Proposed Way of IDing a spell being cast

[goldenfoxx]

The lack of being able to Identify a spell being cast caused some issues with the introduction of Counterspell, so our group has suggested try this out.

Identify Cast Spell: In order to ID a spell being cast requires a passive(Arcane) check while being able to see the caster. The DC of the check is 10 + spells level. If the Spell is part of the the spell list that the observer has access to, this check is made with advantage.

A Spell caster can attempt to augment the casting of a spell by casting it hidden. The caster makes an additional deception(Charisma) check when casting a spell with the target DC being 10+ spell level. If they succeed, any observer attempting to Identify the Spell has disadvantage on Perception checks. On a roll of a one or lower or a natural one, the spell is fumbled and fizzles harmlessly (or wild magic surge, depending on DM's evilness)

We still haven't figured out yet if there should be Action equivalent to trying to Identify a spell yet.

So, what do you think? Fair without adding too many rolls to the game process?

[E’Tallitnics]

The lack of being able to Identify a spell being cast caused some issues with the introduction of Counterspell, so our group has suggested try this out.

Identify Cast Spell: In order to ID a spell being cast requires a passive(Arcane) check while being able to see the caster. The DC of the check is 10 + spells level. If the Spell is part of the the spell list that the observer has access to, this check is made with advantage.

A Spell caster can attempt to augment the casting of a spell by casting it hidden. The caster makes an additional deception(Charisma) check when casting a spell with the target DC being 10+ spell level. If they succeed, any observer attempting to Identify the Spell has disadvantage on Perception checks. On a roll of a one or lower or a natural one, the spell is fumbled and fizzles harmlessly (or wild magic surge, depending on DM's evilness)

We still haven't figured out yet if there should be Action equivalent to trying to Identify a spell yet.

So, what do you think? Fair without adding too many rolls to the game process?

Since the description is a Reaction there's very little time to determine what spell is cast.

At my table ONLY Arcance Casters, who learn by rote memorization, get a 'free' ability check. Otherwise the Reaction time has passed…

[Naanomi]

I just let folks know what is being cast generally (subtle spell, most illusions, and arcane tricksters being the current exceptions), keeps the flow fast and haven't found counter spelling too powerful even if they get to know ahead of time

[Alerad]

I just let folks know what is being cast generally (subtle spell, most illusions, and arcane tricksters being the current exceptions), keeps the flow fast and haven't found counter spelling too powerful even if they get to know ahead of time

I agree with Naanomi, just tell the players what spell it's being cast. Again, the above exceptions should apply, sometimes players aren't supposed to know there is magic involved.

If you insist on making a check, your method of using passive Arcana check is good I think. If the wizard knows the spell make it automatic.

Also, if there is a check involved arcane casters shouldn't be favored, that's what the Arcana skill is basically for. But considering it's about Counterspell, you can keep the checks to relevant characters only.

[Ouranos]

Well, most spells DO have either Verbal or Somatic components to them. Unless a DM rules you're casting a spell in your own native language or some specific, secretive language, the easiest way is for those words to be their OWN arcane language, and if you know the words being used you can counter it by remembering "Oh, that order is only used for Fireball!" Or some such.

[MrUberGr]

I think the passive check isn't balanced. The highest DC for a spell would be 19. I, a level 5 wizard, with 18 INT, have +7 to Arcana checks. That would mean I could easily recognize most of the spells cast. Also, what about clerics paladins and other divine casters? How could you recognize that? It could be a (spellcasting ability) check.

[Daishain]

Also, what about clerics paladins and other divine casters? How could you recognize that? It could be a (spellcasting ability) check.
A religion check for divine spells perhaps, but it does make sense that someone who studies magic can have as much or more insight into spells than those who receive it as an effective gift.

[goldenfoxx]

I think the passive check isn't balanced. The highest DC for a spell would be 19. I, a level 5 wizard, with 18 INT, have +7 to Arcana checks. That would mean I could easily recognize most of the spells cast. Also, what about clerics paladins and other divine casters? How could you recognize that? It could be a (spellcasting ability) check.
I can certainly see where you are coming from, but the players handbook list Arcana as measuring your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items...

note:not divine, or arcane but spells

If your study is in all spells and magic shouldn't you be able to recognize them and have that reflected in having a high Arcana proficiency? Are you saying its too easy for someone to recognize a spell as it is being cast because wizards naturally will have a higher ability score in Arcana?

[djreynolds]

There must be some balance of lose and victory. A fighter can learn the arcane skill and a rogue could take it and have a high intelligence and expertise and may know what is going to happen. A rogue may have survived plenty of fireballs to know if one is being cast against him, I mean I can't keep the squirrels out of my bird feeder. Whose to say who could or could not know what spell is being cast?

So my advice is that, on your off time, your wizard instructs you in arcana, the whole party. And I know the fighter will gripe and the rogue will be sleeping during it, but perhaps they get good enough to where they could perhaps lend "help" to your arcane specialists identify roll.

For example, the rogue says, "not another fireball, steal one thing from a wizard and they just can't forgive you. Its been ten years."

[CNagy]

I haven't had any real problems with neglecting to tell the players what spells are being cast. You're facing an enemy, you can count on the spell being either dangerous to you or advantageous to your foes. And if the player wizard or whomever does use Counterspell, they never know if they would consider it "worth it" because I don't tell they what they've countered.

That said, I think a good way to handle it if you want to have your players be able to ID spells as they are being cast would be to have them make an Arcana Check vs DC 10 +2 per spell level of the spell level. You don't tell them what they number they need to exceed, obviously, and lower level spells cast out of higher level slots take on the level of the slot they use, as usual. That way, identifying spells starts at somewhere between Easy and Medium difficulty and ends up somewhere between Very Hard and "Impossible" difficulty.

[JackPhoenix]

I let my players identify cantrips, otherwise they don't know what spell the enemy uses, but I let them know its level (for Counterspell purposes) and school without any check, with the reasoning that higher level spells are longer, more elaborate, etc., and spells of one school does have some core similarity. The exception are divine spells, as their verbal component isn't a bunch of nonsensical syllables, but a prayer in whatever language the caster speaks (or in infernal/celestial, depending on the deity). In that case, characters can't identify the exact spell, but knows if the cleric in question asks for healing or for smiting his enemies.

[Naanomi]

I let my players identify cantrips, otherwise they don't know what spell the enemy uses, but I let them know its level (for Counterspell purposes) and school without any check, with the reasoning that higher level spells are longer, more elaborate, etc., and spells of one school does have some core similarity
How do you handle illusions? I make an illusion of a wall of fire, guy says 'meh it was an illusion, ignore it!'

[Daishain]

How do you handle illusions? I make an illusion of a wall of fire, guy says 'meh it was an illusion, ignore it!'
If he successfully identifies the illusion spell, then that's just something you'll need to live with.

That stated, lots of ways for casters to hide what they're really doing, and an illusionist especially ought to have a trick or two up his sleeve along these lines.

Actually saw spmeone pull a nasty little trick on NPCs once. Created the illusion of a 'web' of sharp blades across a passage, 'accidentally' let slip that it was an illusion to those chasing, then used illusory reality to make one of the blades, at about neck hight, real.

[JackPhoenix]

How do you handle illusions? I make an illusion of a wall of fire, guy says 'meh it was an illusion, ignore it!'

Hm, I've missed this one. I haven't yet got to the situation where that would be important...the only illusions my players encountered so far were invisibility and mirror image, both very obvious effects...but I guess I'll houserule it so casting Images could be made to look like casting evocation, conjuration, or whatever, based on effect. Illusions are based on deception, after all! I'll have to go through the list of spells that are appropriate for that and inform the players about the change.

[TheOOB]

How do you handle illusions? I make an illusion of a wall of fire, guy says 'meh it was an illusion, ignore it!'

First of all, if player's are using metagame knowledge that heavily, that needs to be stopped. The rules are pretty clear though, in order to reconize an illusion as being fake you need to interact with it(which typically requires an action) to make a check against it's save DC.

[rollingForInit]

The lack of being able to Identify a spell being cast caused some issues with the introduction of Counterspell, so our group has suggested try this out.

Identify Cast Spell: In order to ID a spell being cast requires a passive(Arcane) check while being able to see the caster. The DC of the check is 10 + spells level. If the Spell is part of the the spell list that the observer has access to, this check is made with advantage.


I'd allow a spellcaster to automatically identify any spell that belongs to their spell list and is of a level that they can cast. Just feels a lot easier, and likely they've seen these spells a lot of times. Especially the ones they know. If it's another spell, I'd go with a check like the one you proposed.



A Spell caster can attempt to augment the casting of a spell by casting it hidden. The caster makes an additional deception(Charisma) check when casting a spell with the target DC being 10+ spell level. If they succeed, any observer attempting to Identify the Spell has disadvantage on Perception checks. On a roll of a one or lower or a natural one, the spell is fumbled and fizzles harmlessly (or wild magic surge, depending on DM's evilness)


Personally, I think this feels like a bit much in combat. I try to avoid additional rolls, so I'd just say that, no, if you cast a spell you cast it. It will be apparent which spell it is to anyone who knows it. They will see the signs, whether it is recognising the verbal components, or knowing that the ball of light shooting from the Wizard's finger is a fireball. In social encounters, I might be more flexible, but not in combat. I don't want to clog up combat with more rolls.



We still haven't figured out yet if there should be Action equivalent to trying to Identify a spell yet.


It must be a free action, otherwise there's no point at all. You cannot spend an Action on another person's turn. You can only do that with a Reaction, but then you might as well wait and see what happens, because once you've spent your Reaction you can't do anything else outside your turn.

[PoeticDwarf]

If you don't know what spell is cast on what level. Counterspell would be worthless...