Identifying spells

[Melcar]

Hi... This is a continuation of the long and tough discussion about whether or not a Still, Silent and material eschewed spell could be countered. Now my party are meating tonight, at yet again this discussion has once more flared up.

This time though, its more based of whether or not it is possible to identify a spell if it is cast still, silent and material eschewed. So I put it to you, great forum!

Can a spell, enhanced with the following metamagic feats: Still Spell, Silent Spell and Eschew Material be identified via Spellcraft or any other means? And if so… how?

The following link might be helpfull: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm

Thanks, I really appreciate any comments!

[John Longarrow]

The spell effect can be identified by spell craft, but depending on what the opposing caster is doing it may or may not be something they can react to.

You would need to be more specific on when/how you are trying to counter the spell and what type of spell is being countered.

[PersonMan]

It can't be identified as it's being cast, no.


Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.

You do not see or hear the spell's somatic components, so you can't identify it.

[Melcar]

Thanks... That cleared that up!

[lsfreak]

(You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.)
I'm not sure it's so straightfoward. I could see an argument that this clause just doesn't apply to spells without components, and you can identify them without needing to see or hear anything. There are a few such spells - primarily ones from BoED that require Sacrifice components instead of somatic or verbal ones. "The spell's verbal or somatic components" don't exist, so does that mean you can't identify the spell, or that this limiting clause simply doesn't apply? If it's the latter, is there an appreciable difference between the spells without components because they never had them, versus spells without components because they are altered with metamagic?

RAMS is probably that a stilled silent spell can't be identified, and it's supported by things like the Conceal Spellcasting skill trick and the expanded Sleight of Hand rules in RoS, and analogous to a psionic character suppressing the display. But I'm not sure that's actually supported unambiguously by RAW.

(Side note: the material components are never enough to identify a spell, so eschewing will never make it easier or harder to identify.)
(Other side note: If you go full-blown crazy and ignore the importance of context in semantics, you could actually argue that if you both see and hear the components, you can't identify the spell. You must only see or hear them. :smalltongue: )

[Chambers]

A Ring of Counterspells will counter it if the spell is cast at the person wearing the ring. Probably not useful to your situation, but yes a Silent Still +Eschew Materials spell can be countered (in a specific situation).

Edit: A Ring of Spell-Battle also allows you to identify a Silent Spell + Still Spell + Eschew Materials spell as it's cast.


(Ring of Spell-Battle)

A ring of spell-battle informs you of all spellcasting that occurs within 60ft feet of you, as well as allowing you to attempt a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level) to identify the spell being cast (even if you can't see its casting or effect).

[lsfreak]

Battlemagic perception also overwrites the need to identify material/verbal components.

[Melcar]

I dont want to go into the whole: "can such a spell be countered?.." Im interested, here in whether or not such spells can be identified. And they cant, by the wording of RAW, as I read it.

But does such spells (still, silent, eschew material) have a display... does lightning form, fire erups and such during casting? Or are still, silent spells "invisible"? I'm unsure about this part, and have yet to find it... also, what about quikened spells. Are there a "fireworks" display when casting such a spell?

[Beregond]

But Tome and Blood says on page 19: "You can use Spellcraft to identify a spell even if the spell has no verbal, somatic, or material component — there’s no mistaking the concentration magic requires. However, you still must be able to see or hear the spellcaster." "For each of these elements you cannot discern, the DC increases by +2. For example, if a foe casts a still and silent spell, your Spellcraft check DC increases by +4."

[Flickerdart]

But Tome and Blood says on page 19: "You can use Spellcraft to identify a spell even if the spell has no verbal, somatic, or material component — there’s no mistaking the concentration magic requires. However, you still must be able to see or hear the spellcaster." "For each of these elements you cannot discern, the DC increases by +2. For example, if a foe casts a still and silent spell, your Spellcraft check DC increases by +4."
Tome and Blood is a 3.0 book. If it says that you can, and a 3.5 book says you can't, then you can't.

[Melcar]

But Tome and Blood says on page 19: "You can use Spellcraft to identify a spell even if the spell has no verbal, somatic, or material component — there’s no mistaking the concentration magic requires. However, you still must be able to see or hear the spellcaster." "For each of these elements you cannot discern, the DC increases by +2. For example, if a foe casts a still and silent spell, your Spellcraft check DC increases by +4."

I would say, that Tome and Blood was wrong!

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050524a

This is taken from the above link ca. 2/3 down on the page.


The rules don't come right out and say so, but since you must see a somatic (or material) component or hear a verbal component to identify any spell as it is being cast, you cannot identify a spell that doesn't have any verbal, somatic, or material components. An example of this is a silent and stilled spell that doesn't have a material component.

[Beregond]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SRD, Spellcraft skill
Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.

This is from the list of task of Spellcraft DCs. The task corresponds to a certain circumstance and not a rule as I see it. It just means that under these circumstances the DC is 15 + spell level, but it doesn't let you know what the DC is when there are no verbal or somatic components.

[Chambers]

I dont want to go into the whole: "can such a spell be countered?.." Im interested, here in whether or not such spells can be identified. And they cant, by the wording of RAW, as I read it.

But does such spells (still, silent, eschew material) have a display... does lightning form, fire erups and such during casting? Or are still, silent spells "invisible"? I'm unsure about this part, and have yet to find it... also, what about quikened spells. Are there a "fireworks" display when casting such a spell?

We've found two methods so far of using Spellcraft to identify such spells (Ring of Spell-Battle and the spell Battlemagic Perception), so it's possible for it to happen. I guess you mean doing it by the Spellcraft skill alone though, correct?

I would say that those spells most definitely still have a display. Casting a Stilled Silent (Eschew Material) Fireball doesn't change the effect of the spell, just how you cast it. Nothing in those three feats changes the effect of the spell.

Quickened is the same; it changes how the spell is cast, not the spells effect.

[Melcar]

We've found two methods so far of using Spellcraft to identify such spells (Ring of Spell-Battle and the spell Battlemagic Perception), so it's possible for it to happen. I guess you mean doing it by the Spellcraft skill alone though, correct?

I would say that those spells most definitely still have a display. Casting a Stilled Silent (Eschew Material) Fireball doesn't change the effect of the spell, just how you cast it. Nothing in those three feats changes the effect of the spell.

Quickened is the same; it changes how the spell is cast, not the spells effect.

I was thinking during casting... is still also what you mean?

[Chambers]

I was thinking during casting... is still also what you mean?

Oh, you mean a visual display during the act of casting? I'm really not sure. I'll take a look through the rules but my hunch is that there isn't a hard and fast rule about whether spells have a visual display while the spell is being cast.

[Beregond]

Tome and Blood is a 3.0 book. If it says that you can, and a 3.5 book says you can't, then you can't.

If the part you are refering that says I can't identify a spell being cast without verbal or somatic components is
Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry. then it was the exact same text in Player's Handbook 3.0. So it has to be the same intentions, and not read as a rule, but rather a circumstance.

[Melcar]

I would say, that Tome and Blood was wrong!

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050524a

This is taken from the above link ca. 2/3 down on the page.

The rules don't come right out and say so, but since you must see a somatic (or material) component or hear a verbal component to identify any spell as it is being cast, you cannot identify a spell that doesn't have any verbal, somatic, or material components. An example of this is a silent and stilled spell that doesn't have a material component.



If the part you are refering that says I can't identify a spell being cast without verbal or somatic components is then it was the exact same text in Player's Handbook 3.0. So it has to be the same intentions, and not read as a rule, but rather a circumstance.

Read again!

[TuggyNE]

This is from the list of task of Spellcraft DCs. The task corresponds to a certain circumstance and not a rule as I see it. It just means that under these circumstances the DC is 15 + spell level, but it doesn't let you know what the DC is when there are no verbal or somatic components.

Rules in 3.x are permissive; if they don't say you can do something in some way, you can't do it. If there's a DC listed for using Escape Artist to get through a 2" hole as a medium character, but none listed for getting through a 1" hole, then you can't get through a 1" hole with Escape Artist.


Oh, you mean a visual display during the act of casting? I'm really not sure. I'll take a look through the rules but my hunch is that there isn't a hard and fast rule about whether spells have a visual display while the spell is being cast.

Which is why Invisible Spell is so strange. Arguably, it was intended to act like psionic manifesters suppressing displays, but since spells never very clearly define their displays, it's anywhere from useless to bafflingly counterintuitive and brokenly good.

[Melcar]

First of all we have PHB 3.5 that says:
Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.

Seccondly we have this More Magical Oddities (Part One)By Skip Williams that says:


The rules don't come right out and say so, but since you must see a somatic (or material) component or hear a verbal component to identify any spell as it is being cast, you cannot identify a spell that doesn't have any verbal, somatic, or material components. An example of this is a silent and stilled spell that doesn't have a material component.


And we have FAQ that says:
For normal counterspelling, the Spellcraft check requires identification of verbal or somatic components. If those are missing, you cannot pass the Spellcraft check, so you cannot
counter that spell.


And then ofc we have Tome and Blood that says:
You can use Spellcraft to identify a spell even if the spell has no verbal, somatic, or material component — there’s no mistaking the concentration magic requires. However, you still must be able to see or hear the spellcaster." "For each of these elements you cannot discern, the DC increases by +2. For example, if a foe casts a still and silent spell, your Spellcraft check DC increases by +4."

So which one is correct?

[Deophaun]

So which one is correct?
Well, the logic of Skip's reasoning would have been wrong in 3.0, and Skip's been wrong before, so I'd ignore that. The FAQ is a bit more authoritative.

But the truth is, ask your DM. I don't see much of a problem with saying "no" to Spellcraft in this instance. Spells can still be countered with dispel magic, and identified if their effects are visible at a higher DC.

[Melcar]

He might have been wrong before, but he is just saying what both 3.0 and 3.5 PHB says in the skill description of Spellcraft. He is also saying the same thing as the FAQ. So to me its crystal clear.

That, if the spell have no verbal or somatic component then you cannot identify the spell during casting!

[Keneth]

You can't in 3.5.

You can in Pathfinder.

[Psyren]

This again?

Melcar, I find it odd you're now citing FAQ when in the last thread you said:



I dont acknowledge FAQ. What I have been told here on this forum, its unreliable and usually contradicting in many ways. And often badly written.

And you said this in response to Fax's FAQ quote which says:



Is it possible to counterspell a spell that has no spell component?

For normal counterspelling, the Spellcraft check requires identification of verbal or somatic components. If those are missing, you cannot pass the Spellcraft check, so you cannot counter that spell. However, if you are using dispel magic to counter the spell, identifying the spell is not required and the Spellcraft check is skipped, so you can counter spells with no components.

So I find it a bit odd that you are turning to FAQ as gospel now.

[Melcar]

This again?

Melcar, I find it odd you're now citing FAQ when in the last thread you said:



And you said this in response to Fax's FAQ quote which says:



So I find it a bit odd that you are turning to FAQ as gospel now.


This was what I was told by others here at this forum. I had not done any research into this FAQ my self. I have that now. And last time It was about whether or not these spells could be countered.

Now I'm just asking whether or not this spell can be identified... And yes here, this time, now more learned than last time I have come to the conclusion that its not the crap that I first thought.

I have found three things that backs my believe up. PHB 3.5, More Magical Oddities (Part One)By Skip Williams and the FAQ.

All these things makes it crystal clear to me, that spells that are still, silent and material eschewed cannot be identified.

Psyren, I really hope, that we can look beyond past differences and that we can change our believe without it being held against us.

[Psyren]

For the record, I agree with you - componentless spells cannot be identified.

I believe that where we disagree, is in terms of what effect this state has on said spell's ability to be countered. My stance is that, you can't identify the spell, but you still know something is happening, which is why you can attempt to counter with dispel magic despite not knowing exactly what that is. This interpretation is backed up by the FAQ. And clearly there is some energy there to detect, otherwise things like battlemagic perception or the two rings wouldn't work to begin with.

Whereas your position appears to be that componentless spells can neither be detected nor countered at all. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this reading of your stance.

[Curmudgeon]

Well, the logic of Skip's reasoning would have been wrong in 3.0, and Skip's been wrong before, so I'd ignore that. The FAQ is a bit more authoritative.
Why do you think that? :smallconfused: The author is Skip Williams in both cases.

[Melcar]

For the record, I agree with you - componentless spells cannot be identified.

I believe that where we disagree, is in terms of what effect this state has on said spell's ability to be countered. My stance is that, you can't identify the spell, but you still know something is happening, which is why you can attempt to counter with dispel magic despite not knowing exactly what that is. This interpretation is backed up by the FAQ. And clearly there is some energy there to detect, otherwise things like battlemagic perception or the two rings wouldn't work to begin with.

Whereas your position appears to be that componentless spells can neither be detected nor countered at all. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this reading of your stance.

We agree on the identification part. The countering part is where things get tricky. I believe that the act of casting a spell still and silent, renders the energies "invisible" or you could say, that a casting wont display any energies gathering or forming, at least not until the spell have been finished, where the effect taka place... and so going by that thought I believe that its imposible to know if or when your opponent is casting spells. Unless ofc you have Ring of Spellbattle or that spell from HoB that I cant remember the name of at this moment.

[Keneth]

I believe that the act of casting a spell still and silent, renders the energies "invisible" or you could say, that a casting wont display any energies gathering or forming, at least not until the spell have been finished, where the effect taka place...

Why would that be? Neither still, nor silent spell render any potential visual effects invisible, it just means you don't have to wave your appendages around or speak funny words. Ergo, you are always aware that someone is casting a spell or that a monster is using a spell-like ability.

[Deophaun]

Why do you think that? :smallconfused: The author is Skip Williams in both cases.
Because the whole of the FAQ is a compiled official WotC document that has actually been subjected to some review and correction. Skip Williams's articles are sometimes official, sometimes not, and have less oversight.

[Psyren]

I believe that the act of readying an action to counterspell (which requires you to designate an opponent) allows you to notice if that particular opponent is trying to do anything. You will be unable to identify exactly what they are trying, but you will be able to attempt a counter anyway thanks to the unique properties of dispel magic.

I don't think you can simply notice if people around you are casting if you're not in this readied state - that is where effects like Battlemagic Perception come into play.


Because the whole of the FAQ is a compiled official WotC document that has actually been subjected to some review and correction. Skip Williams's articles are sometimes official, sometimes not, and have less oversight.

Unless you have insider information that I don't, we have no insight into the process for approving either of these sources.

[Melcar]

Why would that be? Neither still, nor silent spell render any potential visual effects invisible, it just means you don't have to wave your appendages around or speak funny words. Ergo, you are always aware that someone is casting a spell or that a monster is using a spell-like ability.

Well if a fireball is gathering while casting fireball, you should be able to recognize the energies with Spellcraft. But you need to see his arms waving. This tells me, that there are no energies forming/gathering while actually (during) casting. I don’t have any proof of this, but it just seems weird that if the magical energies are still visible why you can’t identify that.... Why would you need to see the arms waving or hearing the verbal... I personally understand still and silent like no display and no sound. So it’s not possible to actually see anyone casting anything... the ring of spell battle lets you feel this but not see it...

I know that it does not say anywhere that the energies goes away when casting still and silent, but if all the energies remain, than surely you could identify those energies with or without waving arms.

So I still believe that either you can’t identify, because there is nothing to see or hear (at all) or you can identify it dispite no verbal and somatic, because of the gathering energies. If you stop waving your arms and the energies are still there to see, then this makes no sense to me.


But back to RAW, anyone disputing that you cannot identify a still, silent and material eschewed spell?

[Deophaun]

Unless you have insider information that I don't, we have no insight into the process for approving either of these sources.
Like this?

Any new additions or major corrections in a version are
provided in red text for your convenience. Red text changes to black text in the next version.
The FAQ is labeled as being subject to corrections. I don't see the articles having the same disclaimers.

[Psyren]

Like this?

No, not like this at all. That quote doesn't prove anything about the review process for online articles vs. FAQ vs. errata. All it shows is that they keep some form of version history around for the second one. And revisions don't say anything about the review process either - quite the opposite in fact, it shows they released something that they had to revise later after the public saw it.



I know that it does not say anywhere that the energies goes away when casting still and silent, but if all the energies remain, than surely you could identify those energies with or without waving arms.

I don't see why this has to be true. Look at Detect Magic for instance - spotting an aura is immediate, but determining exactly what it is doesn't happen until round 3. So you could deduce that the energy being there is easy to recognize, but telling exactly what that energy is supposed to do is harder.



But back to RAW, anyone disputing that you cannot identify a still, silent and material eschewed spell?

Not disputing this at all. No components, no identification.

[Beregond]

But then why would they post that rule with the increased DC in Tome and Blood? It is really frustrating that they are contradictory...

[bekeleven]

But then why would they post that rule with the increased DC in Tome and Blood? It is really frustrating that they are contradictory...
RAW Precedence is:


RC before any books published earlier
Among books in 3.5, each book has precedence in its area of focus, e.g. MM for monster abilities, DMG for magic items and prestige classes, PHB for classes and skills, etc.
3.5 Before 3.0 in any cases where the same circumstance is discussed
I'm not sure there's a ruling on WOTC published books vs. WOTC Licensed books (e.g. Dragonlance).
WOTC Published books all come before FAQ, RotG, and similar online supplements.


Tome of blood is authoritative in this case. Why are people arguing that the FAQ overrules it?

[Beregond]

RC before any books published earlier

Sorry, but I don't know what RC is an abbreviation for?


3.5 Before 3.0 in any cases where the same circumstance is discussed

I am all for that, but the "rule" in 3.5 that says (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) is just taken from the circumstance in which the DC in 15 + spell level, and it is the exact same words in 3.0, and not some new "rule".


Tome of blood is authoritative in this case. Why are people arguing that the FAQ overrules it?
Stop making sense :smalltongue:

[Deophaun]

That quote doesn't prove anything about the review process for online articles vs. FAQ vs. errata. All it shows is that they keep some form of version history around for the second one. And revisions don't say anything about the review process either - quite the opposite in fact, it shows they released something that they had to revise later after the public saw it.
That's some quite special logic there, considering that the PHB is more authoritative than either the FAQ or Random Skip Williams Article #47, and yet has errata. I guess that means that more thought and quality control went into Random Skip Williams Article #47 than the published books. Wonder who playtested those articles.

Anyway, your desire for pointless argumentation is noted.

[Psyren]

My problem with Tome and Blood is that it does contradict the rules in the PHB/RC. TaB's rule is that with no components, identifying a spell gets a +4 DC increase. The PHB's rule is that with no components, it's impossible. Both of these cannot be true, therefore the PHB rule takes precedence.

Counterspelling, however, is a different matter.


That's some quite special logic there, considering that the PHB is more authoritative than either the FAQ or Random Skip Williams Article #47, and yet has errata. I guess that means that more thought and quality control went into Random Skip Williams Article #47 than the published books. Wonder who playtested those articles.

Anyway, your desire for pointless argumentation is noted.

The PHB's authority has nothing to do with the fact that it gets revised. You're also assuming that the online articles are not, simply because their revision history is not visible to you.

But your desire for fanciful leaps of logic is noted.

[Melcar]

That's some quite special logic there, considering that the PHB is more authoritative than either the FAQ or Random Skip Williams Article #47, and yet has errata. I guess that means that more thought and quality control went into Random Skip Williams Article #47 than the published books. Wonder who playtested those articles.

Anyway, your desire for pointless argumentation is noted.

Are you saying that Skip is directly wrong on this? Or that FAQ is wrong in this matter?

Now we have two authoritive sources... PHB vs TB... When they contradict as they do, we must look at alternate sources... in this case FAQ and Skips article. Since the two alternate sources confirm the rule from PHB, that it is directly impossible to identify a still, silent spell. we have a 3 against 1 on the rule. Either the three of them are all right or they are all wrong... In this case I believe, like so many others here, that it is in fact not possible to identify these spells. I believe that the author of Tome and Blood, did not do his homework in this matter.

[Beregond]

The author of Tome and Blood is Skip...

[Melcar]

As was pointed out... he has been wrong before. Tome and Blood is one of these examples. Further Tome and Blood was released July 2001, Skip’s article which contradicts Tome and Blood is from May 2005, so I would believe that he appropriately corrected his mistake. Also in the beginning of TB it says that the book is contains options not restraints, meaning that it’s not supposed to be hard RAW rules. Also If he have writte 3 of the sources we have in this matter and 2 of them says: "no you cannot identify compenentless spells!" and one says you can, Then surely its that you cant! And that by the way is also what PHB says, and have always said.

[Curmudgeon]

Now we have two authoritive sources... PHB vs TB... When they contradict as they do, we must look at alternate sources...
Actually, that approach (looking at alternate sources) is wrong by the RAW. Wizards of the Coast already thought about this sort of issue and provided a general answer.
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.
In this case, we've got a 3.0 supplement (Tome and Blood) disagreeing with the primary 3.5 source for the rules of playing the game (Player's Handbook). As far as the official rules go, that's a settled matter: the Player's Handbook is correct, and it's impossible to identify a spell without detectable components.

[KillianHawkeye]

Well if a fireball is gathering while casting fireball, you should be able to recognize the energies with Spellcraft. But you need to see his arms waving. This tells me, that there are no energies forming/gathering while actually (during) casting. I don’t have any proof of this, but it just seems weird that if the magical energies are still visible why you can’t identify that.... Why would you need to see the arms waving or hearing the verbal... I personally understand still and silent like no display and no sound. So it’s not possible to actually see anyone casting anything... the ring of spell battle lets you feel this but not see it...

I know that it does not say anywhere that the energies goes away when casting still and silent, but if all the energies remain, than surely you could identify those energies with or without waving arms.

So I still believe that either you can’t identify, because there is nothing to see or hear (at all) or you can identify it dispite no verbal and somatic, because of the gathering energies. If you stop waving your arms and the energies are still there to see, then this makes no sense to me.

I'd just like to point out that this whole idea of "gathering energies" during the casting of a spell seems to be something you have made up. There is nothing supporting it in the general rules of spellcasting. Perhaps individual spells might mention something like that in the fluff descriptions, but it is certainly not something that applies as a blanket case to every spell.

And even if certain spells do have some kind of visible energies that exist prior to the spell's completion, neither Still Spell nor Silent Spell would affect them in any way. The benefit of these feats is explicit and very specific: they remove only the ritualistic hand movements and vocal chanting involved, nothing more.

[Melcar]

I'd just like to point out that this whole idea of "gathering energies" during the casting of a spell seems to be something you have made up. There is nothing supporting it in the general rules of spellcasting. Perhaps individual spells might mention something like that in the fluff descriptions, but it is certainly not something that applies as a blanket case to every spell.

And even if certain spells do have some kind of visible energies that exist prior to the spell's completion, neither Still Spell nor Silent Spell would affect them in any way. The benefit of these feats is explicit and very specific: they remove only the ritualistic hand movements and vocal chanting involved, nothing more.

That was my initial point about the impossibility of countering still, silent and material echewed spells. Because if there is no visual (magic energi) indication that some is casting spells, and no hand movement or verbal chanting, how on earth do you know any casting is going on?

[Psyren]

That was my initial point about the impossibility of countering still, silent and material echewed spells. Because if there is no visual (magic energi) indication that some is casting spells, and no hand movement or verbal chanting, how on earth do you know any casting is going on?

You just do. You'll have to come up with your own justification for that - I have several. By RAW, the verbal/somatic components only matter for identifying the spell, and by RAW, countering a spell with dispel magic means identification is no longer a necessary step in the process.

[KillianHawkeye]

if there is no visual (magic energi) indication that some is casting spells, and no hand movement or verbal chanting, how on earth do you know any casting is going on?

You can only tell that they are concentrating on something other than their surroundings. After all, you can still take an AoO on somebody, even if the spell they're casting has no verbal or somatic components. But that is all you know. Even though you can detect that somebody is casting a spell or using some other ability that requires concentration, you cannot identify what the effect will be without those components.

[Psyren]

That's another good point - still and silent spells still provoke AoO, so clearly you know they're up to something. For a dispel magic counter, that's literally all you need. And since you have to ready an action on them, you notice when their eyes glaze over just as if you were in melee next to them.

[relytdan]

Start Casting Spell "Acid Splash"
A silent spell can be cast with no verbal components
A stilled spell can be cast with no somatic components

Concentration check DC 10-20

SPELLCRAFT
Use this skill to identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place.
15 + spell level Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.)

not seen, not heard - how does it get identified, short of 2 items, under 3.5 rules - it just doesnt happen.

[Melcar]

You just do. You'll have to come up with your own justification for that - I have several. By RAW, the verbal/somatic components only matter for identifying the spell, and by RAW, countering a spell with dispel magic means identification is no longer a necessary step in the process.

I agree with you, that you some just know. I would advocate that this would be exceedingly hard if the spell also was quickened, which then would not provoke an attack of oppotunity. This is no where in the rules, but I do believe that it should... but thats a personal opponion!

[lsfreak]

Actually, that is in the rules. Quickened spells don't provoke (nor any swift- or immediate-action spells).

Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 swift action does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
They can still be countered, though.
EDIT: Woops, misread that, pretty sure you were talking about getting rid of countering in that case, not AoOs. I'd be against letting quickened spells be uncounterable, getting extra spells is already good enough without negating their weaknesses.

[Socratov]

So, if I understand correctly:

if Qui Gon Jinn uses the force to charm others it's identifiable, if takes still spell and silent spell it's undentifiable unless a peson near uses a ring of battlemagic becuase he senses usage of the force, regardless of (not) seeing or (not) hearing Qui Gon Jinn charming someone?

[Melcar]

Yes... or actually you would still know that he was doing something, just not the mind trick. So no identification! But knowledge of him using the force.