The new spell identification rules are terrible.

[Tanarii]

my problem is not necessarily that you have to identify the spell, but if its an arcana check then warlocks and sorcerers (my PC atm) are nerfed because that isn't how their magic works.

More importantly, Arcana skill doesn't imply it has anything to do with actually casting spells.

Certainly there's no reason it should apply when a Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, or Druid spell is being observed. They don't even access the Weave the same way. And similarly, neither Religion nor Nature skills imply they have anything to do with actually casting those kinds of spells.

An Intelligence (Investigation) check would make more sense. Although again that unreasonably favors Wizards, EKs and ATs.

In game it makes sense as Intelligence (investigation), given what the character is doing. Carefully observing the casting and deducing from a huge possible variation in Verbal and Somatic, which no two casters use e same ones for the same spell, and even the same caster doesn't use the same ones twice, what spell is being cast. That's not recalling anything Lore-wise, because there's no standardized components to observe and recall what spell they go along with.

[JimmyHoffa69]

I disagree with this completely.

Wizard: I study the flow of the weave so as to understand it, and then bend it to my will.
Sorcerer: Magic is in my blood, I fly by the seat of my pants and have very limited exposure to anything other than what I know.
Warlock: I made a deal with some dude and his power lets me cast spells.

The first is obviously going to be much better equipped in understanding what he sees happening, and therefore will also be better equipped to figure out how to stop it.
They are all equally equipped at actually stopping it from happening, but the first is clearly going to be better at understanding what he sees.

I would alter your description of the classes however:

Sorcerer: Magic is in my blood. For me it is a natural reaction, an instinct that wizards have to study to get, but I have as part of my very being, so of course my spell casting ability can help me know what is magic is being launched against me. A bird is born with wings, the wizard builds a glider. We both ride thermals.

Warlock: by tapping into the power of this overwhelmingly powerful entity I gain a window into their immense power. This entity understands magic at a level far beyond that of mortals, and through our pact I gain part of his insight into magic launched against me.

It all boils down to how you want to see the spellcasting classes. It seems like WotC meant for them all to be roughly equal, and is providing different choices for flavor and experience, but is trying to make them all viable. Making wizards this much better at something this important would make them able to overwhelm anyone in a magic duel.

[DivisibleByZero]

Making wizards this much better at something this important would make them able to overwhelm anyone in a magic duel.

To that I'd argue that it isn't anywhere near as important as you seem to think.
You cannot spend your reaction to ID the spell and also spend your reaction to counterspell in the same round, because you only get one reaction.

All this rule does is provide a way, within the rules, to do something that you couldn't do before. It does not give a Wizard any "overwhelming" advantage at all. You still have to counter it blindly (unless you're using the debatable "team spotter" idea, and even then all it does is make the Wiz a better spotter.... he can't be the one who actually counters it).
So this magic duel you're talking about? He gains no advantage other than potentially knowledge, and that knowledge is information that he can't act upon once received, which effectively makes it useless and no advantage at all.

[mephnick]

This thread has opened my eyes to how many people are casting spells and just straight up telling their players what it is. I've never even considered that.

I guess if you play this way using a reaction to identify a spell seems useless, but if you're playing D&D the way it's meant to be played (in my opinion no one cares about, queue 40 pages of "don't tell me what D&D is!") it's still very useful. A ton of spells don't have physical effects. Just blurting out what spell the enemy mage is casting takes a lot of the style out of combat.

[Tanarii]

Just blurting out what spell the enemy mage is casting takes a lot of the style out of combat.

Hey! As a habitual blurtee, I resemble this statement!

[LeonBH]

For identifying magic from the Sorcerer or Warlock's perspective, I'd suggest the DMs should offer (or the player should ask) for a Charisma (Arcana) check instead of the usual Intelligence (Arcana).

As far as intuitive knowledge goes, it makes sense that for the purpose of identifying a spell, that caster's spellcasting stat is used on the arcana check.

[Unoriginal]

registered to bitch about this.

my problem is not necessarily that you have to identify the spell, but if its an arcana check then warlocks and sorcerers (my PC atm) are nerfed because that isn't how their magic works.

Yes it is. The knowledge of the Sorcerer's and Warlock's magic is under (Int) Arcana.

And neither of those classes are nerfed by this.

You'd think a person with a powerful intuitive knowledge of magic would be able to block spells the same way they cast them.

Why would anyone think that? First, if it was the case, the Sorcerer would get a class feature to block spells, second, neither the Warlock nor the Sorcerer have "powerful intuitive knowledge of magic". The Sorcerer has an innate power source, but that's it.

[Regitnui]

For identifying magic from the Sorcerer or Warlock's perspective, I'd suggest the DMs should offer (or the player should ask) for a Charisma (Arcana) check instead of the usual Intelligence (Arcana).

As far as intuitive knowledge goes, it makes sense that for the purpose of identifying a spell, that caster's spellcasting stat is used on the arcana check.

Charisma isn't intuition or thought. It's personality. You can make a <insert preferred race/gender combo here> swoon from across the room and still be unable to read a map. Similarly with spells. It doesn't matter if you could "counterspell" the BBEG by making them lose concentration with a well-timed insult, unless you know and understand the theory of magic, you're going to have a difficult time telling what they're doing before the hold person spell traps the tank and lets the minions carve slices from your charismatic self.

[Tanarii]

Yes it is. The knowledge of the Sorcerer's and Warlock's magic is under (Int) Arcana.

Clerics? Druids?

And let's be specific: Arcana covers recalling Lore about spells. Not knowledge of how they are cast.

Put that together with no two casters are required to cast the same spell the same way, nor any given caster cast the same spell the same way twice, and it's kind of hard to justify Identifying a spell being cast as "spell lore" in the first place.

[DivisibleByZero]

Clerics? Druids?

And let's be specific: Arcana covers recalling Lore about spells. Not knowledge of how they are cast.

Put that together with no two casters are required to cast the same spell the same way, nor any given caster cast the same spell the same way twice, and it's kind of hard to justify Identifying a spell being cast as "spell lore" in the first place.

So you're arguing that force of personality should be the deciding factor in figuring something out in real time?
I could see an argument for a Wis (arcana) check, but not for Cha.

[LeonBH]

Charisma isn't intuition or thought. It's personality. You can make a <insert preferred race/gender combo here> swoon from across the room and still be unable to read a map. Similarly with spells. It doesn't matter if you could "counterspell" the BBEG by making them lose concentration with a well-timed insult, unless you know and understand the theory of magic, you're going to have a difficult time telling what they're doing before the hold person spell traps the tank and lets the minions carve slices from your charismatic self.

Charisma can be reflavored. Sorcerers don't have to ask the Universe nicely to get magic to bend to their will. They can exert their will on reality.

An Arcana check represents training with the arcane. It doesn't have to be tied to Intelligence. Proficiency with that skill in itself means you have knowledge of the arcane.

Therefore, one way of interpreting a Charisma (Arcana) check is the Sorcerer is using their knowledge of the arcane to exert pressure on the Universe, revealing the secrets of magic the enemy casters are trying to hide.

Another way is they could be trained in arcana, but instead of memorizing theories, they memorized the feeling of casting (like muscle memory) and can discern the feelings that another caster in their vicinity invokes in them when they alter the Weave.

[Unoriginal]

More importantly, Arcana skill doesn't imply it has anything to do with actually casting spells.

Arcana is not to CAST the spell, it's to IDENTIFY it.

The Arcana skill explicitly cover knowledge of spells.

Carefully observing the casting and deducing from a huge possible variation in Verbal and Somatic, which no two casters use e same ones for the same spell, and even the same caster doesn't use the same ones twice, what spell is being cast. That's not recalling anything Lore-wise, because there's no standardized components to observe and recall what spell they go along with.

Says who?

The only thing the spell component section says is that the spells require specific sounds, moves and material, often as part of a bigger sequence (ex: the caster says a phrase, but the words don't matter, only a specific sound on one of the syllable). Some of the spell descriptions include some of the V or S components, which imply they're always the same, and the M components *are* always the same unless you use a focus.

So no, it's not "investigating stuff like a private detective" it's "noticing and recalling specific parts of a spell", which is Arcana.

For identifying magic from the Sorcerer or Warlock's perspective, I'd suggest the DMs should offer (or the player should ask) for a Charisma (Arcana) check instead of the usual Intelligence (Arcana).

There is literally not a single reason to do that except "but this character isn't as good at Int than they are at Cha. The horror! The horror!"

As far as intuitive knowledge goes, it makes sense that for the purpose of identifying a spell, that caster's spellcasting stat is used on the arcana check.

No, because there is no "intuitive knowledge" involved in those classes.

A Warlock studies to discover weird secrets and train to use his Patron's teachings. A Sorcerer doesn't know anything about a spell until they trained for it, despite having the innate power to fuel them.

Clerics? Druids?

And let's be specific: Arcana covers recalling Lore about spells. Not knowledge of how they are cast.

Lore about spells include lore about how they're cast. It's how you know that the spell Chromatic Orb requires a 50gp diamond.

[LeonBH]

Unoriginal, there are plenty of reasons to do that. Just as there are plenty of reasons to allow an Intelligence (Deception) check for a deception tactic that relies on cleverness, or allowing a Strength (Intimidation) check for a tough brute displaying physical power as an intimidation tactic.

[Hyperversum]

My idea was simple: "And that's how 5e, the supposed quick and light edition got a rule worse than the ones back in 3.X age".

[mephnick]

My idea was simple: "And that's how 5e, the supposed quick and light edition got a rule worse than the ones back in 3.X age".

It is a quick, light and effective rule. People just don't like that the developer's goal for the rule is not the goal they themselves have personally set for it.

[Unoriginal]

Unoriginal, there are plenty of reasons to do that. Just as there are plenty of reasons to allow an Intelligence (Deception) check for a deception tactic that relies on cleverness, or allowing a Strength (Intimidation) check for a tough brute displaying physical power as an intimidation tactic.

Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.

CHARISMA CHECKS A Charisma check might arise when you lry to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation.

I see nothing in the description of Charisma that would imply there is any way to use it to recall something or discover a fact by yourself.

Also, sorry, but while STR (Intimidation) can make sense if you're trying to impress using how strong you are, there are no reason to allow an INT (Deception) check "for a deception tactic that relies on cleverness", because deception can always be said to rely on cleverness, yet it's still a CHA check.

My idea was simple: "And that's how 5e, the supposed quick and light edition got a rule worse than the ones back in 3.X age".

There is nothing wrong with this rule, people just don't like they can't identify and use Counterspell at the same time.

Which is weird, because I've shown that in fact, you could, if you have an homunculus.

[LeonBH]

Are you absolutely sure there is no reason at all, that there can never be a reason for it (Int Deception) in any situation, in any possible universe, ever? Or are you using hyperbole?

Also, then I suppose a Sorcerer can talk to the Weave as if it was alive and convince it to divulge the secrets of arcana.

[Tanarii]

Some of the spell descriptions include some of the V or S components, which imply they're always the same, and the M components *are* always the same unless you use a focus.

It absolute does NOT imply they are the same, because those aren't descriptions of the V & S complements, per SA's various rulings. See specifically Suggestion and Vicious Mockery SA ruling

Nothing implies that V & S components ar the same across casters. A DM that wants to rule they are, is well within his rights. But any new general rule must be based on the assumption that a DM may not rule that way, since there is no assumption that the V or S components are common between each caster. Or even that an individual caster must use the same V or S components each time. (Edit: to be clear on the last, V or S components might vary for a given caster based on number of targets, range to and placement of spell effect, or even the time of day the spell is being cast.)

And a focus, which is IMX by far the norm, totally removes any ability to identify via M component.

[Unoriginal]

Are you absolutely sure there is no reason at all, that there can never be a reason for it (Into Deception) in any situation, in any possible universe, ever? Or are you using hyperbole?

I see no reason to allow INT(Deception). Even if you're trying to deceive someone on an academic point, you are still using your Charisma to make the person doubt their knowledge and believe what you advance. If you can give me a good exemple of INT(Deception), I'll reconsider.

Also, then I suppose a Sorcerer can talk to the Weave as if it was alive and convince it to divulge the secrets if arcana.

Oh please. Why don't the Sorcerer talk to the Weave to learn where magic items are, then? Or to learn who among a crowd is a magic user? You know Sorcerers can't do that, and the Weave tell them no secret.

Also, WotC already covered what you're talking about:

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, the Xanathar's Guide is clear.

[Tanarii]

So, the Xanathar's Guide is clear.

Too bad that doesn't match what the Arcana skill actually says it is for. Arcane Lore for spells, not knowing how they are cast.

Edit: further more, the Arcana skill is for recalling, not deducing. Deduction is straight Int checks or Investigation checks.

[Unoriginal]

Too bad that doesn't match what the Arcana skill actually says it is for. Arcane Lore for spells, not knowing how they are cast.

One, the lore about a spell include how it's cast. It won't let you cast the spell, but you will know the process people do to cast it. The same way that knowing about cars include knowing how they move, even if you can't drive yourself.

You don't need to be able to cast Fireball to know it requires bat guano or the sound "blgt" to be cast.

Second, the Arcana skill does cover the theory of magic and the practice one use to cast a spell, which is what the Xanathar's Guide says you're identifying the spell.

Edit: further more, the Arcana skill is for recalling, not deducing. Deduction is straight Int checks or Investigation checks.

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.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I see no reason to allow INT(Deception). Even if you're trying to deceive someone on an academic point, you are still using your Charisma to make the person doubt their knowledge and believe what you advance. If you can give me a good exemple of INT(Deception), I'll reconsider.

I can think of one good instance- when the deceiver isn't present. Like if the wizard decided to deceive someone on an academic point but did so purely through letters or even a book on the subject, I might call for an Int (Deception) check instead of Cha because the force of their personality is now secondary to how clever they are.

I mean, this is a purely theoretical instance because I've never seen it done before. But it might be useful to someone.

[LeonBH]

Unoriginal, an Intelligence (Deception) check might take place over a game of D&D chess, where one player takes a weak piece with their Queen-equivalent but leaving it in a weak position, tempting the other player to hastily capture that powerful piece while unaware they will be mate in one. A sacrifice, in other words.

Another way to see it is to inspire yourself with the above chess example and emulate it in a situation with people. You walk into a trap willingly so that your enemies will kill you, instead of the princess/envoy/diplomat. The enemies know you're easy to kill, wield powerful magics, and so are tempted to kill you instead. The gambit relies not on you saying words, but in convincing the enemies calculated decisions through the sheer act of you walking into the trap, that it is better for them to kill you now at the risk of the target escaping. The princess/envoy/diplomat gets their chance to escape because of your sacrifice.

Or even, you write a note and slide it to an NPC, and you leave the room. The note contains a logical fallacy that will cause the NPC to give you 100 gold if they fall for it.

As for the Sorcerer using Charisma (Arcana), I cannot convince you if you've closed your mind. Sorcs use Charisma as their casting stat, and it's not because of their nice personality and social graces.

[Unoriginal]

I can think of one good instance- when the deceiver isn't present. Like if the wizard decided to deceive someone on an academic point but did so purely through letters or even a book on the subject, I might call for an Int (Deception) check instead of Cha because the force of their personality is now secondary to how clever they are.

I mean, this is a purely theoretical instance because I've never seen it done before. But it might be useful to someone.

I would argue that Charisma is still the deciding factor, because it doesn't matter how much the writer is scholarly capable, it's stilll the writer's force of personality and capacity to be convincing that is put to the test, simply through writing rather than vocally.

Exemple: A monster hunter who tries to convince his enemies about to enter a vampire lair that red onions are just as efficient as garlic to deal with the undead would use CHA (Deception). If the monster hunter tried to do so through a letter, he would use the same arguments and methods than if he was here in person, for the most part, and so it would still be CHA.

Unoriginal, an Intelligence (Deception) check might take place over a game of D&D chess, where one player takes a weak piece with their Queen-equivalent but leaving it in a weak position, tempting the other player to hastily capture that powerful piece while unaware they will be mate in one. A sacrifice, in other words.

This still requires Cha(Deception). You are tricking someone into a bold move by playing the part of the harmless one/by pretending you did a mistake. Ergo, Charisma.

Another way to see it is to inspire yourself with the above chess example and emulate it in a situation with people. You walk into a trap willingly so that your enemies will kill you, instead of the princess/envoy/diplomat. The enemies know you're easy to kill, wield powerful magics, and so are tempted to kill you instead. The gambit relies not on you saying words, but in convincing the enemies calculated decisions through the sheer act of you walking into the trap, that it is better for them to kill you now at the risk of the target escaping. The princess/envoy/diplomat gets their chance to escape because of your sacrifice.

Same thing as before. Even without words, you're presenting yourself in a specific fashion, and using the feeling you inspire in your enemies. You are making yourself appear a more desirable target in the short term than the VIP you're protecting, even though it would be better for the enemies in the long term to target the VIP right now. It's the definition of Charisma.

Or even, you write a note and slide it to an NPC, and you leave the room. The note contains a logical fallacy that will cause the NPC to give you 100 gold if they fall for it.

Again, Charisma. People don't fall for scams through e-mails because the scams are intellectually brillant, they fail for the scams because the choice of words and the impression of reliability the writer manages to give themselves.

In fact, simple internet scams often works better because they manage to touch more people than complexe ones.

As for the Sorcerer using Charisma (Arcana), I cannot convince you if you've closed your mind. Sorcs use Charisma as their casting stat, and it's not because of their nice personality and social graces.

And they don't cast spells because they know about them with Arcana either. Even wizards would be able to cast spells without Arcana.

Sorcerers are able to cast through Charisma "since the power of [their] magic relies on your ability to project [their] will into the world." It doesn't allow them to get knowledge through Charisma.

Also, your attempt to make me doubt (or the other reader doubt) that I'm only not getting convinced because I closed my mind (which is implied to be bad) is exactly my point. It's attempting to use your word choice and the impression people have of you to change people's mind, which in D&D would rely on CHA, yet it's written.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I would argue that Charisma is still the deciding factor, because it doesn't matter how much the writer is scholarly capable, it's stilll the writer's force of personality and capacity to be convincing that is put to the test, simply through writing rather than vocally.

Exemple: A monster hunter who tries to convince his enemies about to enter a vampire lair that red onions are just as efficient as garlic to deal with the undead would use CHA (Deception). If the monster hunter tried to do so through a letter, he would use the same arguments and methods than if he was here in person, for the most part, and so it would still be CHA.

That's fair, but I could make a convincing argument otherwise by pointing out that smarter people tend to write more convincingly than less intelligent people on the whole. A quick glance at Twitbookagram more or less shows that, as well as your average journalist or even novelist.

Some of the best and most convincing writers have the personality of hydrochloric acid in real life.

[Regitnui]

Too bad that doesn't match what the Arcana skill actually says it is for. Arcane Lore for spells, not knowing how they are cast.

Edit: further more, the Arcana skill is for recalling, not deducing. Deduction is straight Int checks or Investigation checks.

Knowing how spells are cast is Arcane Lore.

Let me put it this way: Seasoned D&D players know that fireball needs guano and sulphur as material components. I'm fairly certain none of us can cast spells, but we know that bit of spell lore, those "secrets or mysteries", the literal definition of Arcana. We can't cast the spell, but we know that someone who's going to cast fireball has bat poop and yellow powder in their hand(s) to do so. We're all using our Int (Arcana) checks to recall that information.

As for the Sorcerer using Charisma (Arcana), I cannot convince you if you've closed your mind. Sorcs use Charisma as their casting stat, and it's not because of their nice personality and social graces.

Funny how someone's mind is closed when there's no good reason for pairing a skill with an ability it has nothing to do with... Can you give us one example applicable in real life of someone using their personality to recall facts without asking someone else (CHA (Persuasion))?

[LeonBH]

Unoriginal, your justification of charisma vs intelligence does not refute that it could be intelligence as well, just that it could also be done via charisma.

Therefore, in all cases, Int (Deception) would have been valid as well.

Regitnui, as for a real life example of recalling facts with their force of personality, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but the fact "I am right" can be recalled with just one's force of personality, as their mind may know they are wrong, but their pride cannot admit it.

The above is not a personal attack or anything, but it's one of the easiest ones to pop in my mind given your question.

[Naanomi]

Intelligence (Deception): Teaching social skills around lying to someone who needs support in that domain via explicit instruction models?

[Regitnui]

Regitnui, as for a real life example of recalling facts with their force of personality, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but the fact "I am right" can be recalled with just one's force of personality, as their mind may know they are wrong, but their pride cannot admit it.

The above is not a personal attack or anything, but it's one of the easiest ones to pop in my mind given your question.

"I'm right" is always an opinion until it's backed up by evidence, which you generally need Intelligence to find and order properly. Charisma may be the best way to present said evidence, but simply asserting "I'm right" without intelligence leads us to Flat Earthers, denialism, and Kender. In short, your charisma; presented as force of personality, beauty, or friends; doesn't make anything a "fact". Only truth and evidence can do that.

Wisdom I can possibly see working as an option for Arcana, as in a person subconsciously recognizing signs that mark a manifest zone or anti-magic field, but an active attempt to decipher or figure out what an opponent is casting is Intelligence-based. Like I said, us D&D players can roll Intelligence (Arcana) to remember how to cast a fireball and what it's effects are even if we can't cast magic; a fighter or monk can take Arcana proficiency just as easily as a wizard.

I thought it was an odd choice, but thanks for being clear on that.

[Unoriginal]

That's fair, but I could make a convincing argument otherwise by pointing out that smarter people tend to write more convincingly than less intelligent people on the whole. A quick glance at Twitbookagram more or less shows that, as well as your average journalist or even novelist.

Some of the best and most convincing writers have the personality of hydrochloric acid in real life.

Smarter people also tend to speak better and more convincingly than less intelligent one, too, in real life.

D&D still attributes those tasks to CHA.

Unoriginal, your justification of charisma vs intelligence does not refute that it could be intelligence as well, just that it could also be done via charisma.

Therefore, in all cases, Int (Deception) would have been valid as well.

I disagree. You have not demonstrated than a single one of those exemple could be done with INT, and it is not my role to prove that something that can't be used when there is nothing that indicates it can be used.

You don't get to declare "therefore X" when you have not demonstrated your point.

Intelligence (Deception): Teaching social skills around lying to someone who needs support in that domain via explicit instruction models?

An arguable point, but in this case you are not deceiving anyone, you are using your knowledge of deceiving to explain it to someone.

Ergo: you still cannot deceive someone with INT(Deception), but once again it shows why INT is used for academic knowledge.


In the same manner, I would say that if someone tried to, let's say, Identify a Specific Scam, this someone could use INT(Deception). And if a player asked me "can my character use Charisma to Identify a Specific Scam? I think it makes sense my character can use their force of will to have the Crime Rate of the city reveal instinctual secrets to him" I would say "no, you're attempting to recall or deduce something based on your memory, it's INT."

If you get the metaphor.