D&D 5E 5e CB's Stonefast OOC -- COMPLETE

But, to confirm, there's nothing in the PHB that governs identification, yes? I should check the DMG. I'll do that tomorrow. Right now I'm on pp 36 of 43 pages in the IC, slogging through notetaking. Probably have to pack up and go to bed here in a moment, but appreciate you guys' input.

Sounds like Arcana or Religion DC something would work. And perhaps the ability to auto-identify, depending on class/spell list. Will check DMG manana.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Forged Fury

First Post
There's nothing in the PHB. They probably intended for everyone to just know what's being cast if it has an observable effect, compared to the detailed rules in 3E with Spellcraft. 12+Spell Level is reasonable, I think. That gives a typically built 1st level Mage a 65-70% chance of identifying any given mage cantrip.
 

I tabulated damage taken and healing expended, and have the following:

Spec: Down -2 hp. Suffered -5 from hand, and -6 from hand, then healed for 9 hp.
Roscoe: Full up. Suffered -2 from orc bodyguard 2, and -4 from hand, then healed by Spec for 8 hp.
Fulgrim: Full up.
Colden: Down - 11 hp. Suffered -11 from kobold crossbow bolts, not healed yet.
Guran: Full up.


Speak up, please, if you think your character is otherwise.
 


TLDR: just read the two sentences underlined in bold and ignore the rest

I can find nothing in the DMG or the PHB that discusses identification of spells. The closest thing in the PHB is the section on Intelligence (Arcana)
and -(Religion) checks, but even those are wiffle-waffley and say only that they, among other things, apply to "your ability to recall lore about [spells/rituals]." I'm not knocking the vagueness, just noting that it exists in its typically vague 5e manner.

Similarly, the closest analog in the DMG is the section on traps, which gives a detect trap Intelligence (Arcana) DC 20 for a magic trap that relies on sphere of annihilation. That was, literally, the only mention of an "interact with magic and be able to identify it" thing I could find in the entire DMG. Checked the index, the ToC, and then read carefully several sections within relevant chapters, and...nothing.

I conclude that 5e left it up to DMs to adjudicate such identification. So here's what I want to do. If the spell is a racial cantrip/spell, or is a spell that appears on your spell list, and is of a level you can cast, you automatically identify the spell. E.g., a drow would automatically recognize dancing lights; a 3rd-level cleric would automatically recognize silence (but not feign death, because feign death is a 3rd-level cleric spell; a 2nd level sorcerer who knows detect magic, expeditious retreat, and sleep would automatically recognize color spray but not darkness, since color spray is a 1st-level spell but darkness is a 2nd-level spell). One time this gets sketchy is, for example, whether a rock gnome would automatically know minor illusion without even having to interact with the illusion. Happily, at the moment that's a moot point since we neither have a rock gnome nor have encountered one. If we ever encounter one, I reserve the right to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis whether an Intelligence check applies for such identification (leaning heavily toward yes since otherwise would seriously nerf the minor illusion spell).

Absent a spell being a racial cantrip/spell, or the spell appearing on your spell list of a level you can cast, spellcasters may make either an Intelligence (Arcana) or Intelligence (Religion) check, DC 12 + spell level, to identify the spell. Additionally, non-spellcasters generally may not make a roll to identify a spell (I won't say never, because in rare circumstances I can envision it being reasonable for a fighter or rogue, for example, to get such a roll).

I toyed with but ultimately rejected the idea of requiring no Intelligence roll at all to identify all spells, because that seemed to steal much of the aura of suspense and mystery that I think all (most? some?) of us prize. I also toyed with but rejected a more complex approach that granted automatic identification to casters like clerics, druids, and paladins but denied the same to bards, sorcerers, and wizards absent the spell being a known spell. I had this fastidiously elegant rule all typed out, then I re-read it, and ditched it as being too complex and contrary to the spirit of 5e. Besides which, this is PbP, so mo' simple = mo' bettah.
 
Last edited:


My router at home seems to have crapped out. It's either that or we're having synch issues. The customer service guy I talked to this evening was very nice but could not resolve the issue remotely. The company has put in a ticket for tech to come out here, but the earliest appointment is September 22. I'll post when I can from work (but tomorrow and Friday are my busy days each week), and maaaaaybe will hotspot my smartphone from time to time for home access, but it's expensive to go through the phone rather than through the unlimited access we get normally from our ISP. Thanks for being patient guys.

On the bright side, I guess if there's down time for Stonefast, I can use it to read Out of the Abyss.
 

I've read through the first two chapters of Out of the Abyss in slow and thorough fashion, along with the appendices (skimmed). It's doable. There are some things I'd like to discuss:

1) Do you want to finish all or most of Stonefast before starting OotA? OotA calls for 1st level characters. Ya'll are 3rd level. There's a sidebar in the module that says it's not an issue to start with characters up to 3rd level, and having read the first two chapters, I agree. If we continue on with Stonefast before entering the Underdark, however, your characters are going to hit 4th level and may even reach 5th level. 4th level is doable. 5th would probably require adjustments that might put OotA out of whack. While I'm likely to make tweaks to any canned adventue I run, I prefer to avoid en grosse modifications. The upshot is that we either need to start OotA sooner rather than later, or everyone can agree to do a bit more exploring in Stonefast and delay the award of new character levels.

2) OotA calls for characters to begin as prisoners without the immediate use of their gear. How do ya'll feel about that? Would anyone be irritated with that scenario?

3) How do you guys feel about a sandbox adventure? Let me be specific. OotA starts off right away as a sandbox; characters have to make choices about where to go. It's not a particularly linear adventure. Characters can get lost in the Underdark. Some encounters are not level-appropriate, which means running away should probably be a response in your arsenal.

4) Do you want to play with NPCs in tow? OotA assumes the answer is yes. I think a smart DM asks before making this assumption. To clarify, from time to time the NPCs possess interesting or useful knowledge. They do not, however, do much during combat.

Answer any of those queries you like, or all of them. If the questions make you cringe, that's probably a good sign something about OotA is less of a good fit for this group. I'd appreciate honest answers from each of you. If OotA won't work for us as a group, then no worries. I'm not married to it (I'll run it as a separate campaign, later), and will begin hunting through 1e and 2e modules for a level-appropriate adventure for you.

Comments from Forged Fury may have to wait until tomorrow, as he said in another thread that he isn't feeling well today.
 

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
My 2 copper pieces:

For me the biggest factor is what motivates you as DM, and where do you want to take us. I don't think of things as going through a particular book -- I just want to play the game. That said:

1 No strong preference. If the floor suddenly opened up and my character was naked in the Underdark, that's fine with me, if that's the game you want to run. If you have treasures and adventure waiting for us in Stonefast, then I'm fine continuing as before. I'd rather *not* hold back levelling.

2 Not a concern.

3 Fine, but I have a bad history of not running away.

4 I think it depends if the NPCs are part of the story: if they are (e.g. we're rescuing prisoners), then they (a) either have story immunity (monsters won't target them) or (b) the don't (and they will); if they are not (e.g. they watch the horses), then again they (c) either have story immunity or (d) not. It is only in the case of (d), with vulnerable horse-watchers, that I'm happier without them. (Does that make sense?).
 

Remove ads

Top