Page 10 of 27 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 790
  1. - Top - End - #271
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    LeonBH's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    What you are saying right now are also opinions, Regitnui. That is to say, what you currently believe you know and what you currently believe you hold evidence of, are not mathematically/rigorously proven facts. You are recalling them with your mind and are holding on to the idea they are right, regardless of whether or not they are right or wrong in reality.

    Can truth and evidence only be found with Intelligence? Are you sure there is no possible world in which truth and evidence is found with something other than Intelligence?

    On the subject of recalling truths with force of personality, if I cast a spell with my force of personality, I can make my opinions into facts. "Let there be light" and behold, the Light cantrip. Now, many real life religions and occults will resemble this model. Exorcism, faith healing, voodoo, witchcraft.

    Unoriginal, I have demonstrated the points quite well. I should ask you to ask a chess player in real life if they are influenced in any way by their opponent's charisma as opposed to their opponent's intelligence.

    But for a more elaborate point, the division between charisma and intelligence doesn't exist in real life. D&D made it up. Therefore, it is actually impossible to prove that a skill can only be made with Charisma, and not Intelligence, because that distinction is fictional.
    Last edited by LeonBH; 2017-11-14 at 02:41 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #272
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Something to keep in mind as you hash this argument out:

    Charisma is an amazing stat. So is Wisdom. Int generally sucks. Maybe making Int suck less is a good thing.
    Last edited by mer.c; 2017-11-14 at 02:39 PM.
    Spoiler: Tweaks
    Show

  3. - Top - End - #273
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    I don't like it, but whatever. If counterspell is supposed to be blind always, then fine. But what I hate is the 'spotter' thing. If there isn't time for Wizard A to see what is being cast, recognize what it is, decide to counterspell it, and then cast the counterspell, then how the hell is there time for Wizard A to see what is being cast, recognize what it is, decide it needs to be counterspelled, shout that information to Wizard B, have Wizard B hear and process what was shouted, and then cast counterspell?

    The second scenario is considerably more awkward. It takes more time, it has more things happening, both in universe and at the table. I would rather counterspelling was always universally blind than have to deal with that.
    The pursuit of knowledge requires a mind unfettered by the petty constraints of ethics, faith, or ... mortality.

  4. - Top - End - #274
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    You don't need to be able to cast Fireball to know it requires bat guano or the sound "blgt" to be cast.
    How do you identify it when this particular caster is using a wand, and saying 'rondo' instead of 'bigt' because that's how he learned to channel his magic (let's say a sorcerer), and this other larned it from his Infernal master (Warlock) and says 'X'tagl' when he wants to center it on a creature and 'X'tagr' when he wants to center it in space?

    Then I suppose WotC decided that specific trumped general and that one indeed used the skill that let you know about spells to know about spells.
    Yah, it's kinda hard to argue it in the face of that evidence. Never let me stop me trying though.

  5. - Top - End - #275
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeonBH View Post
    Can truth and evidence only be found with Intelligence? Are you sure there is no possible world in which truth and evidence is found with something other than Intelligence?
    Are you talking about D&D? If yes, then It's WIS to perceive a fact and INT to deduce a working hypothesis or to recall a fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeonBH View Post
    C
    On the subject of recalling truths with force of personality, if I cast a spell with my force of personality, I can make my opinions into facts. "Let there be light" and behold, the Light cantrip. Now, many real life religions and occults will resemble this model. Exorcism, faith healing, voodoo, witchcraft.
    It's not an opinion, it's a desire, and turning a desire into reality is the goal of every single conscious action one undertake.

    You can't make opinions a reality unless you manage to make transform something subjective into an universal, objective truth.

  6. - Top - End - #276
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    May 2015

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malisteen View Post
    I don't like it, but whatever. If counterspell is supposed to be blind always, then fine. But what I hate is the 'spotter' thing. If there isn't time for Wizard A to see what is being cast, recognize what it is, decide to counterspell it, and then cast the counterspell, then how the hell is there time for Wizard A to see what is being cast, recognize what it is, decide it needs to be counterspelled, shout that information to Wizard B, have Wizard B hear and process what was shouted, and then cast counterspell?

    The second scenario is considerably more awkward. It takes more time, it has more things happening, both in universe and at the table. I would rather counterspelling was always universally blind than have to deal with that.
    Good thing this is an optional rule, just like every single other word printed in that book, and can be completely ignored without anyone crying foul.
    If you quote me and ask me questions,
    and I continue to not respond,
    it's probably because I have
    you on my Ignore list.
    Congratulations.

  7. - Top - End - #277
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    If I'm running the game, sure, but if I'm playing in a game someone else is running, not so much.
    The pursuit of knowledge requires a mind unfettered by the petty constraints of ethics, faith, or ... mortality.

  8. - Top - End - #278
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Regitnui's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeonBH View Post
    On the subject of recalling truths with force of personality, if I cast a spell with my force of personality, I can make my opinions into facts. "Let there be light" and behold, the Light cantrip. Now, many real life religions and occults will resemble this model. Exorcism, faith healing, voodoo, witchcraft.
    That's not recalling facts, that's changing the facts. Like claiming that there's no difference between being charismatic and being smart in real life. I could name a number of examples, but that would be political. If being charismatic and being smart were the same thing, surely D&D wouldn't model them separately? Furthermore, why would English have words describing the "same thing" as different concepts? Strength is not Intelligence. Might does not make Right. Charisma is not Intelligence. A manager can convince you he knows best, then turn out to be incompetent at the job.

    I work as a subeditor, a job that requires High Intelligence (in the grasp of language and critical thinking). I can tell you right now that a lot of the journalists I work with are great people, very personable and charming, but they write like grammar is a formality as long as the ideas are in the same area. Therefore High Charisma, middling Intelligence. No amount of charm is going to make their writing any better. That's why I have a job.
    Spoiler: Quotes from the Playground
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    In fact, I will here formally propose the Zeroth Rule of Gaming: No rule in any game shall be interpreted in a way that breaks the game if it is possible to interpret that rule in a way that does not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nifft View Post
    Good old Jes, the infamous Doppelganger MILF.

    (aka "The Doppelbanger")
    Quote Originally Posted by Beleriphon View Post
    Shhhhh, shhhhhh. Be calm, inhale the beholder's wacky float gas and stop worrying.


    I'm a spell! (Thanks to Ninja_Prawn)|Eberron Questions Answered

    Avatarial Awesomeness by Kymme!

  9. - Top - End - #279
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    The spotter thing only gets more ridiculous the more potential spotters one has.

    Because under these rules there's time for Billy to try to figure out what's being cast, realize they don't know, ask Benny to take a look, Benny to try to figure out what's being cast, realize they can't tell, ask Betty to take a look, Betty to try to figure out what's being cast, realize they can't tell, ask Bella to try to take a look, Bella to try to figure out what's being cast, realize they can't tell, ask Bobbert to try to take a look, Bobbert to try to figure out what's being cast, successfully identify the spell, tells Biff what the spell is, and for Biff to successfully cast counterspell in time to stop the spell.

    But there isn't time for Biff to see what's being cast, recognize it, and counterspell it himself.
    The pursuit of knowledge requires a mind unfettered by the petty constraints of ethics, faith, or ... mortality.

  10. - Top - End - #280
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malisteen View Post
    I don't like it, but whatever. If counterspell is supposed to be blind always, then fine. But what I hate is the 'spotter' thing. If there isn't time for Wizard A to see what is being cast, recognize what it is, decide to counterspell it, and then cast the counterspell, then how the hell is there time for Wizard A to see what is being cast, recognize what it is, decide it needs to be counterspelled, shout that information to Wizard B, have Wizard B hear and process what was shouted, and then cast counterspell?
    Replace Wizard A by an homunculus and you're golden.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    How do you identify it when this particular caster is using a wand, and saying 'rondo' instead of 'bigt' because that's how he learned to channel his magic (let's say a sorcerer), and this other larned it from his Infernal master (Warlock) and says 'X'tagl' when he wants to center it on a creature and 'X'tagr' when he wants to center it in space?
    "Quick, Rosencrantz, we must identify those spells!"

    "Err, alright, friend Guildenstern. I've heard that some magic traditions from the south use 'rondo' in their fire spell, and given the numbers of time he repeated his words of control, it seems like a decently big spell. He also said "cal cal" twice while touching his eye, which is an element distinctively used for spherical spells by many hedge mages in the Caliratic plains. If I had to guess I would say... Fireball."

    "And this one over there has spoken Infernal the same way Professor Snake did when he casted a spell that targeted a specific point, plus he grabbed some kind of ball from his component pouch an instant. There is definitively an element of Fire in his spell, he invoked the name of Imix three times to praise and one time to insult. I can see a mix of Winterwindian and self-made techniques his moves, but it seems complexe enough to be a spell as strong as his colleague. So... Fireball too, most likely."

    "That's nice to know, dear Guildenstern, but what do we do now that we know that?"

    *Get Fireball'd*

    *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead*
    Identifying spells is *difficult*. It's DC 16 for a spell of level 1 and DC 24 for one of lvl 9. It's about as difficult to identify a Fireball than to break a metal chain bare-handed. Seems to me like it implies that the person is identifying it thanks to very fast paced details and to an extensive existing knowledge.

  11. - Top - End - #281
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Easy_Lee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    Replace Wizard A by an homunculus and you're golden.






    Identifying spells is *difficult*. It's DC 16 for a spell of level 1 and DC 24 for one of lvl 9. It's about as difficult to identify a Fireball than to break a metal chain bare-handed. Seems to me like it implies that the person is identifying it thanks to very fast paced details and to an extensive existing knowledge.
    In other words, only a rogue or bard can reliably do it. Well isn't that nice?
    Breaking BM: Revised - an updated look at the beast-mounted halfling ranger based on the Revised Ranger: Beast Conclave.

  12. - Top - End - #282
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    May 2015

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead*
    Come to Chicago. I'm buying pizza and beer for that one.
    If you quote me and ask me questions,
    and I continue to not respond,
    it's probably because I have
    you on my Ignore list.
    Congratulations.

  13. - Top - End - #283
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by DivisibleByZero View Post
    Come to Chicago. I'm buying pizza and beer for that one.
    Thank you, DivisibleByZero.

  14. - Top - End - #284
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    mephnick's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Easy_Lee View Post
    In other words, only a rogue or bard can reliably do it. Well isn't that nice?
    Not many rogues are going to be burning their reactions on identification, lore bards probably wouldn't either, but theoretically it is another way expertise sort of break the class identities, yeah.

  15. - Top - End - #285
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by mephnick View Post
    Not many rogues are going to be burning their reactions on identification, lore bards probably wouldn't either, but theoretically it is another way expertise sort of break the class identities, yeah.
    Not really, no.

    Rogues and Bards are the experts. A wizard will spend much more time learning how to use magic than how to memorize obscure details and learning dozens of variants about how a particular spell can be performed, which is what a Rogue with Expertise would learn.


    Also, casters get an advantage to identify a spell cast by a caster of the same class, so the Wizard will still be very good at identifying Wizard spells.

  16. - Top - End - #286
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Why am I here?

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Here's a question: Since identifying a spell's identity is hard, does that mean it is likewise hard to identify that a spell has been cast? I've seen some debate on whether creatures know if they have been affected by spells, especially subtle ones like enchantments.

    Say a creature's strength has been hexed. Would the creature need to pass a DC 16 intelligence (arcana) check to tell that it wasn't something they ate? Even if they insisted that they were hexed, if others failed their check to identify the spell on the creature, would they treat them like they're crying wolf?
    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post
    This thread, Questions that can't be answered... Answered by RAW by No brains, is Epic.
    Quote Originally Posted by illyahr View Post
    That is so stupid it's hilarious.
    Quote Originally Posted by georgie_leech View Post
    ...I've clearly been playing D&D for too long, because that made a demented kind of sense.

  17. - Top - End - #287
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by No brains View Post
    Here's a question: Since identifying a spell's identity is hard, does that mean it is likewise hard to identify that a spell has been cast? I've seen some debate on whether creatures know if they have been affected by spells, especially subtle ones like enchantments.

    Say a creature's strength has been hexed. Would the creature need to pass a DC 16 intelligence (arcana) check to tell that it wasn't something they ate? Even if they insisted that they were hexed, if others failed their check to identify the spell on the creature, would they treat them like they're crying wolf?
    Doesn't the text of the ability to identify a spell says it's an action to identity it from its effects, same check?

    If so, the answer is potentially yes. It might actually be no, it's not possible at all without a Detect Magic or Identify, if it requires effects to actually be observable to identify it.

    But either way, it definitely seems the answer is not going to be that you can identify a spell without a visible effect without an action, or reaction as its being cast, and a check. Or unless the spell specifies it's target knows it's been effected.

  18. - Top - End - #288
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    LeonBH's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    It's not an opinion, it's a desire, and turning a desire into reality is the goal of every single conscious action one undertake.

    You can't make opinions a reality unless you manage to make transform something subjective into an universal, objective truth.
    Such as with a Wish spell.

    And once again, Int (Deception) remains viable. One other thing I remembered is, I know people who are intimidated by someone's intelligence, not their niceness or meanness. Specifically, someone going up against a more intelligent opponent in a quiz bee. It understandably feels intimidating to go up against a person smarter than you in a game of wits. It's more of Int (Intimidation), but once again, it's a Charisma-associated skill that can be tied to Intelligence instead.

  19. - Top - End - #289
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    LeonBH's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by No brains View Post
    Here's a question: Since identifying a spell's identity is hard, does that mean it is likewise hard to identify that a spell has been cast? I've seen some debate on whether creatures know if they have been affected by spells, especially subtle ones like enchantments.

    Say a creature's strength has been hexed. Would the creature need to pass a DC 16 intelligence (arcana) check to tell that it wasn't something they ate? Even if they insisted that they were hexed, if others failed their check to identify the spell on the creature, would they treat them like they're crying wolf?
    Well, if the spell was cast in your vicinity, then you would see someone in the act of casting a spell. So it wouldn't be hidden.

    But it seems that you would still be allowed an Arcana check to identify a spell if you've observed its effects. And of course, failing a Knowledge check doesn't have to mean you're sure there is nothing there -- just that you failed to know if something is there. For a Fighter who isn't trained in Arcana, it would be understandable if they don't believe someone isn't Hexed if they failed their check.

  20. - Top - End - #290
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    So here's the rule (text pulled from the other thread):
    Xanathar's Guide to Everything
    Identifying a Spell

    Sometimes a character wants to identify a spell that someone else is casting or that was already cast. To do so, a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as itís being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast.

    If the character perceived the casting, the spellís effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spellís level. If the spell is cast as a class spell and the character is a member of that class, the check is made with advantage. For example, if the spellcaster casts a spell as a cleric, another cleric has advantage on the check to identify the spell. Some spells arenít associated with any class when theyíre cast, such as when a monster uses its Innate Spellcasting trait.

    This Intelligence (Arcana) check represents the fact that identifying a spell requires a quick mind and familiarity with the theory and practice of casting. This is true even for a character whose spellcasting ability is Wisdom or Charisma. Being able to cast spells doesnít by itself make you adept at deducing exactly what others are doing when they cast their spells.


    So to be able to identify a spell after it has been cast, it must have an effect you can use to identify it. And it requires an Int (Arcana) check of DC 15+spell level, advantage if it's on your class spell list.

    If it has no effect that you are aware of (e.g. Hex*), you cannot identify it. Which makes sense, since unless you use Detect Magic or Identify, you don't even know it's there.

    If it does have an effect, you can use an Action and make a quite difficult Arcana check to know exactly what spell it is. Of course, if you fail the check you can guess what spell it is. It's probably pretty obvious if they just cast a Flaming Sphere or Moonbeam for example.

    *Edit: forgot about the debate on Hex. But lets pretend for a second that we all agree you aren't aware of a Hex, at least up to the point you make your first check in the hexxed ability score, for purposes of being clear on how the identification works. If you don't agree with that mentally insert "some spell that has no effect that the identifying character could be aware of".
    Last edited by Tanarii; 2017-11-15 at 12:34 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #291
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    If it has no effect that you are aware of (e.g. Hex*), you cannot identify it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    If the character perceived the casting, the spellís effect, or both,
    If you see someone casting something, you can try to identify it, even if you cannot feel the spell's effects. The only way you cannot perceive the casting (barring things like invisibility, darkness, cover, etc.) is if it's a Subtle spell with no Material components.

  22. - Top - End - #292
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    If you see someone casting something, you can try to identify it, even if you cannot feel the spell's effects. The only way you cannot perceive the casting (barring things like invisibility, darkness, cover, etc.) is if it's a Subtle spell with no Material components.
    Hex can be transferred with a bonus action long after it's been cast. That's why it's a great example spell to use.

  23. - Top - End - #293
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Hex can be transferred with a bonus action long after it's been cast. That's why it's a great example spell to use.
    The spell specifically says that casting the Hex originally is placing a curse on the target, and that moving the hex is to "curse a new creature". You're not silently moving the spell, there is some form of cursing involved in the transference.

  24. - Top - End - #294
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Laserlight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Virginia Beach VA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    The spell specifically says that casting the Hex originally is placing a curse on the target, and that moving the hex is to "curse a new creature". You're not silently moving the spell, there is some form of cursing involved in the transference.
    That's your interpretation, though, not RAW.
    Junior, half orc paladin of the Order of #3 St Dale the Intimidator: "Ah reckon y'all need to repent."

    I'm a spell!

    "Leather is the best armor for stealth--it's literally made of Hide." -- K Larson

  25. - Top - End - #295
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Laserlight View Post
    That's your interpretation, though, not RAW.
    The RAW literally says "You curse".

  26. - Top - End - #296
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Laserlight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Virginia Beach VA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    The RAW literally says "You curse".
    "You place a curse", actually. You need VSM components to cast the spell in the first place, so that would be detectable; but nothing says that you need them for the bonus action.
    Junior, half orc paladin of the Order of #3 St Dale the Intimidator: "Ah reckon y'all need to repent."

    I'm a spell!

    "Leather is the best armor for stealth--it's literally made of Hide." -- K Larson

  27. - Top - End - #297
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Laserlight View Post
    "You place a curse", actually. You need VSM components to cast the spell in the first place, so that would be detectable; but nothing says that you need them for the bonus action.
    "You place a curse" is what it says when you originally cast the spell. The bit about moving the spell specifically says you can use a bonus action "to curse a new creature". It doesn't specify what you need to do to move the hex, but at the very least, it tells you that you need to curse, which implies some form of verbal utterance.
    Last edited by Shadowknight12; 2017-11-15 at 01:59 PM.

  28. - Top - End - #298
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2005

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Calling your actions solves everything!

    "Move Hex!" shouts the warlock with a dramatic flourish. Everybody pauses for a second to look up at the small black cat orbiting the orc chieftain's head. "Meow," it says.
    Ur-member and coffee caterer of the fan club.

    I wish people would stop using phrases such as "in my humble opinion", "just my two cents", and "we're out of coffee".

    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for they are out drinking coffee and, like, whatever.

  29. - Top - End - #299
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    The spell specifically says that casting the Hex originally is placing a curse on the target, and that moving the hex is to "curse a new creature". You're not silently moving the spell, there is some form of cursing involved in the transference.
    You're free to rule in something if you like as a DM, but the spell's components are only absolutely required when you take the Cast a Spell action. So not all DMs will rule it that way.

    As I said, it's a great example spell because it's not required to cast the spell before you can transfer it to a new target, therefore it's possible to interpret/rule it as no way to detect the transferring. Furthermore it's possible to interpret/rule it as not detectable by the target, especially before the extra damage or penalty to the check comes up. That makes it a great theoretical example spell to demonstrate the point. Even if the interpretation/rule will vary from table to table, and inevitably be nit-picked at as a side-debate over many pages in a forum thread now that I've raised it.

  30. - Top - End - #300
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Nov 2017

    Default Re: The new spell identification rules are terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    So here's the rule (text pulled from the other thread):
    Xanathar's Guide to Everything
    Identifying a Spell

    Sometimes a character wants to identify a spell that someone else is casting or that was already cast. To do so, a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as itís being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast.

    If the character perceived the casting, the spellís effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spellís level. If the spell is cast as a class spell and the character is a member of that class, the check is made with advantage. For example, if the spellcaster casts a spell as a cleric, another cleric has advantage on the check to identify the spell. Some spells arenít associated with any class when theyíre cast, such as when a monster uses its Innate Spellcasting trait.

    This Intelligence (Arcana) check represents the fact that identifying a spell requires a quick mind and familiarity with the theory and practice of casting. This is true even for a character whose spellcasting ability is Wisdom or Charisma. Being able to cast spells doesnít by itself make you adept at deducing exactly what others are doing when they cast their spells.


    So to be able to identify a spell after it has been cast, it must have an effect you can use to identify it. And it requires an Int (Arcana) check of DC 15+spell level, advantage if it's on your class spell list.

    If it has no effect that you are aware of (e.g. Hex*), you cannot identify it. Which makes sense, since unless you use Detect Magic or Identify, you don't even know it's there.

    If it does have an effect, you can use an Action and make a quite difficult Arcana check to know exactly what spell it is. Of course, if you fail the check you can guess what spell it is. It's probably pretty obvious if they just cast a Flaming Sphere or Moonbeam for example.

    *Edit: forgot about the debate on Hex. But lets pretend for a second that we all agree you aren't aware of a Hex, at least up to the point you make your first check in the hexxed ability score, for purposes of being clear on how the identification works. If you don't agree with that mentally insert "some spell that has no effect that the identifying character could be aware of".
    And here is my beef with that.... Lets say I make a sorcerer, named Imdum, with a Charisma of 18 and an Int of 1. He is able to progress all the way up to level 20 with no hindrance to his spell-casting abilities. He could even cast Wish, the most powerful spell in the multi-verse, and bend reality to their will. Along the way he is able to learn, and forget as many new spells as he wants. Again, intelligence doesn't matter for LEARNING new spells.

    Lets think about how that makes sense. Unlike a wizard who has an intellectual connection to magic, the sorcerer has a subconscious connection to the weave. I imagine it is like synesthesia. Or a shark with their ampullae of Lorenzini. Regardless, if a wizard is casting a spell against someone like this its hard to imagine that his spell-casting ability wouldn't give him some hint about what is going on in the weave around him. He probably isn't going "okay I see him tapping his shoulder three times and then sticking out his tongue while hopping counter-clockwise which is obviously designed to vector a weave of magic into the classic Bigby's crushing hand, as opposed to the southern continent version with its obviously inferior flair in the second quadrant..." That would be dumb. But it is hard not to imagine he couldn't feel hardening of the weaves around him in a vise-like fashion and intuit, on a subconscious level, that the wizard doing the silly dance is trying to restrain him somehow.

    There has to be some sort of instinctual understanding that isn't intellectual going on. Otherwise, how in the world do sorcerer's LEARN new spells? And forget ones only to learn others? How do higher charisma scores translate into better magic?

    Its not like there aren't examples of magic being this way in fantasy literature. Rand Al'Thor wouldn't probably be a sorcerer. He "sees" weaves of the sai'din and manipulates them without silly hand waves or components. Gandalf doesn't spend time in the movies or books hopping around on one foot or pulling out a book of magic. Garion from the Belgariad does his magic by directly pushing his will into the world. That is not to say that the way a wizard sees the world and magic is inferior. Just different.

    Counter-spell is an important spell for viability if you had a sorcerer and a wizard duking it out in a class level 20 vs level 20 magic duel. Unless you mean for one to be an obviously superior magic user, but it is hard to imagine that is what WotC was going for, considering that they tried to balance out the sorcerer by giving them metamagic, while also giving them less spells to work with.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •