Spellcraft Details

[GilesTheCleric]

So for the past few sessions, spellcraft checks have been increasingly important as the party is leveling up and encountering more casters. However, since these foes are spellcasters, they are able to change the conditions of battle to suit their own needs. So far, invisibility has been often used, and other effects will soon show up (wind/deafening, teleportation, etc).

The spellcraft rules in the PHB are pretty sparse, and don't have a lot of detail. And, what detail they do have, I don't necessarily agree with. Specifically, there's two things I have trouble with, and both relate to its primary use:

DC 15+spell level: Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.

First, "Identify a spell being cast". I've run this as meaning that the players learn every single detail about the spell, both fluff, crunch, and history or context where appropriate (with a separate knowledge check if it wouldn't be common knowledge). Is this the amount of information they should be receiving? Should it be so detailed as to describe this particular casting, allowing them to calculate the CL of the caster, or discover that it is an arcane spell being cast as divine? Or should they just learn what the spell does in a more general sense, eg. just the descriptive text? Or even just the name?

Second, "you must see or hear the spell's verbal or somatic components". This implies that even with only one of the two, identifying the spell is reliant on the base DC. Also, it implies that seeing another spellcaster pulling some bat guano out of their bag or brandishing a holy symbol doesn't allow for a check at all, even at a higher DC. Is there any way that either missing some of the components for a spell would increase the DC (eg. through the foe being invisible, or having a feat), or that extra components would allow for a check? Or might other factors like circumstance modifiers eg. a foe being very far away come into play?

I would rather not have to make houserules if I don't have to.

[Prince Zahn]

Well for starters, if your Spellcasters are casting such occult spells that the party should not and could not possibly know about given their field of study and experience, I wouldn't assume simply telling them it's too obscure for them to have learned of it to be much of a house rule as it is common sense and a plot element. The spell identification system in the books work under the assumption that you are using spells that are canon in the books that are learnable in your system.

EDIT: If you are using a spell the characters don't know about, but exists in the books, you can try being simple and vague about higher spells rather than telling them everything. A chain lightening spell can just be "an advanced/complex electricity spell with a flexible area of effect, it's more powerful than the spells you use." Okay, mine might not be the most vague, but this way you give your players the information they need while AT THE SAME TIME they would have to think what the exact spell is and why it is important that you're hiding it, because that is up to them to discover if they seek it.

As for the second part, about 90% of spells have both verbal and somatic components, if nothing else. If you can't see your target casting a spell, or hear him casting a spell, just spotting the bat guano (which could be common in dungeons and caves by the bye) won't help you know necessarily what, when and how the spell is cast. (unless you have a really good memory for material components of spells you might not be able to cast yet)
My advice? If you want to use other components as a spellcraft clue, then help yourself and make the check easier or harder depending on the components, otherwise don't bother since the verbal and somatic components are apparently enough to give a spell's identity away.
And of course - go with your common sense and your gut - like when people say a bard make peace with a pack of dim ogres with all the diplomacy ranks in the world, or that illusions and enchantments that are identified still take effect, because merely being aware of a spell might not overcome what the weak-minded sees, hears and feels. You don't have to make up too many serious house rules, but as the DM you have to stand your ground for what makes sense in your campaign.

I hope this helps you!

[jedipotter]

Well, I give only the vaguest details of a spellcraft identified spell. I really hate the ''I know everything roll''. It is just no fun. The idea that someone can identify and know an encyclopedic of knowledge about a spell just ruins the game. It is just too video game-like: "Your foe cast Attack Spell 3, Boosted 2, Beep''.

Spellcraft, like knowledge skills, is vague in my game. I like role-playing, not roll-playing. And I have most spells classified by location, race, use, communality and so on. You don't ''know all the spells in all the books'' in my game. Plus I have some couple hundred ''not in any book the players have'' spells, plus self made spells. For example just about every arcane spellcaster has Grab, a spell that lets then swiftly grab a small item with telekinesis. Except the player characters don't have the spell. They can find it, and use it just fine....but they won't be told it exists before the game starts. And that is just one spell. Sure some players cry unfair, but that is fine and they can go to another DM. Plenty of players like the fun of discovery and mystery.

You must see the components uses in spellcasting to identify a spell. Just seeing a ball of clay is not enough, by-the-book. But I'd allow them to get vague information like ''the ball of clay might be for a earth type effecting spell''.

[Duke of Urrel]

I would rather not have to make houserules if I don't have to.

I think some house-ruling is unavoidable here. I'll offer my own suggestions for your consideration.

First, "Identify a spell being cast".

I interpret the word "identify" to mean "know everything you need to know in order to counterspell." This is after all the most practical reason to try to identify a spell being cast. If you haven't readied a counterspelling action, identifying a spell being cast won't do you much good, anyway.

Second, "you must see or hear the spell's verbal or somatic components".

I agree that if you can't see or hear a spell's somatic or verbal components, it should be harder to identify while it is being cast. However, making it so unavoidably requires some house-ruling, I think. Here's what I do:

Counterspelling a Spell with Unknown Components

If you cannot hear a spell’s verbal component (for example because you are deaf, or because the spell is cast with the Silent Spell feat or inside a Zone of Silence), but you can still see at least one visible component of the spellcasting action, such as its somatic or material component or its arcane focus (a divine focus is never enough*), then I require you to make a Spot check at DC 20, and if this check fails, you cannot make a Spellcraft check to identify the spell.

If you cannot see the visible components of a spellcasting action (for example because you are blind or surrounded by impenetrable darkness or murkiness; because the spell is cast with the Still Spell feat, the Eschew Materials feat, or both; or because the spellcaster is invisible or totally concealed), but you can still hear the verbal component of this action, then I require you to make a Listen check at DC 15, and if this check fails, you cannot make a Spellcraft check to identify the spell.

If while casting a spell a spellcaster makes a Sleight of Hand check that beats your Spot check or Listen check (I let you roll whichever check is more likely to succeed), you fail both to hear the verbal component and to see the somatic and material components of a spellcasting action.** If you can neither see nor hear any component of a spellcasting action, then you cannot identify the spell being cast – unless you can read the spellcaster’s mind. If you bestow the Detect Thoughts spell upon yourself and an enemy spellcaster fails to resist it (by failing to make a Will save against your spell’s save DC), then as soon as this enemy spellcaster thinks of casting a spell, you know instantly which spell it is, without having to make a Spellcraft check.
____________________________
*You can never identify a spell merely by the divine focus that is used to cast it. Even if you know the alignment and the deity that a holy or unholy symbol represents, this is not enough information to identify a spell cast with this item.

**Some spells require require you to perform actions or movements with them that cannot be concealed, or require you to manipulate focuses or material components that are too big to conceal.

[GilesTheCleric]

[snip] The spell identification system in the books work under the assumption that you are using spells that are canon in the books that are learnable in your system.

EDIT: If you are using a spell the characters don't know about, but exists in the books, you can try being simple and vague about higher spells rather than telling them everything. [snip]

I hope this helps you!

I'm using all 3.5 and un-updated 3.0 stuff; the spells I'm making a large distinction for are those that have been invented by certain religions or groups, which the players might not necessarily know, even if those spells are technically on their lists. I haven't homebrewed any spells, which I assume is what you would mean by non-cannon.

Being a bit vague seems reasonable. Thank you for your help!

Well, I give only the vaguest details of a spellcraft identified spell. [snip]
Spellcraft, like knowledge skills, is vague in my game. I like role-playing, not roll-playing. And I have most spells classified by location, race, use, communality and so on. [snip] They can find it, and use it just fine....but they won't be told it exists before the game starts. And that is just one spell. Sure some players cry unfair, but that is fine and they can go to another DM. [snip]

You must see the components uses in spellcasting to identify a spell. Just seeing a ball of clay is not enough, by-the-book. But I'd allow them to get vague information like ''the ball of clay might be for a earth type effecting spell''.

This seems like a logical route to take in many types of games. I think in my game, where roleplay and politicking are fairly important (40% of the game), barring players from getting enough information can really hurt how they understand and react to situations both in- and out-of-character. I'm pretty wary of this approach after one of my players suggested that I be even more explicit with giving them information so that they could better prepare for encounters. I find that mystery is best served through the interactions and relationships between characters, rather than the game mechanics (with small exceptions).

You might have a better retention rate by giving them this information ahead of time. This is one reason I'm hesitant to make houserules -- before the game started, I made a list of all the houserules I intended to use, so that there wouldn't be as much misunderstanding later. It has been working pretty well. I run a small, invite-only game, so losing a player over something silly like this would really hurt the group.

I am envious of your ability to flesh out the game world with details like that, though -- I don't think I could ever keep track of that much stuff XD

Dealing with components like that seems like a good approach. I'll probably use that.

[snip] I interpret the word "identify" to mean "know everything you need to know in order to counterspell." This is after all the most practical reason to try to identify a spell being cast. If you haven't readied a counterspelling action, identifying a spell being cast won't do you much good, anyway.
[snip]
Counterspelling a Spell with Unknown Components
[snip]

If while casting a spell a spellcaster makes a Sleight of Hand check that beats your Spot check or Listen check (I let you roll whichever check is more likely to succeed), you fail both to hear the verbal component and to see the somatic and material components of a spellcasting action. [snip]

Counterspelling is important, I'll agree, and is certainly underused. However, many of my combats don't end with one side or the other being wiped out. Therefore, knowing about the spells the foe was using can reveal information about their allegiances, combat style, and capabilities that are important for the group to know. Eg. the last combat with a mage ended in a peaceful resolution after the foe had cast only two spells. If they decide to engage in combat again, they will be better forewarned next time.

My question is really how forewarned they should they be, which "identify" doesn't do a good job of explaining. Using a purpose-based heuristic is an approach I hadn't thought of, and might work well. I'm just not sure what purpose to use -- counterspelling is a good pick, but is limited to mechanical interactions.

I like these rules for counterspelling, and if the situation arises, I'll probably ask my players if they feel like they would make a good addition to the game. What do you think of their use in terms of just identifying the spells? Eg. if the players could only hear a part of the spell, or only see some of the somatic component, and had no information on the companion component?

The slight-of-hand section is an interesting idea. I'll see if the players are open to this as well, perhaps as a modification of the sniping rules.

[sleepyphoenixx]

A successful spellcraft roll gets you the name, level and school of the spell. Enough to counterspell basically, but nothing else.
It doesn't matter much when your players already know most spells but that's a bit of metagaming i find acceptable.
I'd let players roll knowledge checks for spells they don't know but it hasn't really come up in my games.

If you want to have your NPCs spells be unknown you could just increase the spellcraft DC or use things like the False Theurgy and Conceal Spellcasting skill tricks or the Mysterious Magic feat (SoX).

[Duke of Urrel]

Counterspelling is important, I'll agree, and is certainly underused. However, many of my combats don't end with one side or the other being wiped out. Therefore, knowing about the spells the foe was using can reveal information about their allegiances, combat style, and capabilities that are important for the group to know. Eg. the last combat with a mage ended in a peaceful resolution after the foe had cast only two spells. If they decide to engage in combat again, they will be better forewarned next time.

My question is really how forewarned they should they be, which "identify" doesn't do a good job of explaining. Using a purpose-based heuristic is an approach I hadn't thought of, and might work well. I'm just not sure what purpose to use -- counterspelling is a good pick, but is limited to mechanical interactions.

Remember that there is another Spellcraft check for identifying a spell after it has been cast. This check is actually a little harder, with a base DC of 20 or even 25. (I rule that the higher DC applies if the only way you can identify a spell is by its effect on you, personally, not by its effect on anyone or anything else.) I put several restrictions on this Spellcraft check. For example, before I let a character make this check, I require him or her to know that an effect is magical. In the case of an Illusion spell, I require the character (1) to observe the spell being cast, (2) to make a successful Will save to disbelieve, or (3) to use Detect Magic to notice magic auras. Otherwise, the character doesn't even know that a magic spell is in effect and doesn't use Spellcraft to identify it.

But more to the point, what happens when a character identifies an observed spell, already cast, by means of Spellcraft? In this case, I think the name of the spell suffices. The character has after all already seen what the spell can do. Knowing its name is all that the Spellcraft check can add to this knowledge. Knowing any more details about this spell would require one of two things: (1) either the character can cast the spell herself and knows all about it, or (2) the character makes a Knowledge of Arcana check – I set the DC at 15 plus the spell level – to know some detail other than the spell's name. For every 5 points you score above this DC, you know another detail.

I like these rules for counterspelling, and if the situation arises, I'll probably ask my players if they feel like they would make a good addition to the game. What do you think of their use in terms of just identifying the spells? Eg. if the players could only hear a part of the spell, or only see some of the somatic component, and had no information on the companion component?

The slight-of-hand section is an interesting idea. I'll see if the players are open to this as well, perhaps as a modification of the sniping rules.

The Sleight of Hand rule isn't all mine. Using Sleight of Hand skill to cast a spell unobtrusively is a proper use of this skill that is described on page 117 of the Rules Compendium v. 3.5 (2007). The only wrinkle that I've added to this is the rule that you can challenge your opponent's Sleight of Hand check with either a Spot check or a Listen check, whichever is more likely to succeed, unless of course the spell completely lacks either a visible or an audible component. The RAW allow only opposed Spot checks to challenge Sleight of Hand checks.

[ericgrau]

I think "Identify a spell being cast" should be the spell name and the spell's text, that's it. I think you're thinking of the identify spell which tells you everything last detail about a magic item. I'd say this rule means "identify" in the typical English sense, i.e. "What spell is it?"

With only the somatic or only the verbal the DC is the same.

Bat guano turning into an orange bead might fall under "Identify materials created or shaped by magic" or once the fireball goes boom "Identify a spell that's already in place and in effect". Both are DC 20 + spell level.

If someone casts a still silent eschewed materials spell with no visible or audible effects (such as many buffs or divinations) on someone other than you only then would I say you don't get a spellcraft check at all. Or if for some other reason there is no way to see, hear nor feel the spell. If a spell is cast on you, has no visible/etc. effect on your body, and you have no other way to notice it, you do need to pass your save to make a spellcraft check.

[Deophaun]

Well, I give only the vaguest details of a spellcraft identified spell. I really hate the ''I know everything roll''. It is just no fun. The idea that someone can identify and know an encyclopedic of knowledge about a spell just ruins the game. It is just too video game-like: "Your foe cast Attack Spell 3, Boosted 2, Beep''.

First of all, there are players in real life that you tell you all about a spell that you just had an NPC cast, because they've memorized them. This isn't a stretch in the real world, much less a game where fifth level characters routinely outperform every Olympic athlete at every task. And really, in game, someone with four ranks in the skill is about the equivalent of someone that went and got a bachelor's degree in spell identification. So our fictional characters put a lot more effort into doing it.

Second, the game mechanics are not designed for this. There are things in this game that are fantastically lethal, and only foreknowledge can save you. Knowledge checks (which we'll include Spellcraft in), are the mundane way of getting that foreknowledge in game, instead of relying on the metagame knowledge of that one player that every group has.

Third, "Your foe cast Attack Spell 3, Boosted 2, Beep," is a problem of DM presentation, not the game. If you find it too video game like, then stop making your games video game like.

[GilesTheCleric]

A successful spellcraft roll gets you the name, level and school of the spell. Enough to counterspell basically, but nothing else. [snip]

If this is RAW, then this solves my problem. Can you cite this?

[snip] I put several restrictions on this Spellcraft check.[snip]

But more to the point, what happens when a character identifies an observed spell, already cast, by means of Spellcraft? In this case, I think the name of the spell suffices. The character has after all already seen what the spell can do. Knowing its name is all that the Spellcraft check can add to this knowledge. Knowing any more details about this spell would require one of two things: (1) either the character can cast the spell herself and knows all about it, or (2) the character makes a Knowledge of Arcana check – I set the DC at 15 plus the spell level – to know some detail other than the spell's name. For every 5 points you score above this DC, you know another detail.

The Sleight of Hand [snip]is described on page 117 of the Rules Compendium v. 3.5 (2007). [snip]

Those restrictions are nearly the same as what I use.

Identifying a spell post-hoc like this does seem reasonable. I would use the +5 above DC aspect, but I don't have enough time to break spell backstories into chunks, unfortunately.

Just saying RC 117 is enough XD It's a little rude to cite information that way for a source. Assume your readers are intelligent; this is not 4chan.

I think "Identify a spell being cast" should be the spell name and the spell's text, that's it. [snip]

This information does not coincide with sleepyphoenix's. I've seen you on the boards more often, and therefore your extrinsic ethos is a bit stronger, but I'm not going to make an assumption based on my own experience. Perhaps you have a citation?

[snip]Second, the game mechanics are not designed for this. There are things in this game that are fantastically lethal, and only foreknowledge can save you.[snip]

Third, "Your foe cast Attack Spell 3, Boosted 2, Beep," is a problem of DM presentation, not the game. If you find it too video game like, then stop making your games video game like.

Yup. There's a reason ArcturusV's favourite spell is augury, and my third-favourite is divination. I'm personally fine with knowledge rolls. Even if the party learns everything there is mechanically to know about something, it doesn't mean they know how it might affect them. Knowing all the ways in which orcs are weak doesn't help the party in trying to figure out why the orcs have taken over a small wayshrine to Pelor, and nobody is bothering to do anything about it. With magic, you still have to know the right question to ask, so that's not an "I know all" button, either.

Anything can be broken down into if-then statements, pointers, and variables. eg. recent article about machine learning. I don't think this is a valid argument one way or the other, and depends entirely on the opinion of each individual player.

[Slipperychicken]

I figure that should the "identify a spell" should at least give you its name, school, level, components, and a brief summary of the spell's function. Exceeding the DC by 5 or 10 should yield the full description. If the spell is one of your spells known, then you already know everything in the spell's description, and that information is revealed if you make the check.

[jedipotter]

First of all, there are players in real life that you tell you all about a spell that you just had an NPC cast, because they've memorized them. . And really, in game, someone with four ranks in the skill is about the equivalent of someone that went and got a bachelor's degree in spell identification.

If a player wants to read and memorize that is fine with me. But they will only get the description of the spell effect, not the spell game names. So they are welcome to guess what a ''ball of fire'' might be spellwise.

I see ''one rank'' more like ''has taken a a class''. To get a diplomia I see that more like 30+ ranks. And that would not still cover memorization of every spell in the world.

Second, the game mechanics are not designed for this. There are things in this game that are fantastically lethal, and only foreknowledge can save you. Knowledge checks (which we'll include Spellcraft in), are the mundane way of getting that foreknowledge in game, instead of relying on the metagame knowledge of that one player that every group has.

Lethal things are good and fun. Players that can't figure out ''the wall of fire is hot'' won't get a roll for ''tell me what I should already know'' in my game. And more exotic spell I don't want them to know.

[/QUOTE]

[sleepyphoenixx]

I'm pretty sure it's never accurately defined what "identify" means in the context of spellcraft.

The spells level and school are really the bare minimum since those are needed for counterspelling (with Improved Counterspell). I'd also include the descriptor (if any) since there's a few spell lines that counter by that (see Darkness). The name is useless if you don't know the spell yourself so you can omit it, either completely or unless the PC knows the spell.

Even for unusual/rare spells identifying school, level and descriptor shouldn't be a problem for an experienced spellcaster. If someone wants to hide what he is casting there are already ways to do so.
You could of course rule otherwise but that's a houserule since by RAW any spell can be counterspelled as long as you pass a set spellcraft DC, it doesn't matter if you've seen it before or not.

[ericgrau]

This information does not coincide with sleepyphoenix's. I've seen you on the boards more often, and therefore your extrinsic ethos is a bit stronger, but I'm not going to make an assumption based on my own experience. Perhaps you have a citation?

I found this article here which does not elaborate: https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050524a
So seems it's a matter of opinion then. I just assumed you'd then default to the standard English definition. Especially since the article written to clarify the rules seems to think the reader would know what it means since it does not explain. At least I hope we can agree that you get the spell's name, then beyond that it's a bit fuzzy. Rules compendium might have more.

I also noticed in the article that they suggested using DC 15 + spell level for visible material components provided that they are unique to the spell. Fireball bat guano was their specific example. Since Skip Williams wrote the article and he's a D&D author, I'd weigh his opinion pretty strongly and take back mine. Though it's sometimes possible that the other authors disagree or that all of them forget their own rules, that's uncommon.

[jedipotter]

Even for unusual/rare spells identifying school, level and descriptor shouldn't be a problem for an experienced spellcaster. If someone wants to hide what he is casting there are already ways to do so.
You could of course rule otherwise but that's a houserule since by RAW any spell can be counterspelled as long as you pass a set spellcraft DC, it doesn't matter if you've seen it before or not.

If the game world has more then a dozen spells, the whole counterspell the spell with the spell becomes useless. You can only then counterspell with dispel magic.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If the game world has more then a dozen spells, the whole counterspell the spell with the spell becomes useless. You can only then counterspell with dispel magic.

That may or may not be true, but in either case only allowing counterspells with Dispel Magic is a houserule.
My interpretation is pretty much based on "this is the minimum needed for the RAW to function".

You need the name to use the standard counterspell rules (though you can amend it to "only if you know the spell" without problems).
You need the school and level for Improved Counterspell.
You need the descriptor for spells that can counterspell certain descriptors (like Darkness).

The DM can give more information (though giving the entire spell description is certainly overkill) but giving less means you can't use the counterspelling rules, so it can't be RAW.

[TuggyNE]

To get a diplomia I see that more like 30+ ranks.

You have to be level 27 to be a high school graduate?

[Deophaun]

I see ''one rank'' more like ''has taken a a class''. To get a diplomia I see that more like 30+ ranks. And that would not still cover memorization of every spell in the world.

Not even close:

Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).

A +20 will let you know everything that's knowable about the field by taking 10. If you think this is something you hit 2/3rds of the way through your educational career (High School?) you are sorely mistaken.

Going from the real world: your standard bachelor's degree will let you hit the basic questions all the time, but tough questions will need an assist (+2 bonus from library, +2 Aid Another, possibly several: look at how many scientific papers have three or more authors). So, a level 1 character, with 18 Int, 4 ranks, and a +2 circumstance bonus, fits a college graduate. Plus, they can also get Skill Focus, which probably means they actually got their PhD. Want proof? It's easy for a level 1 character to have a +13 to his knowledge check. Throw him in a laboratory with four other "smart" people (really, they could have an Int of 10, but the same ranks, feats, and resources, for a +9; enough to auto-succeed at Aid Another), and he's making those DC 30 checks all the time.

However, let's go with something easier to measure: physical ability. A first level human with 18 strength and 4 ranks in Jump has a +8 to his jump skill. So, 5% of the time, he can make a long jump that's a tad more than one foot short of the Olympic record holder. If he takes Skill Focus (Jump) as his bonus feat, then he's the World Record holder. As he's so prominent, Nike has contracted with him to make masterwork shoes just for this event. +2 bonus. Since he's human we can throw Acrobatic on top of that for an added +2. At level 2, our character has 5 ranks in Jump and 5 in tumble for the +2 synergy bonus. He has a +16 to his Jump check; 5% of the time, he can clear 36 feet. So understand that a level 1 D&D character is already an accomplished individual in real-world terms, and past that they become superhuman.

Lethal things are good and fun. Players that can't figure out ''the wall of fire is hot'' won't get a roll for ''tell me what I should already know'' in my game.

Wall of fire is not an example of a lethal spell. At the level you run into it, you can interact with it without risk of death, even if you are unprepared. Prismatic wall, on the other hand, is a lethal spell; if you don't know what it is, your first attempt to interact with it can kill you outright, or worse.

[Slipperychicken]

You have to be level 27 to be a high school graduate?

Well yeah, didn't you know? Ordinary high school kids are totally epic level, college kids (and grad students) have varying numbers of divine ranks, and PhDs have ascended beyond godhood to become statless entities.

[TuggyNE]

Well yeah, didn't you know? Ordinary high school kids are totally epic level, college kids (and grad students) have varying numbers of divine ranks, and PhDs have ascended beyond godhood to become statless entities.

PCs, of course, have some difficulty reaching level 10. We trust the implications are sufficiently obvious.

[GilesTheCleric]

I found this article here which does not elaborate: https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050524a
So seems it's a matter of opinion then. I just assumed you'd then default to the standard English definition. Especially since the article written to clarify the rules seems to think the reader would know what it means since it does not explain. At least I hope we can agree that you get the spell's name, then beyond that it's a bit fuzzy. Rules compendium might have more.

I also noticed in the article that they suggested using DC 15 + spell level for visible material components provided that they are unique to the spell. Fireball bat guano was their specific example. Since Skip Williams wrote the article and he's a D&D author, I'd weigh his opinion pretty strongly and take back mine. Though it's sometimes possible that the other authors disagree or that all of them forget their own rules, that's uncommon.

Thank you for digging up that article. Yeah, I don't know why Skip didn't go into details about identifying there. RC 160 was the only possibly relevant info: "Deciphering a magical writing allows the decipherer to identify the spell and gives some idea of its effects as explained in the spell description.", but it deals with writing and not spells. Plus "some idea" is even more vague than "identify".

I commend you for being able to step back from your opinion. Not many on the internet can do that, and not with that much grace.

That may or may not be true, but in either case only allowing counterspells with Dispel Magic is a houserule.
My interpretation is pretty much based on "this is the minimum needed for the RAW to function".

You need the name to use the standard counterspell rules (though you can amend it to "only if you know the spell" without problems).
You need the school and level for Improved Counterspell.
You need the descriptor for spells that can counterspell certain descriptors (like Darkness).

The DM can give more information (though giving the entire spell description is certainly overkill) but giving less means you can't use the counterspelling rules, so it can't be RAW.

Your reasoning is very compelling here. In the absence of any other information, I'll take it as the official rule, in addition to what Skip had to say in ericgrau's article. I wish that I could give the players more information as per the rules, but I guess I'll just have to houserule it.

The way I've been doing it, for those who are curious: I give the name, school, and a summary of the effects, but do not provide any specific numbers. If they're going to counterspell, I would give them the level, but I try to make levels and other blatantly meta-game concepts as little a part of the in-game as much as possible. Eg. "Mystic Lash: evocation, creates an electric whip that continues to attack by itself after a successful attack." I have not been giving out whether spells are divine/arcane, but I'm conflicted on whether I should.

[Deophaun]

The way I've been doing it, for those who are curious: I give the name, school, and a summary of the effects, but do not provide any specific numbers. If they're going to counterspell, I would give them the level, but I try to make levels and other blatantly meta-game concepts as little a part of the in-game as much as possible.

The problem is this encourages, rather than discourages, metagaming.

Additionally, things like "levels" are not actually metagame concepts, as the mechanics are easy for any character to suss out. For example, a wizard spell takes up one page per level in a wizard's spell book, and spells of the same length require an equal amount of skill/effort to prepare. The costs for scribing those spells to scrolls, or putting them into wands or potions, are also faithfully consistent with their level. It might not be called a "7th level spell" in the game world, but IC there is certainly a term wizards use when discussing seven-page-long spells.

If it can be measured in game, then it cannot be a metagame concept.

[Slipperychicken]

It might not be called a "7th level spell" in the game world, but IC there is certainly a term wizards use when discussing seven-page-long spells.

I actually think they are. You know why? Partly because I've never heard of an official alternative in-character terminology given for such concepts, and partly because of this line from Tordek in the Magic Item Compendium page 5.

"My armor? +3 adamantine light fortification full plate. I wouldn't leave home without it."
—Tordek

Also the spell "Detect Thoughts", which explicitly reports the intelligence scores of each mind in the area. It doesn't tell you "this is a weak mind/aura" (like Detect Magic and Detect Evil do). It tells you "there are 3 minds in the area. One has Int 7, another Int 14, and a third has Int 11".

Additionally, spell levels and caster levels are easily measured in-universe. Almost every spell has a duration which is some multiple of 6 seconds, there are effects which count spell levels, and so on. Also, the D&D universe contains many extremely intelligent characters who explicitly study magic and are funded by guilds, churches, and universities, so it's easy to imagine they'd have discovered such concepts.

[Deophaun]

Partly because I've never heard of an official alternative in-character terminology given for such concepts, and partly because of this line from Tordek in the Magic Item Compendium page 5.

Yup, the official fluff, in true facepalm manners, puts game terminology right into the mouths of PCs. OOtS turns out to be how WotC thought people living in the campaign world would behave.

But fluff is mutable, and it's entirely possible GilesTheCleric's campaigns don't have people talking about being "4th level Thieves" or their fireballs doing "8d6" damage. So, my point was that even if the fluff is stripped out, all of the obvious clues are still there.

[Slipperychicken]

Yup, the official fluff, in true facepalm manners, puts game terminology right into the mouths of PCs. OOtS turns out to be how WotC thought people living in the campaign world would behave.

I figure that if they wanted characters to do otherwise, they had literally dozens of books to put in some line like "characters in the D&D universe don't use words like 'spell levels'", and it seems like they chose not to do that.

It would be pretty neat to have guilds throwing little office-parties (maybe even a whole ceremony) when their members learn higher-level spells. It would be like a promotion, only if instead of a raise you got the power to turn invisible and fly.

[Deophaun]

It would be pretty neat to have guilds throwing little office-parties (maybe even a whole ceremony) when their members learn higher-level spells. It would be like a promotion, only if instead of a raise you got the power to turn invisible and fly.

Unless you learned alter self, then you disguise yourself as the boss and give yourself a raise.

[Slipperychicken]

Unless you learned alter self, then you disguise yourself as the boss and give yourself a raise.

Not if you wanted to keep that job for long

I imagine that the documentation would require some unique identifier like the bosses arcane mark or something. But either way, it shouldn't take long for a community of magicians to realize something's up. Using magic to screw with the mage's guild would be like trying to hack into the IT department's system to give yourself a raise: Heavy risk, but the priiiize and probably not worth it.

[GilesTheCleric]

The fact that metagame concepts can be derived from within the game is necessarily a part of the fact that it's a game, with rules. With just a little suspension of disbelief, it's possible to think of things in terms of gradual improvement (eg. spell ranges, durations, BAB), the way they would likely seem to characters within the world. Perhaps your second level spells take a page + a line or two when you first gain the ability to cast them, but as you learn more about your powers and their intricacies, those second-level spells now take a page and a half, or two full pages, at which point you discover you know everything about them. By the time you're up to third-level, you are able to write more notes about more complex spells, taking up just over two pages. Just because you scribed it initially at slightly over a page doesn't mean you're not adding notes as you use the spell throughout your career, or that each spell is precisely x pages long.

[/offtopic]

Has anyone found more conclusive info?

[Deophaun]

The fact that metagame concepts can be derived from within the game is necessarily a part of the fact that it's a game, with rules. With just a little suspension of disbelief, it's possible to think of things in terms of gradual improvement (eg. spell ranges, durations, BAB), the way they would likely seem to characters within the world.

Except there are binary effects that run on spell level. Can your darkness spell counter and dispel that continual flame?. Does scorching ray have enough power to fuel fiery burst? Sure, you can say "the magic light flickers against your power" or "the air hisses and sparks," but that's just flavoring the failure; the fact that you didn't succeed is still plain.

And there's still the fact that a level wizard can always memorize a lower level spell in a higher level slot, but not the other way around. If spell levels are a metagame concept, then wizards wouldn't be able to know to do this. But since they clearly do, levels must be known in game.

[GilesTheCleric]

I will concede that there are certainly things in the game that cannot be explained by non-metagame phenomenon. I don't like it, but it's there.