The new spell identification rules are terrible.

[UrielAwakened]

I Giggled.

At least not a typing one anyway.

The "I can't be wrong because that would be too convenient for people who disagree with me" defense? Really?

Okay there's no way that's actually a thing and if it is that is way too long of a name.

[Unoriginal]

If you prefer, we can call it the UrielAwakened defense.

[UrielAwakened]

What's it called when you don't care if you convince people because thank god you never have to play with any of them.

[MadBear]

What's it called when you don't care if you convince people because thank god you never have to play with any of them.

the UrielAwakened excuse?

[Unoriginal]

What's it called when you don't care if you convince people because thank god you never have to play with any of them.

It's called "not playing D&D".

You always have to convince some people to play.

Also, I have to point out that you put a lot of effort into this thread, for someone who don't care about convincing others.

[krugaan]

Also, I have to point out that you put a lot of effort into this thread, for someone who don't care about convincing others.

What's the logical conclusion to this line of thinking, assuming no one expends effort without a reason?

[Unoriginal]

What's the logical conclusion to this line of thinking, assuming no one expends effort without a reason?

Well, there is several conclusions one could logically make:

-They're lying and actually wanted to convince people

-They never wanted to convince people, just to state an opinion a lot and keep doing it and again any time their opinion is challenged

-They just wanted to troll people who thought this was a genuine attempt at discussion

[krugaan]

Well, there is several conclusions one could logically make:

-They're lying and actually wanted to convince people

-They never wanted to convince people, just to state an opinion a lot and keep doing it and again any time their opinion is challenged

-They just wanted to troll people who thought this was a genuine attempt at discussion

I'm not going to discount any of those.

Lets label them 1) 2) and 3).

1) possible, but convince people of what? if this were the true aim, nothing but ad-hominems / strawmanning wouldn't work. And when it didn't work, they'd probably stop, if they were intelligent.

2) your standard never-can-be wrong internet forum dude. IQ is a score, and you get points by defeating your enemies in righteous battle.

3) Troll. But for almost all trolls, the payoff is in the reveal. Really, 95% of trolls are really 2)'s that aren't able to win normally. The last 5% are actual sadists and sociopaths.

going to add a fourth:

4) Cognitive dissonance. These ideas don't mesh real well with my internal narrative, so I'm going to prove them wrong, because it makes me feel better. The natural consequence of cognitive dissonance is to eliminate the intruding thought, after all.

[UrielAwakened]

It's called "not playing D&D".

You always have to convince some people to play.

Also, I have to point out that you put a lot of effort into this thread, for someone who don't care about convincing others.

Did I though.

I thought the rule was dumb (still do). I posted about it. Then I forgot about it until...DBZ, maybe? Reminded me?

Everyone I play with agrees it's dumb so we let you identify for no reaction and it plays much better than this rule anyway.

I tried to do other people a kindness by offering them a better alternative to whatever garbage Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford get paid money to spew out. They didn't like it. Not one person was even willing to try it as far as I know. Instead they fell back on pointless arguments about fun being subjective and the rule being logical and "Back in my day we had to walk uphill both ways to counter a spell" and so much more white noise. Talk about being closed minded right?

And then something about dogs happened.

[MadBear]

Did I though.

I thought the rule was dumb (still do). I posted about it. Then I forgot about it until...DBZ, maybe? Reminded me?

Everyone I play with agrees it's dumb so we let you identify for no reaction and it plays much better than this rule anyway.

I tried to do other people a kindness by offering them a better alternative to whatever garbage Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford get paid money to spew out. They didn't like it. Not one person was even willing to try it as far as I know. Instead they fell back on pointless arguments about fun being subjective and the rule being logical and "Back in my day we had to walk uphill both ways to counter a spell" and so much more white noise. Talk about being closed minded right?

And then something about dogs happened.

well..... it's telling that, this is your take of what happened.

[Meta]

To be more clear, the 'main' 5e game Uriel and I play in is a pick up league of ~10 players and has rotating DMs so we each have a different style when it comes our time to DM. I don't think anyone has played with the blind counterspelling yet but maybe someone would like it.

I can say that the people I've talked about it with in that group think it sounds weird and messes up verisimilitude. In many other fantasy environs, counterspelling is not strictly limited to pre-casting.

Atm I've been going case by case basis. If it's a high level spell that no one in the party can cast, I just describe what's happening, what sort of pull on the weave of magic they feel. And that it's probably dangerous. If it's a second level spell that three players have had for months, I tell them more specifics.

[Tanarii]

To be more clear, the 'main' 5e game Uriel and I play in is a pick up league of ~10 players and has rotating DMs so we each have a different style when it comes our time to DM. I don't think anyone has played with the blind counterspelling yet but maybe someone would like it.

I can say that the people I've talked about it with in that group think it sounds weird and messes up verisimilitude. In many other fantasy environs, counterspelling is not strictly limited to pre-casting.

Atm I've been going case by case basis. If it's a high level spell that no one in the party can cast, I just describe what's happening, what sort of pull on the weave of magic they feel. And that it's probably dangerous. If it's a second level spell that three players have had for months, I tell them more specifics.

How do you make Illusions not useless? Or are they a special case, so that any time you don't learn what it is automatically, they know it could be an illusion? Or is it worth picking up counter spell (or dispel magic) just so you know what spells the enemy is casting?

[Meta]

How do you make Illusions not useless?

Illusions don't get a description, obviously. Well they get a fake one. I also generally have illusions set up before a fight. It plays nicer, as there's no need to worry about people keeping IC and OOC knowledge separate. I don't limit myself to that but it is nice.

[Tanarii]

Illusions don't get a description, obviously. Well they get a fake one. I also generally have illusions set up before a fight. It plays nicer, as there's no need to worry about people keeping IC and OOC knowledge separate. I don't limit myself to that but it is nice.

Sorry, I'm not clear. Are you saying you don't identify spells automatically (describe them instead) or you do (no blind counterspelling)?

[Meta]

Sorry, I'm not clear. Are you saying you don't identify spells automatically (describe them instead) or you do (no blind counterspelling)?

No hard and fast rule. As an example from last session, a BBEG type person that knows one of the PCs (I can't get more specific because of Uriel) has a spellcasting style similar to that PC. So his spells would be pretty recognizable, until said character went invisible. Then it's harder. I think my PCs were out of counterspells then, but I'd probably ask for an Arcana roll if they readied an action to watch for his spells, could see in to the ethereal plane, etc.

I think the best advice I can give is to use some of both rules honestly, because then you're making different encounters feel unique. If Uriel's character ends up in a wizard's duel with his evil twin, it's pretty cool that they recognize each other's style. They probably learned under the same mentor. If they're fighting against an eldritch abomination shoved in to a corporeal form casting strange psionic magic, it's probably going to be much harder to identify. It makes the fight feel more alien.

[Breashios]

How do you make Illusions not useless? Or are they a special case, so that any time you don't learn what it is automatically, they know it could be an illusion? Or is it worth picking up counter spell (or dispel magic) just so you know what spells the enemy is casting?

Whew. So glad we are back to talking about things related to the stated subject of the thread.

I have to admit, this illusion issue had me wondering if I were bonkers. I brought it back to my group this weekend and it made them thoughtful. We'll try blind counterspelling in the next campaign, but they (like me) couldn't remember a time when illusions might have been an issue in actual play. If we had an illusionist wizard, that would likely have been different.

As I had stated earlier, they had always (to my memory) cast the illusions out of sight of the enemy, and then brought them out, or set the stage before the enemy got there (crates in the warehouse example, appearing from around the corner, etc.).

Going by what we were doing, illusions wouldn't be as strictly useable as they would be in your experience, but that did not impact our actual campaign in any noticeable way (and we had two wizards and a Sorcerer; Major Image was used several times very effectively). Illusion school spells aren't all illusions (think Hypnotic Pattern), so it is strictly the illusions you can disbelieve that could be impacted differently than other spells. I guess in our campaign you would have to cast actual illusions from cover (if any of the enemy had arcana). I don't think that makes illusions useless, just reduces the times you might try to cast them in the open. (potentially)

Going back to previous version experience, I have had DMs that ruled certain illusions cast in front of the enemy gave them an automatic save for disbelief or worse, would simply fail. Only if the spell duplicated another spell's effect could it be cast in front of them. I think the thinking was, if it was not something the enemy could expect happening, they would assume it was an illusion. (Much worse than allowing an arcana check, I'd think.) On the flip side one DM would often have the NPCs think real things were illusions if they were out of their realm of experience.

[Tanarii]

Whew. So glad we are back to talking about things related to the stated subject of the thread.

Reporting and ignore are our friends.

I have to admit, this illusion issue had me wondering if I were bonkers.

Remember, it didn't even occur to me until discussing the issue in this thread. And as I said in one of my early posts, I do have a tendency to just blurt out spells enemy casters are casting. So it's something for me to take into account too.

Also, the blurting out sometimes but not always thing only matters for enemy casters, not PC ones. Unless you're assuming ALL casters auto-identify all spells being cast. But if you don't, then as a DM you just do what you do all the time anyway, use your judgement and play the NPCs accordingly.

So it's an issue, but not necessarily a make it or break it issue. Just one that I think is important to consider, once it occurred to me.

Also, I use the Mage from the MM as a drop-in quite a lot, usually with one or two tweaks to the spell list. So Silent Image/Major Image are not common spells for NPC mages to have, in terms of percentage encountered.

[Meta]

Depending on the effect the illusion might be obviously an illusion or not. If a wizard that had been only casting scorching rays makes an illusion of a Solar being gated in, I'm gonna say my players get advantage to disbelieve.

[Tanarii]

Depending on the effect the illusion might be obviously an illusion or not. If a wizard that had been only casting scorching rays makes an illusion of a Solar being gated in, I'm gonna say my players get advantage to disbelieve.

One reason I don't tend to use creatures with illusions a lot is Players are FAR more inventive at using them than I am.

But if all creatures auto identify spells being cast, or can do it on a checks with out using an action, all that inventiveness is heavily nerfed. This specifically is what I mean when I say it makes them "useless". Admittedly, they're still usable. But various Pcs use these spells in view of other creatures IMC all the time.

If I make it one sided, only PCs don't have to counterspell 'blind', illusion spells in combat becomes much less of issue, because I don't use them directly against PCs very often. That might not seem fair, but no one ever said the NPCs have to get all the same toys that PCs do.

[Meta]

Illusion spells are probably always going to be worse in the heat of battle. Realistically, people are more on guard and know they have active opponents. If someone wants to get the most out of illusions, player or DM, I'm thinking before battle is the most likely of times for it.

[mephnick]

Illusion spells are probably always going to be worse in the heat of battle.

They're not if you run spellcasting the way it's intended, without blurting out spell names like an anime character. Then they actually work. Imagine that.

[Meta]

They're not if you run spellcasting the way it's intended, without blurting out spell names like an anime character. Then they actually work. Imagine that.

You spend a lot of time casting Minor Illusion over Firebolt in round 4? Sure you can always manage to pull something clever off, I'd never begrudge a player that. I've done some clever stuff myself, but I'd be lying if I said I spent more rounds trying to confuse foes than I did just Eldritch Blasting them.

Dead is the best status effect. Nice snark though.

[Naanomi]

An illusionary flaming wall is just as good as a real one if no one braves running into it...

[DivisibleByZero]

They're not if you run spellcasting the way it's intended, without blurting out spell names like an anime character. Then they actually work. Imagine that.

An illusionary flaming wall is just as good as a real one if no one braves running into it...

100% yes and yes.

[UrielAwakened]

You spend a lot of time casting Minor Illusion over Firebolt in round 4? Sure you can always manage to pull something clever off, I'd never begrudge a player that. I've done some clever stuff myself, but I'd be lying if I said I spent more rounds trying to confuse foes than I did just Eldritch Blasting them.

Dead is the best status effect. Nice snark though.

Sometimes I feel like we're just really good D&D players compared to other people.

[ad_hoc]

We've always played that you need to decide whether to Counterspell before knowing about the spell.

It works completely fine and Counterspell is still very powerful and useful to the characters. It's usually pretty easy for the players to determine who the bigger threats are on the battlefield.

The identify rules seem mostly fine. The part I will be ignoring is the Twitter clarification that 1 character can identify and call it out in time for another character to react with Counterspell.

[mephnick]

You spend a lot of time casting Minor Illusion over Firebolt in round 4?

No, but I've used Major Image to end multiple combats in the first round.

But I guess you could throw a Fireball and do some damage instead.

[LeonBH]

No, but I've used Major Image to end multiple combats in the first round.

But I guess you could throw a Fireball and do some damage instead.

I'm interested in hearing about this. Care to tell a story?

[mephnick]

I'm interested in hearing about this. Care to tell a story?

I've actually done it on both sides of the screen.

Once, when the party was already pretty beaten down, they encountered a group of Eladrin with a Warlock leader, who won initiative and used it to "summon" a dark Treant. Now, being that I use random tables that aren't necessarily balanced and NPCs that sometimes have special abilities (and the players know this) they took the Treant at face value and booked it, knowing that a single hit from the thing would probably end a character. This gave the Eladrin time to gain more forces and make a future encounter tougher. Of course, the Warlock did the same thing in the next encounter, but the players had no other choice but to fight. When it was revealed it was an illusion this Warlock became enemy #1 for making them look foolish and a new BBEG was born. This awesome naturally evolved story line goes away if I always tell the players what spells are being cast.

As a player I've used it multiple times for similar effects, either to scare away dumb monsters who are freaked out that a T-Rex just appeared. Bonfires on things a group is protecting who rush to save it while we get away, etc. Obviously as a player it doesn't matter if I say what the spell is assuming the DM knows how to play illusions and doesn't discount them immediately, but with a bad DM this doesn't work as well.

[Dudewithknives]

I've actually done it on both sides of the screen.

Once, when the party was already pretty beaten down, they encountered a group of Eladrin with a Warlock leader, who won initiative and used it to "summon" a dark Treant. Now, being that I use random tables that aren't necessarily balanced and NPCs that sometimes have special abilities (and the players know this) they took the Treant at face value and booked it, knowing that a single hit from the thing would probably end a character. This gave the Eladrin time to gain more forces and make a future encounter tougher. Of course, the Warlock did the same thing in the next encounter, but the players had no other choice but to fight. When it was revealed it was an illusion this Warlock became enemy #1 for making them look foolish and a new BBEG was born. This awesome naturally evolved story line goes away if I always tell the players what spells are being cast.

As a player I've used it multiple times for similar effects, either to scare away dumb monsters who are freaked out that a T-Rex just appeared. Bonfires on things a group is protecting who rush to save it while we get away, etc. Obviously as a player it doesn't matter if I say what the spell is assuming the DM knows how to play illusions and doesn't discount them immediately, but with a bad DM this doesn't work as well.

The issue with doing that from a player perspective is that it is completely up to the DM whether he wants to let you win or not.

You cast an illusion of a bonfire on there storehouse.
Nice DM: Of the 15 enemies, 12 run off to try to save the storehouse, so now you only have to escape 3.
Jerk DM: The enemies all see you cast a spell and set the supplies on fire, so they focus all their bows on you. Prepare for 15 attacks your way.