The new spell identification rules are terrible.

[DivisibleByZero]

One contains the additional unstated premise that if there are no specific rules for something, it cannot happen or be done.

Except that it isn't unstated. The designer specifically stated that they intentionally removed those rules.

[Regitnui]

Looking at my new character sheet binder and what caught my eye? Things you can do in tandem with your movement and action. In other words "free" actions. They include pulling coins from a pouch, picking up weapons, downing ale, putting on a mask and handing an item to another character. Surely it's simple enough to wave a hand as a spotter that it qualifies here?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Looking at my new character sheet binder and what caught my eye? Things you can do in tandem with your movement and action. In other words "free" actions. They include pulling coins from a pouch, picking up weapons, downing ale, putting on a mask and handing an item to another character. Surely it's simple enough to wave a hand as a spotter that it qualifies here?

Those can be done in tandem with movement and actions on your turn. Not off your turn. At least from that evidence.

[Breashios]

Those two claims are the same. There were no rules for it, and as such, there was no way to do it.
A house rule is a rule created that does not exist within the text of the rule book.
If you created rules for it you were making a house rule.

I understand what you are saying. I also understand why it is important to have a shared vocabulary for clear discussion of these matters. If I accept your definition of house rule, I have to make a distinction within it to say you are wrong to say "there was no way to do it" (ID a spell) before the new optional spell identification rule, because there demonstratively was a way to do so.

It is - Since there was no rule about it, the DM decided to make a house rule (a ruling by the PHB) and allowed one or another mechanism for the character to do so.

So while it is accurate (by the accepted forum definition) to say there was no RAW way to do so, it is completely wrong to say there was no way to do so, since the rules specifically say it is correct for a DM to make a ruling (or house rule) about anything not spelled out or proscribed by the rules.

[Breashios]

Except that it isn't unstated. The designer specifically stated that they intentionally removed those rules.

And that is not anything I can find in the "official" Sage Advice pdf.

[pwykersotz]

I understand what you are saying. I also understand why it is important to have a shared vocabulary for clear discussion of these matters. If I accept your definition of house rule, I have to make a distinction within it to say you are wrong to say "there was no way to do it" (ID a spell) before the new optional spell identification rule, because there demonstratively was a way to do so.

It is - Since there was no rule about it, the DM decided to make a house rule (a ruling by the PHB) and allowed one or another mechanism for the character to do so.

So while it is accurate (by the accepted forum definition) to say there was no RAW way to do so, it is completely wrong to say there was no way to do so, since the rules specifically say it is correct for a DM to make a ruling (or house rule) about anything not spelled out or proscribed by the rules.

Enters thread: "Maybe the discussion has taken an interesting turn!"
Reads this comment first.
*face twitches uncontrollably*
Posts hyperbolic but sincere comments.
Exits thread immediately.

[Breashios]

Those can be done in tandem with movement and actions on your turn. Not off your turn. At least from that evidence.

But completely separate from the rules...

...there is the mechanic of a turn, which end and the next actor gets a turn in initiative order, then there is the fact that all these things everyone is doing are happening at the same time - just the effect of each is getting a precedence according to the mechanics being applied.

I think it is fair for the DM to allow an incidental or free action to occur at any time throughout the round that would be reasonable. Especially perception of something that is happening during that round. You are seeing everything happen throughout the round and would use your reaction for an appropriate act when you see something you wish to react to.

Its up to the DM/rules/table agreement, what would be reasonable. At least that is what would make a good game to me. Sometimes a group wants high fidelity to RAW. Sometimes they want some version of reasonableness to apply. (Understanding of reasonableness may vary from person to person and thus group to group and RAW would apply if agreement could not be reached).

[Xetheral]

So while it is accurate (by the accepted forum definition) to say there was no RAW way to do so, it is completely wrong to say there was no way to do so, since the rules specifically say it is correct for a DM to make a ruling (or house rule) about anything not spelled out or proscribed by the rules.

I think you are overly generous to state that there is "the accepted forum definition" of "RAW". Disagreements over what "RAW" means are rife. For example, in this thread there is disagreement over whether the DM calling for ability checks to resolve an action other than the explicit examples listed for ability checks is RAW or a House Rule. That's a pretty fundamental disagreement over what the term means. There is also disagreement over whether JC can clarify RAW or whether he can only clarify RAI. There is also disagreement over whether if the text explicitly calls for a DM ruling, every ruling is RAW or none of them are.

Ultimately, I woud claim that, based on the diverse usage of the term "RAW" observed in the forum, the only thing we can be certain of in regards to the term is that there is no accepted forum defintion.

[Breashios]

I think you are overly generous to state that there is "the accepted forum definition" of "RAW". Disagreements over what "RAW" means are rife. For example, in this thread there is disagreement over whether the DM calling for ability checks to resolve an action other than the explicit examples listed for ability checks is RAW or a House Rule. That's a pretty fundamental disagreement over what the term means. There is also disagreement over whether JC can clarify RAW or whether he can only clarify RAI. There is also disagreement over whether if the text explicitly calls for a DM ruling, every ruling is RAW or none of them are.

Ultimately, I woud claim that, based on the diverse usage of the term "RAW" observed in the forum, the only thing we can be certain of in regards to the term is that there is no accepted forum defintion.

Ok, you are on the same track I was on between my initial replies on this topic up to about page 8.

I am just taking this tack for the sake of a clear discussion on the specific case of how one could identify a spell and then counterspell it without going against RAW prior to this new optional rule and related comments by Crawford. And thus why I am somewhat in agreement with the title of this topic and most of the sentiment expressed by the OP.

[Tanarii]

So while it is accurate (by the accepted forum definition) to say there was no RAW way to do so, it is completely wrong to say there was no way to do so, since the rules specifically say it is correct for a DM to make a ruling (or house rule) about anything not spelled out or proscribed by the rules.

There was no specific rule calling it out RAW. But there is still the general rule of:
DM decides action type (if necessary), and decides if something automatically succeeds, fails, or sets an ability score, DC, and possible applicable proficiencies.

I used to think that despite that general rule RAI was it was not intended that you should be able to identify spells at all, and I still think allowing it makes a bunch of assumptions about both how spell casting works and what the Arcana skill is supposed to be for. This new rule makes it clear to me that my assumptions about RAI in that regard were wrong.

I also use to think it was RAI that Counterspell was supposed to be cast blind. This new rule makes it clear to me that my assumptions about RAI in that regard were correct.

[krugaan]

Enters thread: "Maybe the discussion has taken an interesting turn!"
Reads this comment first.
*face twitches uncontrollably*
Posts hyperbolic but sincere comments.
Exits thread immediately.

LMAO.

Someone should turn this into a constitutional argument by bringing up the Ninth Amendment.

Oh hell, I'll do it:

The enumeration in the PHB, of certain legal actions, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the players.

[Laserlight]

Except that it isn't unstated. The designer specifically stated that they intentionally removed those rules.

”Removed rules”, not ”inserted rules that forbid it.”

[Psikerlord]

Someone no doubt already provided the answer, but just in case, here it is: remove counterspell from your game. Profit.

[alchahest]

Is the intent of these rules that nobody ever declares the spell they are casting until the other party has decided whether or not to counterspell?

I guess I should ask JC rather than the thread. I am just curious how people will play it if they adhere to these rulings - will players and DM be simply stating "I begin casting a spell" and wait for the identify/counterspell shuffle prior to announcing which spell?

[mephnick]

Is the intent of these rules that nobody ever declares the spell they are casting until the other party has decided whether or not to counterspell?

I guess I should ask JC rather than the thread. I am just curious how people will play it if they adhere to these rulings - will players and DM be simply stating "I begin casting a spell" and wait for the identify/counterspell shuffle prior to announcing which spell?

You're not supposed to announce the spell in the first place. It's like people forgot how to D&D. Show, don't tell. Or as Dungeon World puts it "never speak the name of your move."

But apparently just naming every spell all the time is commonplace for some reason.

[krugaan]

You're not supposed to announce the spell in the first place. It's like people forgot how to D&D. Show, don't tell. Or as Dungeon World puts it "never speak the name of your move."

But apparently just naming every spell all the time is commonplace for some reason.

People have been watching too much anime.

[Dmdork]

If you have such a problem with the new ID rules, just ignore them.
Then you have 2 options.
Option 1) Use whatever ID rules you like.
Option 2) Use the old ID rules, of which there aren't any, meaning you can't ID spells as they're being cast.

The lack of such an option in the PHB is intentional, and always has been.
The old way of counterspelling required that you cast a spell from the same school, which necessitated knowing what school the target spell came from.
In 5e, instead of jumping through hoops, and to streamline combat, they removed all of that and just made it a spell of its own.

The default is that no one knows what spell is being cast but the caster.
Many people houseruled this to suit their own needs.
You're still free to do that now.

Wow, that's a lotta stuff guys. Great thread.

I think I like this ruling best. You can't ID spells as they're being cast. I've read enough of this topic. Some stuff makes no sense, some makes perfect sense, but all slow game play. This ruling is the only one I've heard that makes sense AND doesn't slow play, one of the things I like most about 5e...

[Pex]

You're not supposed to announce the spell in the first place. It's like people forgot how to D&D. Show, don't tell. Or as Dungeon World puts it "never speak the name of your move."

But apparently just naming every spell all the time is commonplace for some reason.

The DM needs to know what spell you're casting. As for the DM naming the spell the bad guy casts, even if it's just habit it's not an atrocious one. It's not a crime against humanity for players to know things. It's only a game. If players have easy Counterspell tactics because of it so be it. If the now official stuff ruins the experience ignore the official stuff but one can still complain about it.

[Tanarii]

I like it as an optional rule for use with spells that I'm not going to blurt out anyway as a DM, which is almost always ones that don't have an obvious effect. I'll probably officially rule counterspelling occurs as soon as the spell begins to manifest, so if there's a visible effect they can go based off me having already just blurted it out. Since that's what happens anyway, and I've never made an issue of it before.

Meanwhile it gives me a mechanic if the player wants to know how defensive spell the bD guys have cast, or when one has been affected by a not obvious spell. More importantly, I can use it for NPCs, as a baseline to keep me in check on how they act in reaction to PC spells being cast.

[Saeviomage]

You're not supposed to announce the spell in the first place. It's like people forgot how to D&D.

It doesn't represent the caster yelling "I cast fireball". It represents the caster waving his hand or wand or whatever around while chanting a specific set of words, then gesturing and gathering energy and finally a bright streak and blossoming flame etc etc.

If I describe it every single time it happens, it gets tedious. So I just say "they cast fireball" and everyone knows what's up.

Only now I'm not supposed to do that, because recognizing that 6-second long procedure now apparently means you can't take an attack of opportunity that round.

[Theodoxus]

It's like, as if Counterspell didn't cost spell slots or something.

As a DM, I have near infinite spell slots I can throw at players. It's an unspoken rule... If they want to use their very limited resource to mitigate some effect through Counterspell, I'm happy - that's attrition for something that isn't like a fireball coming back at my little minions.

Since day 1 of 5E, I've announced spells. My players have announced spells. As a player, I announce my spells. Every table I've ever played, the DMs and players have announced spells - and things like Counterspells rarely come up. Because it's rarely a useful thing to do. Sure, the new identification rules don't really affect this anecdote... but it does slow down play. Instead of "the evil mage casts invisibility" and happiness spreads throughout the land, it's "the evil mage casts a spell" - 5 players jump up at once to use their reaction to figure what spell it is. 5 rolls; 5 shouting players trying to drown each other out so I can hear a number; me doing maths in my head to get the correct DC; players find out that it's invisibility and none decide to Counterspell because that's less useful than other things they could spend their precious spell slots on. Congrats, 1.5 minutes real time wasted on the same result - sadness spreads throughout the land.

These are optional rules, like Flanking, that just make the game worse in most cases. If you need some verisimilitude in your games where it's hard to figure out on the fly that the guy over there with the long robes and snazzy staff has a fiery bead in his hand ready to chuck in your direction, use the rules... but I agree with the OP - The new spell identification rules are terrible. IMO.

[Tectorman]

I just noticed that the spell identification rules do not just talk about identifying the spell as it is being cast (taking your reaction), but also cover identifying a spell after it has been cast by its aftereffects (taking an action on your next turn).

Okay, under the idea that XGtE is introducing spell identification rules into 5E for the first time (and that such rules were not merely not expanded upon beyond just being an ability check or an auto-pass or auto-fail at the DM’s discretion but in fact were taken out of this version of the game on purpose), does that mean that characters were originally not supposed to be able to identify spells period? Not just as they’re happening so as to be able to judiciously use or not use Counterspell, but ever?

The PC Wizard casts Fireball. Neither as it is happening nor after the thing has exploded can anyone besides the Wizard who cast it tell that it was a Fireball. Next turn, the enemy Wizard casts Fireball, and no one, including the PC Wizard, can tell what it’ll be. And after they’re all singed, they still can’t tell what just hit them.

I mean, the default rule is that a character can accurately figure out how to operate a magic item just by focusing on it with a short rest. The Identify spell is faster, but it isn’t a necessity unless you go with a variant rule. And yet, players were originally expected to go their entire careers without ever at any point being able to identify a spell short of Identify itself? Spells, for PCs at least, are rather common with every class being able to use them (even if just one archetype) while magic items are not an assumed part of any character’s arsenal, yet the default rule is easy identification of magic items and no identification of spells? Really, this is what makes sense?

Never mind how inconvenient it is to not be able to judiciously use or not use Counterspell or how counterintuitive it is to not be able to use a “snap decision” spell after careful consideration but be perfectly able to use a “snap decision” spell after patiently waiting for your spotters to give you the go-ahead, this rule and the notion that it introduces spell identification to the game for the first time is objectionable on that basis alone.

[Unoriginal]

First, identifying a magic item's power during a short rest still takes more than a dozen of minutes. It would be impossible to do so in 6 seconds, unless you actually know what the item is and can recall it on sight (ex: a Demon recognising a Holy Avenger).

Second, a battlefield is chaotic, and many spell effects are pretty similar. For exemple, if an area explodes in a burst of flame next to you, how do you know it was from Fireball, Chromatic Orb or Create Bonfire? It can be hard to identify such spells at a glance.


Third, of course some spells have obvious effects, like, say, Wall of Stone or Darkness, and in those cases, if the PCs know about those spells, you don't need to do a check. Remember, 5e makes clear you only do a check if there is a chance at failure, and unless there is some trickery involved you're not going to miss how the wall-creating spell was used to create a wall.


Fourth: if you have identified a spell, either during the casting or once you've seen the effects, you can probably identify the caster casting the exact same spell without a check, because it's obvious what they're doing. Same way that once you've used your Arcane check to learn about what a runic symbole mean, you don't need to re-roll to re-learn about what this same symbol means when you encounter it again 10 min later.

[mer.c]

The PHB actually gives some guidelines on how to handle this on page 204, I think. It says some effects are pretty obvious, like a ball of expanding flame. But others are more subtle, and you may not even know their effects even if you come under them.

It doesn’t give any actual rules for it, so the rest is implicitly left under “Rulings, not Rules” AFAIK.

[Tanarii]

And yet, players were originally expected to go their entire careers without ever at any point being able to identify a spell short of Identify itself? Spells, for PCs at least, are rather common with every class being able to use them (even if just one archetype) while magic items are not an assumed part of any character’s arsenal, yet the default rule is easy identification of magic items and no identification of spells? Really, this is what makes sense?

IMO yes. That's exactly what the PHB intended, and in fact is the primary reason for the Identify spell / ritual in 5e. Not figuring out magic items, although it's useful for that if either you don't have time for a short rest (not exactly uncommon) or your DM discards the easy identification of magic time rules (per the DMG variant).

And it makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is the easy identification of magic items on a short rest. Apparently all magic items include specific magic to telepathically communicate their nature to players or something.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Looking at the scene of a battle, the barbarian says, "Verily was much arcane fire called forth on this spot to roast the unwary", and the wizard says, "To be precise, Gnibgabler's Conflagration, empowered to the fourth degree". Not the biggest problem with this rule by far.

[mephnick]

What doesn't make sense to me is the easy identification of magic items on a short rest. Apparently all magic items include specific magic to telepathically communicate their nature to players or something.

It's literally the first rule I threw out when I read the books, before I even asked my friends if they wanted to switch to 5e.

[Tectorman]

IMO yes. That's exactly what the PHB intended, and in fact is the primary reason for the Identify spell / ritual in 5e. Not figuring out magic items, although it's useful for that if either you don't have time for a short rest (not exactly uncommon) or your DM discards the easy identification of magic time rules (per the DMG variant).

And it makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is the easy identification of magic items on a short rest. Apparently all magic items include specific magic to telepathically communicate their nature to players or something.

See, I could buy the original intention being “no spell identification” were the default for magic item identification more difficult than “just spend some time and you’ll auto-success figure it out guaranteed”, especially when magic items being available isn’t even a given. But given that magic item identification is by default supposed to be easy to resolve with no hoops to jump through, I just don’t buy that spell identification was supposed to be a 180 degrees reversal of that. It strikes me as being “highly specific level of tired” levels of contrived, is all.

Especially with how this is Counterspell-unfriendly, not to mention how that “snap decision” spell is still supposed to be compatible with a consultation with your local Referendum of Spotters.

[Tanarii]

So your position should be that it should take a short rest to identify a spell that has cast, and requires handling or interacting the area. Because that's otherwise, your conclusion doesn't follow. No identification is just as 'logical' as any other conclusion from the identifying magic item rules.

[pwykersotz]

And it makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is the easy identification of magic items on a short rest. Apparently all magic items include specific magic to telepathically communicate their nature to players or something.

I think this was a pretty decent rule myself. As much fun as discovering magic items can be with a GM who is invested in making it part of the story, in practice it has often turned out to be an annoying amount of question marks on my character sheet that are promptly forgotten about because the GM isn't invested, and after I try using it twelve different ways and fail, I grow weary of trying. It takes real effort and some small skill to make discovering item properties fun. I think that overall the instant-identification was a good default rule that can easily be rescinded for a little added immersion, complexity, and fun.