Playing a warlock ... as I see it

[Brokenbone]

There isn't actually a spellcraft roll appearing in the window, I'm told because for whatever reason, EB isn't "coded" as a spell. It's a feat. If a feat is exercised, everyone in your party will simply notice it... there are no rolls required. If it was a spell such as Magic Missile or something, different story, the game starts making rolls when relevant.

This is also in part why EBs are unaffected by ASF at present. Wear heavy armor and shields, sure, all the "normal" spells will be impacted, but EBs were I guess lazily implemented as a feat, and no exercise of any feat gets ASF penalties.

Net, I'm given to understand "all that info appearing on screen is completely unrelated to making/failing spellcraft rolls, it's appearing because the game doesn't even recognize EB as a spell or spell-like ability."

RP use though you could "#spellcraft" a bunch of times in the talk channel, and get the dicey results.

[SwordSaintMusashi]

Spellcraft tells you what the spell is and what class its from. Enough to give you a vague notion of Warlock (pact magic using caster). Knowledge Arcana can expand upon that to tell you more details, like how such pacts are made, with whom, etc. Only the Warlock themselves will actually know what their pact is with (unless its something stupidly obvious like a HELLfire Warlock).

[johnlewismcleod]

In major events, I am sure my own PC has seen EBs fired off fifty times. Siege of Tempus Tears for example, some BG folks will recognize.

Spellcraft is a "trained only" skill, much like open locks or disable device, if you haven't trained, you have 0% chance of ever hitting DC 16 Spellcraft.

Me, my PC would have got to roll 50 d20, and added his Spellcraft ranks to see "gee, did I ever manage to beat a 16"? Answer statistically would be "yeah, of course." Kind of like taking 20 in that instance.

I would disallow this as a valid ID. To use spell craft a PC would have to be concentrating on the spellcaster and make a roll.

Fighting side by side and catching a glimpse of a flash in periphery vision, then rolling a spellcraft check "as if" one was watching intently is unacceptable in my view.

Being in the area of EB's while fighting and guessing how many went off and then sequentially rolling spellcraft on them is even more unacceptable in my view.

Want to make an ID?...then do the work, please.

I know it was a tongue-in-cheek remark, BB...but just saying

BHM spelled out our general consensus on the issue quite well. The DM's and staff do want this issue resolved and have spent significant effort discussing the subject. I believe an announcement will be forth coming soon.

[danielmn]

Want the issue resolved? Release the nymphs.

[johnlewismcleod]

Oh...I love nymphs!

They're so...uhmmm...naked!


Also of even more significance than naked nymphs is that it turns out that partied PC's auto ID all spells cast by other party members. This is a bug given purposely to us by Obsidean, it turns out (something to do with NPC party members in single play).

Please disregard spell info given without actual die rolls made via our IG dice widget.

[Brokenbone]

JLM, use of Spellcraft for a variety of it's functions is a "no action required" in PnP. Not a free action, not a move action, not a full round action. Just a "no action" (which to my mind could just be read as "free action"). Kind of means you could do it multiple times in a round if relevant, say an intrepid band of adventurers vs. hostile spellcasters. You can attempt to ID what the first one cases, what the second one casts, what the third one casts... but still take your move, and take your standard action. Like say, a 5 foot step and try to bop someone on the head with your club.

"Concentration", that sounds like a lot more study than the "must see or hear" somatic or verbals of a spell as the description is written up in the SRD. Could even be blindfolded and if you hear the right syllables rhymed off, you get a Spellcraft check.

This all works fine vs. hostiles. In combat, you might see a message of "Orc Shaman casts an unknown spell!" or "Orc Shaman casts Inflict Moderate Wounds!", that's due to all the dicing going on in engine for Spellcraft.

I fully acknowledge that if the observation is "auto-ID of partymate spells", that's something that could be discarded in terms of "valid, reliable info" and if people really wished to, they could dice for knowledge after a fight. Dude fires off eleven EBs or something, I'd suggest feel free to input "#spellcraft" into the talk channel 11 times... if you were able to "see or hear" this going on, which is a far less rigorous standard than "concentrating" on something. Concentration in DnD tends to be something like "this spell only lasts as long as you concentrate (and do nothing else)" or the skill by the same name.

Again, I definitely do not have a "witch-hunter" type concept for my PC or really as a backup concept... don't care about the detection stuff personally. But hey, skill points are precious, so in cases are peoples' lawful or goodly or fey-hating or outsider-hating concepts, if they get spending and get rolling, and for whatever reasons wish to drive away the misunderstood outcasty type, play it where it lies is the general idea.

[NESchampion]

JLM, use of Spellcraft for a variety of it's functions is a "no action required" in PnP. Not a free action, not a move action, not a full round action. Just a "no action" (which to my mind could just be read as "free action"). Kind of means you could do it multiple times in a round if relevant, say an intrepid band of adventurers vs. hostile spellcasters. You can attempt to ID what the first one cases, what the second one casts, what the third one casts... but still take your move, and take your standard action. Like say, a 5 foot step and try to bop someone on the head with your club.

Technically speaking it's even less effort required than a free action:

"Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don’t take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else."

With respect to EBs and invocations they only have somatic components, not verbal, so you do have to be able to see them making the movements and gestures to have a chance at a spellcraft check to identify as it is being cast. If all you see is the blast itself, then this check probably applies more:

"20 + spell level : Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry."

This mostly only applies to an invisible or fully concealed warlock though; your buddy standing a few feet behind you is subject to a spellcraft check as a "No Action", though I believe if a warlock (or other caster) has ranks in Sleight of Hand you can attempt to hide the motions against an opposed Spot check.

[johnlewismcleod]

We'll have to agree to disagree then, BB.

In my game (both PnP and NWN) the fact that skill use is "no action" does not separate the use from the context surrounding it:

Non low light vision PC's don't get spot checks in the dark just because they have points.

A bound and gagged PC wouldn't get a diplomacy check with the orc guard nearby.

A PC swimming under water doesn't get a listen check for footfalls near the river bank while he/she is submerged.

A PC that has craft weapon, armour, etc. can't simply "poof" items out of thin air just because they have the points.

And a PC that's fighting for his or her life and has his or her focus on the enemy before him or her doesn't get spellcraft checks on allies magic use taking place in their periphery vision without actually providing some basis to validate the effort being spent on observation of said ally.

You can call it "free" or "No" action...but we can't separate skill use from context IMO.

NES wrote:

your buddy standing a few feet behind you is subject to a spellcraft check as a "No Action", though I believe if a warlock (or other caster) has ranks in Sleight of Hand you can attempt to hide the motions against an opposed Spot check.

If the PC is behind you and you are presumably looking at the enemy before both of you, why do you think you would get a spot check or spell craft check on the PC ally behind you?


P.S.: My I'm getting bold trading chops with standards luminaries such as NES and BB ...someone slap me, please

[Brokenbone]

S'okay, reasonable people can disagree... DMs vary in interpretation of rules plenty or exercise discretion to keep some level of OOC peace / fun, as required.

Per NES though, forgot EB are somatic only, so the "hearing" business in a spellcraft no-action is irrelevant. It'd be seeing. PnP, you could maybe make a credible argument about "facing" and round by round realizing who is out of sightlines. NWN2, it's all 360 degrees and everyone running around like maniacs, goodness knows who sees what, when.

Back to JLM though, I do not think silly examples of "can't craft without tools" or "can't diplo with no voice" quite hit square onto "did you see a guy... do something or not?" Worst case assuming no walls, no darkness, no barriers, you'd figure fairly low DC spot rolled after a battle, possibly several such rolls if there was a lot of moving around, could be okay. Best case it's "I saw you plain as day through the entire simple encounter", like if you had a guy stand back and watch a Warlock blast the piss out of a door or something. Which I guess might be JLM's "hey, able to really concentrate... without distraction" type of idea.

Sleight of hand I'd think in NES's example ... I haven't often seen the idea of SoH hiding somatics. Even imagine success though... gee I don't think his hands moved... except a 30 foot bolt of multicolored energy or whatever BLASTED from his "unmoving" hands into a goblin's forehead. Hah!

Again... skill points matter. Lot of classes get just a tiny amount of 'em. Long time to get more. There's a real chance of "overdoing" the benefit of the doubt, nullifying all those skill point investments to try and keep peace.

[dergon darkhelm]

This is getting into a very wonky, techy argument over "standard actions" and "facing rules" and "taking 20" ...... I love it!


Bottom line from my point of view.


You don't want someone to know the ins and out of your warlock magic.......... don't cast it publically.

Otherwise it is only a matter of (likely short) time until you're outed.

[SwordSaintMusashi]

This is getting into a very wonky, techy argument over "standard actions" and "facing rules" and "taking 20" ...... I love it!


Bottom line from my point of view.


You don't want someone to know the ins and out of your warlock magic.......... don't cast it publically.

Otherwise it is only a matter of (likely short) time until you're outed.

What everything comes down to. Thank you, Dergon. Case closed.

[t-ice]

You don't want someone to know the ins and out of your warlock magic.......... don't cast it publically.

Otherwise it is only a matter of (likely short) time until you're outed.

Certainly just staying in the closet is the only certain way.

But I'm sure it would be fun for (most) warlock players to be able to invest in abilities to help them keep secret. Opposed rolls like Sleight of Hand vs Spot, as mentioned. Would be great if we had a "Still Blast" feat, like Still Spell: No somatic components, no spellcraft check (and reduced spell power). A good RPer wouldn't have his PC beyond being conviced otherwise with diplo/bluff even if his PC did make a Spellcraft check on spell/ability, and/or saw the fireworks, which in the case of EB probably shouldn't be as over-the-top flashy as the engine gives us. The PC doesn't know he made the check and now knows X, he just thinks he figured something out.

It really comes down to giving a fair chance and making for fun and creative game for all involved. By DMs and players alike. No hardcore "finding out rules" to substitute for it. And really no way to enforce any complex ruling that might be crafted by committee. Play and trust your fellow gamers, and talk to your DM before jumping to conclusions that will severely harm other PCs. And be ready and willing for consequences if you step out of the closet - or paint yourself a target for someone who has proven to have the devil's phone number and favor. Simple as that.

[NESchampion]

You don't want someone to know the ins and out of your warlock magic.......... don't cast it publically.

Otherwise it is only a matter of (likely short) time until you're outed.

Certainly just staying in the closet is the only certain way.

But I'm sure it would be fun for (most) warlock players to be able to invest in abilities to help them keep secret. Opposed rolls like Sleight of Hand vs Spot, as mentioned. Would be great if we had a "Still Blast" feat, like Still Spell: No somatic components, no spellcraft check (and reduced spell power). A good RPer wouldn't have his PC beyond being conviced otherwise with diplo/bluff even if his PC did make a Spellcraft check on spell/ability, and/or saw the fireworks, which in the case of EB probably shouldn't be as over-the-top flashy as the engine gives us. The PC doesn't know he made the check and now knows X, he just thinks he figured something out.

It really comes down to giving a fair chance and making for fun and creative game for all involved. By DMs and players alike. No hardcore "finding out rules" to substitute for it. And really no way to enforce any complex ruling that might be crafted by committee. Play and trust your fellow gamers, and talk to your DM before jumping to conclusions that will severely harm other PCs. And be ready and willing for consequences if you step out of the closet - or paint yourself a target for someone who has proven to have the devil's phone number and favor. Simple as that.

Eh, it's a damaging ray of magical energy. It's not exactly a subtle thing:

A: The rules are silent on this issue (just as they are for most magical effects), so it’s up to the DM to determine how obvious the effect of an eldritch blast is.

The Sage recommends that the eldritch blast be easily visible to any onlooker. The precise nature of the visual effect isn’t terribly important, but a warlock should have a very hard time indeed in camouflaging his eldritch blast attack.

[Zelknolf]

Why is there so much detail and contention being brought into this?

In ALFA, an Eldritch Blast involves shooting glowing purple death from your hands. Where does Bluff or SoH come into play? "I swear, this mutton chop shot the glowing purple death, and I was an innocent bystander (also, I did not contribute to the fight in any way, seeing as everything I did actually came from this mutton chop)"?

It looks to me like people trying to wiggle their ways into being flamboyant with their powers while being treated as secretive. Keeping secrets takes careful planning and significant effort; people who don't put forth that effort and don't make the needed plans don't get to keep secrets, and that applies to everything ever.

[kid]

I Agree with some. I dont agree with the purple blast part.
its the same as me saying I can identify a warlock by the glow you see when he enters an area. Gfx is allways limited. thats why we have rolls.

However... by rolls I meanly mean SC.
dont know what I think 'bout the whole SoH thing.

but anyway... purple blast is not admiciable as evidance or spell craft is a none skill.
we all can identify most spells by the way they look.