The new spell identification rules are terrible.

[LeonBH]

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.

[mer.c]

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.

[Sception]

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.

[Tanarii]

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.

[Unoriginal]

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.

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.

[DivisibleByZero]

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.

[Sception]

If I'm running the game, sure, but if I'm playing in a game someone else is running, not so much.

[Regitnui]

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.

[Sception]

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.

[Unoriginal]

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.

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.

[Easy_Lee]

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?

[DivisibleByZero]

*Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead*

Come to Chicago. I'm buying pizza and beer for that one.

[Unoriginal]

Come to Chicago. I'm buying pizza and beer for that one.

Thank you, DivisibleByZero.

[mephnick]

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.

[Unoriginal]

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.

[No brains]

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?

[Tanarii]

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.

[LeonBH]

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.

[LeonBH]

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.

[Tanarii]

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 it’s 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 spell’s effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell’s 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 aren’t associated with any class when they’re 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 doesn’t 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".

[Shadowknight12]

If it has no effect that you are aware of (e.g. Hex*), you cannot identify it.

If the character perceived the casting, the spell’s 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.

[Tanarii]

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.

[Shadowknight12]

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.

[Laserlight]

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.

[Shadowknight12]

That's your interpretation, though, not RAW.

The RAW literally says "You curse".

[Laserlight]

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.

[Shadowknight12]

"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.

[Coffee_Dragon]

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.

[Tanarii]

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.

[JimmyHoffa69]

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 it’s 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 spell’s effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell’s 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 aren’t associated with any class when they’re 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 doesn’t 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.