffs are up and which buffs aren't, and some tool that, if your spellcraft gives you a complete (and if it's not high enough, incomplete or empty) list of the buffs and spells active on the target. Was done with no added lag too, as the VFX effects can be removed directly from the spells themselves.

It's like anything that's foreign and such really. You see fire, eventually you know it's fire and that it's likely to burn you if you shove your hand in it. If you see stoneskin, eventually you'll figure out that hitting someone with stoneskin hurts.

If I'm playing a magey character I'll act as though the character knows which spells are which. If not, I'll act as though the character does not know which spells are which.

It's pretty simple really. All boils down to a question of, "What does my character know about magic?" aka. "Does my character have spellcraft?"

Mind you need only 10 INT and 1 point of lore to know a PC all in black, with spikey helmet and glowing red or green sword is most likely to be evil.

Persnoally, I prefer to assume my characters don't know the effects on someone else, unless they're obviously visual. Even if I know someone in a group has True Seeing on, my invisible character won't know that until they react to him. Depending on author, literature portrays some wards like Stoneskin as either visible or invisible, but more specified protections are generally invisible; I've never read a portrayal of Protection from Elements or Freedom of Movement that was visible.

A matter of taste, really. I won't mind if your character sees that mine has Freedom on, though in some cases I may ask you to play along if the situation warrants it.

Yup. It's really never a problem for me, it always works out fine, IMO. But I don't buy into NWN being 100% WYSIWYG. For instance, I don't think there's burning skulls flying around you when you are under the effect of 'fear'.

I've seen the fear effect (the burning skulls) being RPed as the thing that's causing fear. Burning skulls of terror or doom or whatever, that torments you with visages of your innermost fears. Like in the movies!

I always enjoy seeing people react to fear as something unique to their character. It makes me happy as a DM and makes me want to crack them across the head with my DC wand. BONK!

Nekhy wrote:

It's WYSIWYG*. No need to make it more complicated than that.

Though, I also concur Tormak's point about people recognising the spells after seeing it many times. If you aren't a mage and never saw a Freedom spell before, you don't know what it is (ICly, that is; OOCly the player would perhaps know, but that'd be metagaming, mm?). Spellcraft recognition is handier for counterspelling on the spot and RPing more complicated magical knowledge, IMO. It's the simplest method, at the least.

* What You See Is What You Get

IronAngel wrote:

Persnoally, I prefer to assume my characters don't know the effects on someone else, unless they're obviously visual. Even if I know someone in a group has True Seeing on, my invisible character won't know that until they react to him. Depending on author, literature portrays some wards like Stoneskin as either visible or invisible, but more specified protections are generally invisible; I've never read a portrayal of Protection from Elements or Freedom of Movement that was visible.

A matter of taste, really. I won't mind if your character sees that mine has Freedom on, though in some cases I may ask you to play along if the situation warrants it.

Kjetta wrote:

Yup. It's really never a problem for me, it always works out fine, IMO. But I don't buy into NWN being 100% WYSIWYG. For instance, I don't think there's burning skulls flying around you when you are under the effect of 'fear'.

Well, then... since it doesn't seem 100% clear to me...

This can cause some OOC conflict, as Ron attested himself the day I asked him for a ruling about it.

How should we react?

The visual effects of spells already cast on a PC are WYSIWYG (IC, you know them), or you only know about it if you see them being cast and has enough spellcraft to identify them?

Are ~all~ visual effects IC visible (like stoneskin, concealment) or are they only OOC information to you (like the skulls floating around someone's head when under effect of a fear spell)?

Is it necessary to make a poll for this, so every player will be on the same boat when dealing with this?

I find it a bit lame having someone identifying your character by the visual effects of the spells around him/her, even though he is disguised with new clothes and back after a reasonably long time.

EDIT: Forgot to quote Tormie too. >.>

TormakSaber wrote:

I would say: If you have the spellcraft to determine if the spell wasc cast, you can tell if the spell is up.

That said, adventurers aren't stupid and eventually seeing someone with Stoneskin up enough times is gonna go "duh, that's stoneskin" and etc.

I have a somewhat related to this. Basicly is it possible for casters to add personal touches to how a spell looks?

nothing mechanical is changed. say for instance when a wizzy casts webs instead of it being spider webs it is a bunch of vines but the effect is the same. or when casting cleric spells, say dark fire as a banite, instead of just fire, it would be dark greenish orange fire.

So my question is this, is it allowed to be customizable with how spells looks, nothing mechanical though.

I suppose if it's just RP without affecting anything you could describe them yourself. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

herkles wrote:

I have a somewhat related to this. Basicly is it possible for casters to add personal touches to how a spell looks?

nothing mechanical is changed. say for instance when a wizzy casts webs instead of it being spider webs it is a bunch of vines but the effect is the same. or when casting cleric spells, say dark fire as a banite, instead of just fire, it would be dark greenish orange fire.

So my question is this, is it allowed to be customizable with how spells looks, nothing mechanical though.

This happens a lot, by default, to Divine spells, actually, and many Sorcerors and Bards end up manifesting unique touches to their spells because of how they manifest. A wizard's spells tend to look the same, because there is a precise arcane formula you follow, to produce the same result, every time, so the weave doesn't blow up in your face, or what have you.

As I said, with divine though, this is often very prevalent unless it goes against the god's dogma to do so. You won't be able to look at a Sharran castig and go "Oh, you EVIL Sharran, you!"

Unless it's a high level spell, in which case clerics invoke the name of their deity or alias there of, anyhow. In nine cases out of ten, at least.

Dahlya, why should there be an OOC ruling on this? If you want to pretend your character has eyes floating around their head, you are free to do so. If another wants to pretend the spell has no visible effects, they are free to do so. If you disagree, it's usually not a big deal. If it is a big deal, you can try to come to some kind of an agreement beforehand. I've never had issues with this, so it appears to be a matter of attitude and reaction.

It seems reasonable that the caster of not-so-obvious spells can say whether or not it's visible. Of course, it's the caster's duty to inform others politely and well in advance. This isn't a ruling, per se, it's just common sense and good manners.

Note, my ruling was situational. It's not an overarching "Always X".

Typically, the absolute best you can do is politely discuss it with any player involved if you disagree with it, or Roll with the Punches.

Either or is absolutely fantastic conduct.

WonWon wrote:

Note, my ruling was situational. It's not an overarching "Always X".

Typically, the absolute best you can do is politely discuss it with any player involved if you disagree with it, or Roll with the Punches.

Either or is absolutely fantastic conduct.

Yes. I asked a ruling because while I played along back then, I was unsure if such a thing could be done, especially if a character (not that case back then) is not a mage or divine caster.

I always understood that many spells with visual effects only have the vfx OOC, save Stoneskin. Granted, though, I read more than one FR romance where an author would describe the stony aspect of the stoneskin, while another would choose to ommit.

As to you, Iron, I made the post because of this, quoting myself on one of the posts above:

Myself wrote:

I find it a bit lame having someone recognizing/identifying your character by the visual effects of the spells around him/her, even though he is disguised with new clothes and back after a reasonably long time.

Either way, I learned my lesson and now I won't be making of this an issue. Next time I have my PC spying, I will not be using any spells at all, or at least no visible spells.

Actually, the only big problem with knowing if someone has cast a spell or not is the lack of knowing if they have the Silent Spell feat. Otherwise you can simply hear them. I'm sure hearing the words to one particulary annoying spell about 200 times will be more then enough to stitch into someones brain that the spell has been cast.

If ya don't mind me asking, where'd the aura vs. alignment circle go?

Aura vs Alignment never had a circle and Magic Circle vs Alignments was removed because it was an aura/heartbeat effect.

Jan wrote:

If ya don't mind me asking, where'd the aura vs. alignment circle go?

It's now pretty sparkles

BlackDahlya wrote:

Granted, though, I read more than one FR romance where an author would describe the stony aspect of the stoneskin, while another would choose to ommit.

ok, i wasnt going to comment on this thread but...

FR romance... Stoneskin...

is that the faerun viagra? "If you are stone for more than 6 hours, please consult your wizard. We do not reimburse dispells"

Spells vs Visual Effects and "Recognition"

Who is online