The new spell identification rules are terrible.

[MaxWilson]

No, that's not analogous, because passive perception is used as a target number to successfully hide in the first place. In other words, 'offensively' attempting stealth is not automatically successful. 'Defending' against already successful attempt to Hide requires an action and a rolled check.

It would analogous if casting a spell required an opposed roll using you Casting stat + proficiency vs their passive Arcana to avoid identification. But the 'offensive' part of spell identification is automatically successful in not being identified by default. So an action is needed on the part of the 'defender', with a roll, to identify it.

A distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter who does the rolling; there have even been UAs which rewrite attacking/defending so that players do all the rolling.

A roll by the observer to identify a spell is not materially different from a roll by the spellcaster to avoid having his spell be identified.

The Xanathar's rule is whack--I won't be imposing a reaction cost--but at least we know now how and why Crawford and Mearls expect illusions to work. It's amazing that it took them three years to make that clear.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hmmm...that's a fair argument. I find that somewhat convincing. Given that, here's how I would think about it:

If my presumption is correct and we're in a game world where you can identify a spell based on its components reliably (maybe not entirely), then maybe allow a passive check (sort of like passive perception), but increase the DC by 5 or so.

If my presumption isn't correct and we're in a game world where spells are just a manufactured thing for our understanding (which you make a pretty convincing argument for), then it absolutely takes a reaction because you have to deduce it from the caster's body-language, component use, and general disposition.

To extend, it's like reading body language of someone who's from a different culture. Yeah, there are similarities, but also large differences. Some places shake their head for yes and nod for no[1]. Some places, an open stance and a broad smile are signs of aggression, other places not so much. For spells it's about the tradition they come from (broader than just wizard schools). Are they a southern mage from the Ala Kazam school? Are they an eastern mage from the "School of Anime Sorcery" (these ones are easy--they always shout the name of the attack)? Etc. Each one is going to gussy up the actual cast with different bits and bobs. It's possible to figure out what's happening, and easier if you can cast those same spells (same class), but not trivial.

[1] Or maybe not. Just making examples up at this point.

[Unoriginal]

Hmmm...that's a fair argument. I find that somewhat convincing. Given that, here's how I would think about it:

If my presumption is correct and we're in a game world where you can identify a spell based on its components reliably (maybe not entirely), then maybe allow a passive check (sort of like passive perception), but increase the DC by 5 or so.

If my presumption isn't correct and we're in a game world where spells are just a manufactured thing for our understanding (which you make a pretty convincing argument for), then it absolutely takes a reaction because you have to deduce it from the caster's body-language, component use, and general disposition.

Your presumption is not correct for a typical D&D world, as it takes a check to identify a spell by its components. And in 5e, checks only happen when failure is a possibility.


Of course, some thing are obvious, like if you see a fire mage reach into a jar with "bat guano" written on it during casting, you don't need a check to know they're probably casting Fireball. But you migh still want to make the check to be sure you're not being fooled.

[Tanarii]

The Xanathar's rule is whack--I won't be imposing a reaction cost--but at least we know now how and why Crawford and Mearls expect illusions to work. It's amazing that it took them three years to make that clear.

Given that no edition of D&D has assumed the players automatically know the precise spell (or power) being used, I'm not sure why you'd have come to that conclusion in the first place. Especially for illusions. It requires intentionally interpreting/thinking that something designed to deceive will fail if casting is observed, when there's an equally valid interpretation / way of thinking that would result in them not being useless if casting is observed. Given that, it doesn't make sense to me to expect illusions won't work.

[krugaan]

To extend, it's like reading body language of someone who's from a different culture. Yeah, there are similarities, but also large differences. Some places shake their head for yes and nod for no[1]. Some places, an open stance and a broad smile are signs of aggression, other places not so much. For spells it's about the tradition they come from (broader than just wizard schools). Are they a southern mage from the Ala Kazam school? Are they an eastern mage from the "School of Anime Sorcery" (these ones are easy--they always shout the name of the attack)? Etc. Each one is going to gussy up the actual cast with different bits and bobs. It's possible to figure out what's happening, and easier if you can cast those same spells (same class), but not trivial.

[1] Or maybe not. Just making examples up at this point.

How about this then? A spell is a like a song.

For analogy, we'll say that Beatles are the OG casters.

The Beatles have a spell called Yesterday (detect magic, lets say). There's tons of versions of the song. They all sound kinda different. But if you've heard the song before (it's a popular tune) then you can totally identify it if someone else hums it too, or plays it on a sax (elevator muzak), or the bongos, or whatever.

edit: this isn't RAW by any means ... just how I envision it. When Sorcs use subtle spell, they playing it on headphones.

[mephnick]

Given that no edition of D&D has assumed the players automatically know the precise spell (or power) being used, I'm not sure why you'd have come to that conclusion in the first place.

People have been playing the game wrong for decades and they get mad when you question why.

[Meta]

People have been playing the game wrong for decades and they get mad when you question why.

You're so high up on that pedestal I can barely see you.

Unoriginal, I still wanna go over all the citations you quoted, just been busy and it seems like I'm gonna need to read every relevant section to get the context to do it right.

[Jama7301]

Aw heck yes, multiple off-turn actions.
Suck it, martials.

[endlessxaura]

Your presumption is not correct for a typical D&D world, as it takes a check to identify a spell by its components. And in 5e, checks only happen when failure is a possibility.


Of course, some thing are obvious, like if you see a fire mage reach into a jar with "bat guano" written on it during casting, you don't need a check to know they're probably casting Fireball. But you migh still want to make the check to be sure you're not being fooled.

I don't think you quite get what I mean. Let me phrase it this way: suppose I took any rule out of D&D, like spell attacks - which didn't exist in previous editions. Could the rules easily and intuitively support the mechanic? In that case, absolutely. Attacks have existed for practically forever, AC is the obvious choice of AC because it measures difficulty to damage with an attack, and some spells operate as projectiles or touches. There's no break in immersion implementing this.

Now, take this rule. Typically, perception and knowledge checks are made instantaneously and without need for any actions. In fact, the mere existence of passive perception indicates this. Were we to take out this new rule from Xanathar's, most people would assume (and probably have assumed) that spell identification was also instantaneous because it's similar to a knowledge check. In my view, the previous rules, such as this, spell components, wizardry, etc., do not seem to support the mechanic. It's a break in immersion. That's what I mean by "my presumption." Not assumption, presumption.

[DivisibleByZero]

Typically, perception and knowledge checks are made instantaneously and without need for any actions. In fact, the mere existence of passive perception indicates this.

Your entire point fails because this is absolutely incorrect.

[Unoriginal]

I don't think you quite get what I mean. Let me phrase it this way: suppose I took any rule out of D&D, like spell attacks - which didn't exist in previous editions. Could the rules easily and intuitively support the mechanic? In that case, absolutely. Attacks have existed for practically forever, AC is the obvious choice of AC because it measures difficulty to damage with an attack, and some spells operate as projectiles or touches. There's no break in immersion implementing this.

Now, take this rule. Typically, perception and knowledge checks are made instantaneously and without need for any actions. In fact, the mere existence of passive perception indicates this. Were we to take out this new rule from Xanathar's, most people would assume (and probably have assumed) that spell identification was also instantaneous because it's similar to a knowledge check. In my view, the previous rules, such as this, spell components, wizardry, etc., do not seem to support the mechanic. It's a break in immersion. That's what I mean by "my presumption." Not assumption, presumption.

Passive Perception =/= WIS (Perception) check.

To do a Perception check in combat, you need to use the Search Action.

Search
When you take the Search action, you devote your attention to finding something. Depending on the nature of your search, the GM might have you make a Wisdom (Perception) check or an Intelligence (Investigation) check.

And the check you have to make isn't even your choice.

So really, people assuming that spell identification was instantaneous were just ignoring the rules in order to fit what they wanted.

Meaning that actually, the new rule allowing an identification as a Reaction is actually doing people a favor.

Also, there is no knowledge check in 5e.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Meaning that actually, the new rule allowing an identification as a Reaction is actually doing people a favor.

Also, there is no knowledge check in 5e.

Again we see the common issue--bringing old-edition thinking into a new edition. If people (not you) would stop doing that, we'd have many fewer of these threads, and fewer people angsting on the forums in general. Expectation mismatch is the problem, not the rules themselves.

[Pex]

Again we see the common issue--bringing old-edition thinking into a new edition. If people (not you) would stop doing that, we'd have many fewer of these threads, and fewer people angsting on the forums in general. Expectation mismatch is the problem, not the rules themselves.

Perhaps that's a sign the old way of thinking is superior to what 5E has done. That doesn't change what 5E is, but it is why there is argument about it.

[UrielAwakened]

Passive Perception =/= WIS (Perception) check.

To do a Perception check in combat, you need to use the Search Action.



And the check you have to make isn't even your choice.

So really, people assuming that spell identification was instantaneous were just ignoring the rules in order to fit what they wanted.

Meaning that actually, the new rule allowing an identification as a Reaction is actually doing people a favor.

Also, there is no knowledge check in 5e.

Is your argument against "the new rule is bad" seriously "well the old rule was bad too."

[Tanarii]

Passive Perception =/= WIS (Perception) check.

To do a Perception check in combat, you need to use the Search Action.

However that does point to a way for a DM that does, specifically, want to make automatic identification of spells a thing, but also have casters habitually try to hide them (because that seems like a natural consequence). Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) vs Passive Arcana as part of casting any spell. The caster can forgo the roll if they don't care if their spell is identified and save some table time. To get the DC right, make it disadvantage for observers that don't have the spell on their spell list, which is probably most PC enemies.

I'd use Dex (SoH) even for V-only spells. Just to keep the rule simple. ish. Covering you're mouth at the right moment and mumbling or something.

[DivisibleByZero]

Perhaps that's a sign the old way of thinking is superior to what 5E has done. That doesn't change what 5E is, but it is why there is argument about it.

No. It means people have a hard time with change. They get used to how things were, and then do not adjust their expectations when how things are changes.

It's like how everyone hated Vista because they were used to XP, and then everyone hated Win7 because they were used to Vista, etc. Each time it was better than what came before it, but people were so used to how I was before that it took them forever to adjust to the new way.
It's the same thing here. People bring up old rules and continue to use old ways because that's what they were used to and they haven't adjusted, not necessarily because it was better.
Now we have 10, and it's better again.

We ignore Win8. That was like 4e.

D&D :: XP
AD&D :: Vista
DnD 3e :: Win7
4e :: Win8
5e :: Win10

[Tanarii]

It's like how everyone hated Vista because they were used to XP, and then everyone hated Win7 because they were used to Vista, etc. Each time it was better than what came before it, but people were so used to how I was before that it took them forever to adjust to the new way.
It's the same thing here. People bring up old rules and continue to use old ways because that's what they were used to and they haven't adjusted, not necessarily because it was better.
Now we have 10, and it's better again.

We ignore Win8. That was like 4e.

I dispute your analogy on the basis that Vista and 10 are provably worse than XP and 7 (respectively). Those versions of windows are not adopted by corporate IT professional unless they're forced to for a reason. And even then, they require particularly heavy research on proper configuration of the default services.

The Windows 8 part is spot on though.

[Unoriginal]

Is your argument against "the new rule is bad" seriously "well the old rule was bad too."

No, my argument against "The new rule is bad, it doesn't let me do what I want when what rule Y allows me to do sets a precedent about why I should be able to do it" is "rule Y never allowed you to do that, and the new rule actually allows you to do more than what any precedent based on rule Y allows you to do."

Personally, I consider both rules to be good.

Nice attempt to change the pathos of my argument in order to dismiss it, except for the fact anyone with reading comprehension can see through the trick.

Perhaps that's a sign the old way of thinking is superior to what 5E has done. That doesn't change what 5E is, but it is why there is argument about it.

Ah, yes, because obviously people being stuck in using the old method, not learning the new one, and saying that the new method is bad because the old one did it differently means that the old method is superior.

Just as demonstrated by Socrates in Plato's writings, when he said that writing was a terrible thing and that no one should do it, ever. Wait a minute...


People aren't arguing against the new rule because it's bad, or because it goes against what already existed, they are arguing against it because it doesn't fit what they want for casters to be able to do.

Newsflash: "I don't like it, it doesn't do what I want it to do" isn't enough of an argument. I would enjoy it if the 5e Barbarian could lift a Storm Giant and beat them up with wrestling moves, but that the system doesn't allow it doesn't mean the rules for it are bad.

[UrielAwakened]

Who actually throws around terms like pathos on the internet.

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, you recognize I'm doing some kind of dough, perhaps. But do you have any idea how many different things you could be doing with flour and yeast? I can name at least half a dozen without having to think about it.

Still, I think people forget that the one wanting to identify spells is (usually) doing his own thing during combat. And I believe it's a reaction to represent this.

Cutting right here just to reduce size.

I find I can agree with you about taking a reaction the first time (though I'd argue it is largely a waste of time since you can take an action after the fight to do the same exact thing, a minute to auto-succeed). However, once you've identified a spell a dozen or more times, and lets say you are good enough that your passive arcana is already a success, why should you need to keep rolling?

That's where this food analogy stuff came from. Is there never a point where you are a good enough magic-user with enough experience that you can just recognize magic missile as it is being cast? You've seen it plenty of times, you've cast it yourself plenty of times, and we do not have (within the game) the kind of fog of war, everything is super chaotic, style of combat that would make it this difficult. At least, not at any table I've played at.

My point was that this is an area where you should expect setting variation, so any argument predicated on identity of components is meaningless. RAW is silent on the matter. In some settings, magic might be standardized. Others, not so much. And it might vary strongly between types of spell-casters--a wizard's fireball might look very different than a sorcerer's (or a light cleric's). A bard casts by singing, a cleric by chanting prayers. Even if they're casting the same spell, the method is going to vary considerably. And that's normal--they're operating very differently. One is harmonizing with the Weave, the other is asking a 3rd party for a favor (who then operates on the Weave). It would be strange if they were anything alike, let alone identical. Or identical to that sorcerer who says a single word and gestures sharply (quickened fireball).

Wizardry is a science, with spell formulas. And it's the outlier. Most other branches of magic are not described in such terms. And even then, you can have a science if, for example, the true minimum requirements are unknown and the study is to improve the spell by reducing the extraneous elements of the components. CF Rite of AshkEnte. Different lines of thought (schools in the actual sense, not the "evocation, abjuration, etc" sense) may have different ideas (and those different ideas might actually be meaningfully different in-universe, but not at the level of abstraction the game operates at). There can also be intentional flourishes--one happens to flip his wand just so, another like that, but neither of those matter for the spell. They're just habits picked up over time (or added to confuse others).

It would be strange for them to all be alike, but per RAW they are. And not only that, but the Arcana skill per this Xanathar's rule is the only way to identify magic no matter who it is from.

So, a cleric calling upon the divine will of Helios to burn his enemies to ash casts a spell, Religion and knowing anything about the rites and rituals of Helios will get you absolutely nothing in identifying the spell, but studying Arcana and being talented with spell formulas and wizardry will tell you that it is a fireball that this cleric is casting.

A warlock calls upon a fiend, still use Arcana to identify the spell.
Bard singing, Arcana
Druid communing with the spirits of nature, Arcana


For this to be the RAW of the game, it must mean these spells share some links, some common elements that are scientifically studiable. Otherwise these rules would not work they way they are presented.

This raises the question, one that is a very good question, of why their are differences between the class spell lists? If this is true, why can't a wizard cast cure wounds or why do you need to be a warlock to cast hex?

I have no idea. I don't understand that either except to break down and say that this is a game in the end, and balancing the spell lists was one thing the design team attempted. Because in-universe, this RAW makes things a bit weird on that front.

That is not accurate, if you are perceiving the process of casting the spell you use a reaction, if you are identifying it by the effect after it is cast it is an action.

Hate to call you out as wrong and quote the book at you, but you are and I am.

Xanathar's rule states

"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."

Now, what I saw as I copied this is that this section contradicts the section that came before which says

"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."


This is problematic, because the first one I posted is the actual rules text (it's followed by the DC and the rules for advantage) which tells me it takes precedence, and the way it is written allows for an action to identify a spell if you perceived the casting. This suddenly became a lot more murky, because one part of the rules text explicitly allows it and the other part explicitly disallows it. That is messy and poorly written.

Wrong. It takes a long time to prepare your spells. The 6 second thing you cast is only the tip of the iceberg, essentially completing a spell that's nearly finished in your mind.

This is another thing that people don't take into account: you never see most of the spell, including the inner workings, unless you do something like look at the wizard's spellbook and decode it.

This used to be true, it is no longer neccesarily true.

With the outing of Vancian casting, we can no longer assume a spell is nearly completed in the mind of the person using it. After all, Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks do not prepare spells in anyway. They simply know how to cast them.

Right. There are some underlying patterns (and part of magical research is to figure out exactly which of the traditional components are actually necessary), but that doesn't mean that everything is the same. Each class is more similar to itself than to another. I can't imagine that a bard and a cleric are going to say the same words to cast the same spell. Or especially a sorcerer with meta-magic. Quicken is a good example here--you take a spell that normally takes a decent amount of time (an action) and shorten it to a bonus action. That's absolutely going to change what the spell components are, both verbal and somatic.

I'd go further and claim that in the fiction, the spells themselves are different. No two casters' spells are actually identical (same exact, nicely rounded range, etc). That's just a UI convention for our convenience. Never mistake a UI choice (rules) for the actual in-universe facts. Creatures don't have INT scores, don't have casting stats (or stats at all), etc. Those are game conventions. Magic (unlike science) depends on the mental attitudes of the practitioner.

And it is those underlying patterns that we are talking about here. Identifying a spell is identifying those neccesary components, and once you've done that long enough it should be far easier to do so, to the point where a check seems rather unnecessary.

We talk about the "chaos of the battlefield" but a wizard casting fireball can place it precisely to the foot of hitting a certain group of enemies but avoiding all his allies. In fact, nothing in the rules prevents the player (if you are playing on a game mat) from measuring the squares out of turn, and hitting that spot. Heck, they can even hold their action and time it perfectly to hit a new enemy who is running into the space or wait until the moment an ally is out of range and then cast it so quickly the ally has time to turn and run back into the zone afterwards, suffering no ill effects, and all of that still leaves time for reaction identifying and reaction counterspelling.

At some point our discussions have to stop relying on "the battlefield of fast and complex and the wizard doesn't have the time to analyze or see everything" when very clearly they can do things that are absolutely impossible on a real battlefield.

Your entire point fails because this is absolutely incorrect.

So passive perception doesn't exist? Or instead do you mean that you require an action when you describe "soldiers in red and gold, wearing a religious symbol on their chest" for the players to remember that red and gold uniforms are the standard for the Temple of Sune, and what her symbol is. Bonus points if you even have the cleric of Sune in the party roll to identify for an action (After all the battlefield is chaotic and a knowledge check shouldn't just happen without some sort of action or reaction cost)

I love absolutes, they leave no room for exceptions or grey areas whatsoever

[PhoenixPhyre]

It would be strange for them to all be alike, but per RAW they are. And not only that, but the Arcana skill per this Xanathar's rule is the only way to identify magic no matter who it is from.

So, a cleric calling upon the divine will of Helios to burn his enemies to ash casts a spell, Religion and knowing anything about the rites and rituals of Helios will get you absolutely nothing in identifying the spell, but studying Arcana and being talented with spell formulas and wizardry will tell you that it is a fireball that this cleric is casting.

A warlock calls upon a fiend, still use Arcana to identify the spell.
Bard singing, Arcana
Druid communing with the spirits of nature, Arcana


For this to be the RAW of the game, it must mean these spells share some links, some common elements that are scientifically studiable. Otherwise these rules would not work they way they are presented.

This raises the question, one that is a very good question, of why their are differences between the class spell lists? If this is true, why can't a wizard cast cure wounds or why do you need to be a warlock to cast hex?

I have no idea. I don't understand that either except to break down and say that this is a game in the end, and balancing the spell lists was one thing the design team attempted. Because in-universe, this RAW makes things a bit weird on that front.


And it is those underlying patterns that we are talking about here. Identifying a spell is identifying those neccesary components, and once you've done that long enough it should be far easier to do so, to the point where a check seems rather unnecessary.

We talk about the "chaos of the battlefield" but a wizard casting fireball can place it precisely to the foot of hitting a certain group of enemies but avoiding all his allies. In fact, nothing in the rules prevents the player (if you are playing on a game mat) from measuring the squares out of turn, and hitting that spot. Heck, they can even hold their action and time it perfectly to hit a new enemy who is running into the space or wait until the moment an ally is out of range and then cast it so quickly the ally has time to turn and run back into the zone afterwards, suffering no ill effects, and all of that still leaves time for reaction identifying and reaction counterspelling.

At some point our discussions have to stop relying on "the battlefield of fast and complex and the wizard doesn't have the time to analyze or see everything" when very clearly they can do things that are absolutely impossible on a real battlefield.

You're again presuming that the game rules are the physics of the underlying fiction. That's a bad assumption. The rules are the UI. There is no indication that the underlying world knows anything about exact ranges (or that wizards can really place things that precisely), exactly fixed spells, or anything like that. That's a game approximation to make things easier, as is the turn-based timing. Those are there for the players, not for the characters.

And of course to identify magic you rely on the skill associated with recalling magical lore (Arcana), including lore about other traditions (from the PHB). Why would you rely on another skill to do something that's right up the alley of Arcana?

And commonalities don't imply that they're easily study-able or scientifically accessible. There's no indication that the components (verbal and somatic) are even static between casts--they might depend on the angle to the third moon, or the time of day, or the range to target, or a whole host of other parameters. Or that the exact words are even important. The text only calls out sound, intonation and pitch--you can say lots of different phrases that have very similar sounds, intonations, and pitches. Especially in a more complex language. English is a very simple phonetic environment, with no tones, glottal stops, or other features. Other languages aren't necessarily so simple. Even the various Sinitic languages would be very difficult to distinguish which exact homonym is being used except by context.

This all indicates that it's not easy to tell what's being cast, in-universe. And this leaves out that different magical traditions dress up their spells differently--some might use flamboyant gestures, some may be minimalists, others may do things in rhyme, others may have choppy motions. All of these won't be trivial to distinguish, and seeing magic missile being cast once won't necessarily help you other times from other casters. Not only that, there are lots of spells out there. Even the most learned wizard doesn't know all of them, or even most of them. It's not like they get a big UI panel that tells them of all the spells out there when they level up--they learn through experimentation and research. Even copying scrolls or spell-books requires decoding the notation used and the nature of the spell. That takes considerable time and effort. And those are all wizard spells.

[Tanarii]

It would be strange for them to all be alike, but per RAW they are.

Citation needed.

Because there's no RAW that requires all V components and all S components to be the same for any two casters. Nor for any one caster any two give times he casts the same spell. The caster might need to do it differently based on different parameters for that casting.

Hate to call you out as wrong and quote the book at you, but you are and I am.

Xanathar's rule states

"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."

Now, what I saw as I copied this is that this section contradicts the section that came before which says

"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."


This is problematic, because the first one I posted is the actual rules text (it's followed by the DC and the rules for advantage) which tells me it takes precedence, and the way it is written allows for an action to identify a spell if you perceived the casting. This suddenly became a lot more murky, because one part of the rules text explicitly allows it and the other part explicitly disallows it. That is messy and poorly written.

There is no contradiction. The first part you quoted tells the check, and references the previous sentences action type required. It also makes it clear you must perceive either casting or effect to make the check, using the appropriate action.

You're just choosing to mush up the sentence in the first one by incorrectly bolding the first of two requirements, and the second of two actions, which is not the correct association. Since you're not reading it correctly, you're seeing a contradiction that isn't there.

[krugaan]

Who actually throws around terms like pathos on the internet.

Roll a d20. on a 19 or lower, its a poser, roflmao.

Fine, 18 or lower. The internet is a big place.

Ehhhhhhh, 16 or lower. This is a pretty intelligent forum.

[MeeposFire]

Are there spells that you can use a focus but is in two very different classes and so the focus being used are very different like the staff and holy symbol? Would not that spell being cast in different ways depending on which you use and if that is true would it not be possible that the same spell cast by different folks be cast slightly differently?

[Unoriginal]

Who actually throws around terms like pathos on the internet.

People who are using the actual rhetorical terms to describe an instance of rhetorics.

Also, this is yet another transparent attempt of your part. Since you have no way to credibly attack my argument, you are trying to cast doubt on my credibility by implying there is something wrong/ridiculous/foolish about using the word I used.

Hate to call you out as wrong and quote the book at you, but you are and I am.

Xanathar's rule states

"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."

Now, what I saw as I copied this is that this section contradicts the section that came before which says

"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."


This is problematic, because the first one I posted is the actual rules text (it's followed by the DC and the rules for advantage) which tells me it takes precedence, and the way it is written allows for an action to identify a spell if you perceived the casting. This suddenly became a lot more murky, because one part of the rules text explicitly allows it and the other part explicitly disallows it. That is messy and poorly written.

No it's not. As Tanarii said, the rule is clear.

You're just deliberately trying to misread it to make it look bad.

So passive perception doesn't exist? Or instead do you mean that you require an action when you describe "soldiers in red and gold, wearing a religious symbol on their chest" for the players to remember that red and gold uniforms are the standard for the Temple of Sune, and what her symbol is. Bonus points if you even have the cleric of Sune in the party roll to identify for an action (After all the battlefield is chaotic and a knowledge check shouldn't just happen without some sort of action or reaction cost)

Again, 5e does not have checks for what has no chance of failure. A DM would only call for a check if what the PCs saw was ambiguous enough to make them not realize instantly who those people are. Same reason why you don't have to use the Search action against people who are not trying to hide.

If a worshiper of Sune with no obvious sign of their faith used a battlecry and a PC desired analyzing this battlecry in order to learn more about their opponent, it would indeed be logical to have to spend an action to use their Int(History) check, or maybe Int(Religion) if the religious tone of the battlecry is noticeable.


And once again, there is no knowledge check in 5e.

Are there spells that you can use a focus but is in two very different classes and so the focus being used are very different like the staff and holy symbol? Would not that spell being cast in different ways depending on which you use and if that is true would it not be possible that the same spell cast by different folks be cast slightly differently?

A Cleric/Wizard PC who knows the same spell with non-costly material components from both their classes and who want to cast it without the material component would have to use an holy symbol, even one painted on a shield, to cast it as a Cleric, while they'd have to use an arcane focus to cast it as a Wizard.

Roll a d20. on a 19 or lower, its a poser, roflmao.

Fine, 18 or lower. The internet is a big place.

Ehhhhhhh, 16 or lower. This is a pretty intelligent forum.

Oh, so there's a 80% chance I'm a "poser". Not a great insult by any mean, but I'd give it some bonus point for originality.

[krugaan]

Oh, so there's a 80% chance I'm a "poser". Not a great insult by any mean, but I'd give it some bonus point for originality.

Hah, i guess so. It wasn't actually meant as an insult, just a wry observation; I have no idea to whom he was referring. If you know you're not a poser, then good on you. You have to admit though, pathos is not a very common term. Doesn't it mean emotional appeal or something?

I didn't even check how you used it, I'm assuming you used it correctly.

[Unoriginal]

Doesn't it mean emotional appeal or something?

It's an appeal to emotion, yes, in the sense "a rhetorical method to summon a particular emotion in the audience".

[MaxWilson]

Given that no edition of D&D has assumed the players automatically know the precise spell (or power) being used, I'm not sure why you'd have come to that conclusion in the first place. Especially for illusions. It requires intentionally interpreting/thinking that something designed to deceive will fail if casting is observed, when there's an equally valid interpretation / way of thinking that would result in them not being useless if casting is observed. Given that, it doesn't make sense to me to expect illusions won't work.

Whaaaa?

We're talking about reaction costs, not just "automatic" identification. It is now clear how and why Crawford and company were expecting illusions to work--because they were thinking that spell identification was *impossible*, not automatic. The DMs out there who've been asking for Arcana checks to recognize spells as they're cast were apparently doing something totally unanticipated by Crawford and company, although I have no idea *why* Crawford didn't expect it. (Not to mention the DMs like Matt of Critical Role who just straight up straight up tell the players "Vecna is using two legendary actions to cast Dispel", like this: https://youtu.be/W-SMrG0QLc0?t=6142)

I think it's fair to say that the percentage of 5E DMs out there who, before Xanathar's came out, gave out zero information about enemy spells without spending your action/reaction is approximately zero. But Crawford was apparently one of them, and it seems that Tanarii was too.

[Vaz]

This is a pretty intelligent forum.

Good joke.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Whaaaa?

We're talking about reaction costs, not just "automatic" identification. It is now clear how and why Crawford and company were expecting illusions to work--because they were thinking that spell identification was *impossible*, not automatic. The DMs out there who've been asking for Arcana checks to recognize spells as they're cast were apparently doing something totally unanticipated by Crawford and company, although I have no idea *why* Crawford didn't expect it. (Not to mention the DMs like Matt of Critical Role who just straight up straight up tell the players "Vecna is using two legendary actions to cast Dispel", like this: https://youtu.be/W-SMrG0QLc0?t=6142)

I think it's fair to say that the percentage of 5E DMs out there who, before Xanathar's came out, gave out zero information about enemy spells without spending your action/reaction is approximately zero. But Crawford was apparently one of them, and it seems that Tanarii was too.

:waves: I give out basically zero information on what's being cast. Sometimes they'll get "a shimmery light glows around the caster" for something like bless, but basically my statements go like this (assuming verbal components):

Me (DM)--<NPC> chants a few arcane phrases...<pause>

At this point, they can counter-spell or not. But it's totally blind, always has been.

If they don't counter-spell, then I continue with the description.