The new spell identification rules are terrible.

[Finieous]

B) The DM was already metagaming each spell being cast because the player HAS to tell the DM what's happening. This actually makes a DM counterspelling a strong PC spell HARDER

In my games there is currently no metagaming. The house rule is that all spellcasters automatically know what spells are being cast. This is in-game knowledge, not out-of-game knowledge.

People are weird.

This is true.

[Breashios]

Breashios, when your group that demanded to play by RAW asked you to let them identify spells as they were being cast, for the purpose of Counterspelling them, they were asking you to enforce a house rule.

"Just because the rules don't say, doesn't mean it's not RAW" is totally wrong. The rules don't disallow, but neither did they prescribe. There was no RAW way of doing it.

In order to do it at all, you had to create a new rule that the table would abide by. That rule was not in the RAW. But it was a rule binding everyone playing at your table.

While what you are saying here is exactly correct (except the "is totally wrong" part). It appears we disagree on whether a rule that is completely separate from RAW is or is not considered RAW.

The way I and my group interpreted RAW was if the rules said it, it had to be followed. If the rules did not specify for or against, it was still RAW to allow a DM ruling to fill the void because DM Ruling is specified by RAW as consistent with RAW and different from a house rule.

Usually a DM Ruling is seen as something that would have impacted play rarely. This was the exception that did come up regularly. If it being a matter of frequency - moving something from Ruling to House Rule - well that is just too subjective for me.

I appreciate your help clarifying this forum's definition of RAW. It might just be that we are defining RAW for purposes of what is acceptable at our table is at odds with what most forum participants have come to understand, but we came to our understanding of what RAW would be before I joined this forum.

Is there a different term I should be using for RAW + everything not covered either way by RAW? My understanding is a House Rule is ALWAYS something that is contrary or slightly different than RAW. Is there a different definition of House Rule I should be using?

[gloryblaze]

While what you are saying here is exactly correct (except the "is totally wrong" part). It appears we disagree on whether a rule that is completely separate from RAW is or is not considered RAW.

The way I and my group interpreted RAW was if the rules said it, it had to be followed. If the rules did not specify for or against, it was still RAW to allow a DM ruling to fill the void because DM Ruling is specified by RAW as consistent with RAW and different from a house rule.

Usually a DM Ruling is seen as something that would have impacted play rarely. This was the exception that did come up regularly. If it being a matter of frequency - moving something from Ruling to House Rule - well that is just too subjective for me.

I appreciate your help clarifying this forum's definition of RAW. It might just be that we are defining RAW for purposes of what is acceptable at our table is at odds with what most forum participants have come to understand, but we came to our understanding of what RAW would be before I joined this forum.

Is there a different term I should be using for RAW + everything not covered either way by RAW? My understanding is a House Rule is ALWAYS something that is contrary or slightly different than RAW. Is there a different definition of House Rule I should be using?

A "house rule" is any rule your group uses that does not come from a sourcebook (either because it is contrary to the sourcebook or absent from the sourcebook). Think about the etymology of the term - it's your house rule because it's the rule in your house. If you go to somebody else's house, they may not have the same rule (because it is not in the sourcebook).

[lunaticfringe]

Perhaps people wanted this ability to happen and are disappointed when the subject is addressed in an official capacity it's still not a thing to happen in an official capacity. They want official justification so as it's no longer needed as a house rule.

The house rule will work fine at one table but go to another table it's not there and no official rule to do what they wanted an ability to do.

Pex what game or edition did you play in where there weren't house rules? That's like the first question I ask when I join a new table. Awesome people have a sheet of paper handy to hand to someone.

Just out of curiosity.

[DivisibleByZero]

Is there a different term I should be using for RAW + everything not covered either way by RAW? My understanding is a House Rule is ALWAYS something that is contrary or slightly different than RAW. Is there a different definition of House Rule I should be using?

RAW = Rules As Written.
If it isn't written, it isn't RAW.
Now you'll get some people who argue that the Sage Advice articles are RAW, and those that argue the opposite.
You'll get some people who argue that JC's tweets are RAW, and those who argue the opposite.
Neither of those are right or wrong, because they are both Officially recognized, but they are not "written" in "published" material, which is where the disagreements stem from.

But everything outside of that? Not RAW.

So your "Ruling" about it? It's a semantic debate between you and the rest of your table whether it falls under Rulings or House Rules. The two are synonymous in many respects. But it certainly isn't RAW.
So your "RAW only" game that allows spells to be ID'd? It isn't a RAW only game.

This just further establishes that literally NO GAME OF DND 5E is RAW only. Every game has house rules.
The entire edition was built upon the concept of House Rules and Rulings from the ground up.
Even games that consider themselves "RAW only" use house rules.
"RAW only" doesn't exist in this edition. It really never has, in any edition.

[Xetheral]

Wasn't the "old" way of identifying spells the default resolution mechanic? If a player wanted to know what spell was being cast, the DM decided if it was an automatic success, an automatic failure, or there was doubt. If there was doubt, the DM called for a roll.

I fail to see anything in the rules preventing application of the default resolution mechanic to spell identification. Therefore, claims that it was impossible, RAW, to identify a spell being cast don't make sense to me.

[DivisibleByZero]

Wasn't the "old" way of identifying spells the default resolution mechanic? If a player wanted to know what spell was being cast, the DM decided if it was an automatic success, an automatic failure, or there was doubt. If there was doubt, the DM called for a roll.

I fail to see anything in the rules preventing application of the default resolution mechanic to spell identification. Therefore, claims that it was impossible, RAW, to identify a spell being cast don't make sense to me.

See my post directly above yours.
The rules for it were deliberately removed. There literally was no RAW about it. So how could anyone argue what was RAW and not? None of it was RAW.
By the RAW, there was no way to ID a spell that was being cast. That was intentional.

[Breashios]

Ok, but you haven't given me a term I can use. I understand what you are saying Rules as Written are JUST what is written, but many people used that to say not contrary to the rules as written (I'll start using "NC to RAW" I guess and I'll get that as the new definition of any "RAW" campaigns we play in the future). It is written in the rules that DM rulings are a good thing. Nowhere did it define a DM ruling as a house rule or only a one off thing (that I can remember or find in my books right now).

If I go to another table I would expect different rulings, naturally, but if it goes against a written rule, it has to have a label. The label I and everyone I know personally across multiple games is that HOUSE RULES are rules that are different than the published rules and errata.

I have not noticed anybody calling rulings to clarify or fill voids within the rules "House Rules". Certainly some of the posters here must have experienced that.

[Breashios]

Wasn't the "old" way of identifying spells the default resolution mechanic? If a player wanted to know what spell was being cast, the DM decided if it was an automatic success, an automatic failure, or there was doubt. If there was doubt, the DM called for a roll.

I fail to see anything in the rules preventing application of the default resolution mechanic to spell identification. Therefore, claims that it was impossible, RAW, to identify a spell being cast don't make sense to me.

Thank you.

[Xetheral]

See my post directly above yours.

Are you saying that use of the default resolution mechanic itself isn't RAW? Otherwise I'm not understanding how the post above mine provides evidence that, RAW, spell identification is excluded from the default resolution mechanic.

[DivisibleByZero]

The label I and everyone I know personally across multiple games is that HOUSE RULES are rules that are different than the published rules and errata.

Yes. That's correct.
But adding/creating rules that do not exist in the published rules and errata? Those are indeed different from the published rules and errata, and as such still fall under your own definition of House Rules.

[Finieous]

See my post directly above yours.
The rules for it were deliberately removed. There literally was no RAW about it. So how could anyone argue what was RAW and not? None of it was RAW.
By the RAW, there was no way to ID a spell that was being cast. That was intentional.

He's saying there was RAW for resolving tasks. Identifying a spell is a task. In the absence of any specific rule, therefore, the RAW for identifying spells is just the general RAW for resolving tasks. It's a fair point.

I have therefore changed my mind: I have not been using any house rules. I have been using the task resolution rules and judging that attempts to identify spells automatically succeed.

(In practice, this makes absolutely no difference to me or the people I play with.)

[Laserlight]

Just to toss another iron in the fire: do things like Dim LIght affect your Arcana check to identify the spell?

[LeonBH]

Are you saying that use of the default resolution mechanic itself isn't RAW? Otherwise I'm not understanding how the post above mine provides evidence that, RAW, spell identification is excluded from the default resolution mechanic.

The default resolution mechanic is RAW, obviously.

But should PCs use an action, reaction, bonus action, free action to apply the default resolution mechanic?

It is not specified. If you choose one of those four, that is not a thing RAW can back you up on.

What is the DC? A rule of 15+spell level was not prescribed before. If you used a formula, that formula would not have been prescribed by RAW.

[Unoriginal]

Wasn't the "old" way of identifying spells the default resolution mechanic? If a player wanted to know what spell was being cast, the DM decided if it was an automatic success, an automatic failure, or there was doubt. If there was doubt, the DM called for a roll.

Nope, the old way was getting hit by the spell and deducing from the effects/having the DM tell you which spell it was.

I fail to see anything in the rules preventing application of the default resolution mechanic to spell identification. Therefore, claims that it was impossible, RAW, to identify a spell being cast don't make sense to me.

If it is not written, it is not RAW.

For exemple, it could make sense for a DM to say "catching an arrow mid-flight to show how impressive you are, even if you're not a Monk, when one shooting the arrow isn't aiming to harm you, is a Dex(Intimidation) roll". However, since this specific case is not written in any of WotC's official material, it is not RAW.

[Finieous]

If it is not written, it is not RAW.

So despite the existence of RAW for universal task resolution, we are all using house rules to adjudicate the effectively infinite number of tasks for which no specific rules have been provided?

[LeonBH]

So despite the existence of RAW for universal task resolution, we are all using house rules to adjudicate the effectively infinite number of tasks for which no specific rules have been provided?

Can you explain the Universal Task Resolution mechanic, please? Your question implies everything is RAW due to that mechanic. We have to compare our knowledge of what that mechanic actually says.

[Unoriginal]

So despite the existence of RAW for universal task resolution, we are all using house rules to adjudicate the effectively infinite number of tasks for which no specific rules have been provided?

Technically it would be a ruling because you are using an existing rule in a situation not covered by RAW, but otherwise, yes, that is correct.

It's 100% in the principles of 5e.

That being said, which rule do you refer to as "universal task resolution"? Because I'm pretty sure it is not as universal as you claim.

[Xetheral]

The default resolution mechanic is RAW, obviously.

But should PCs use an action, reaction, bonus action, free action to apply the default resolution mechanic?

It is not specified. If you choose one of those four, that is not a thing RAW can back you up on.

What is the DC? A rule of 15+spell level was not prescribed before. If you used a formula, that formula would not have been prescribed by RAW.

The type of action would be up to the DM, just as it would be for any other type of in-combat task. (The out-of-combat equivalent would be deciding how long the task attempt takes.)

The DC would be set by the DM by whatever method they choose, with guidance for "the most common DCs" on the chart on PHB 174 (the extent to which that chart is helpful is hotly debated).

For exemple, it could make sense for a DM to say "catching an arrow mid-flight to show how impressive you are, even if you're not a Monk, when one shooting the arrow isn't aiming to harm you, is a Dex(Intimidation) roll". However, since this specific case is not written in any of WotC's official material, it is not RAW.

It would appear to be covered by the RAW on PHB 174.

Can you explain the Universal Task Resolution mechanic, please? Your question implies everything is RAW due to that mechanic. We have to compare our knowledge of what that mechanic actually says.

PHB 174 has the whole thing.

[LeonBH]

That is incorrect. Refer to PHB 190-191.

[Xetheral]

That is incorrect. Refer to PHB 190-191.

Elaborate please. I'm looking at the book and not understanding what you see as contradicting my statements.

[Finieous]

Can you explain the Universal Task Resolution mechanic, please? Your question implies everything is RAW due to that mechanic. We have to compare our knowledge of what that mechanic actually says.

Basic Rules, page 3:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

If there is any uncertainty about #3, go to Basic Rules page 58 ("Ability Checks"). With spell identification, I never go to this step because there is no chance of failure.

[Xetheral]

I stand corrected. The PHB 174 reference is not "the whole thing". It should be read in concert with the rules Fineous identified, which can also be found on PHB 6.

[Finieous]

I stand corrected. The PHB 174 reference is not "the whole thing". It should be read in concert with the rules Fineous identified, which can also be found on PHB 6.

Yeah, I'm not trying to be cute by citing the Basic Rules, I just don't have my PHB to hand.

[Mith]

Would Speed Factor Initiative (if the table uses it) be a good way to gauge the seriousness of the caster's spell? It's a round by round initiative that is modified by the actions you take, and for casters the higher level spells drop you down in the initiative order. If the caster is taking their time casting a spell, you probably want to Counter Spell it, since cantrips will go off quickly.

[Unoriginal]

It would appear to be covered by the RAW on PHB 174.

Are you speaking of this part?:

An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.

Because if it is, then you're wrong.

Yes, the DM call for an ability check to resolve an action that has a chance of failure. However, if the specifics are not touched upon more in the rest of the books or the published WotC material, then it is not RAW, by definition.

For exemple: "use INT(Religion) to see if a character know about a cult" is RAW, as it's what's written in the rules.

"Use INT(Religion) to identify a region of Hell" is not RAW, because the text does not mention that you can use INT(Religion) for this, and in fact indicates that INT(Arcana) is normally what you use to know about the planes. However, a DM could decide to allow using INT(Religion) in this case.

"Use DEX(Intimidation) when you show off with a bow" is not mentioned by the rules, so it is not RAW. Yet there is no specific rules covering this situation. Therefore, the DM can decide it is appropriate without book suggestion. It's not a bad thing or anything, it's simply factually not RAW, even if the DM has no reason to care about that distinction.


All this is purely semantic and doesn't really matter, in any case.

[Kane0]

Good thing this will be an optional rule, cause I won’t be using it.

Still better than flanking though.

[LeonBH]

Elaborate please. I'm looking at the book and not understanding what you see as contradicting my statements.

I would ask the same of you to elaborate. But I'll go first.

By RAW, the DM may not assign a task under the default task resolution system to be a reaction or a bonus action. Bonus actions are granted only by special abilities. Reactions are the same.

Free actions can only be done on your turn.

That means the task resolution system can only be granted to actions.

PHB 174: "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."

If the old system allowed people to know the spells cast on other people's turns, that is not covered by the default resolution mechanic. That is, unless actions can somehow be taken on other creature's turns.

[No brains]

What if one ally identified a spell and told another to counter it? Teamwork is good, right?

[Unoriginal]

What if one ally identified a spell and told another to counter it? Teamwork is good, right?

It is, and according to Crawford it is reasonable.