saying "you cant" to a pc

[Belgarath]

I have a slight problem with a pc being told "you can't do that"

It is my opinion that anyone can TRY to use most of the feats that are available, even if the haven't taken it. The ones that I refer to of course are the combat feats for the most part and the majority of the skills.

Here is my thought. The DM places a penalty of -4 for not having that specific feat, plus and additional -2 for each prerequisite that the character does not have. "You want to spring attack and you dont even have dodge. Ok, roll your attack at a -8"

Skills that are not used by default can also work like this. Roll using your base attribute bonus and an additional -4. People pick up a lot of information in their lives and there is no telling what someone can actually know simply because he has heard someone speak of it at one time. This gives them a small chance, because not every skill can possibly be covered by the characters.

This was brought to my mind becasue I am playing a monk and one character is constantly casting detect magic. He was told what it does. When I acted like I knew what the mage had cast, I was told that there was no way according to the rules because I did not have the spellcraft skill and I had not made a roll. My argument is that he may not understand the arcane language and the reasons for certain gestures, but he should be able to identify the effects of it.

What do you guys think?

 

[Telperion]

I have a slight problem with a pc being told "you can't do that"

It is my opinion that anyone can TRY to use most of the feats that are available, even if the haven't taken it. The ones that I refer to of course are the combat feats for the most part and the majority of the skills.

Here is my thought. The DM places a penalty of -4 for not having that specific feat, plus and additional -2 for each prerequisite that the character does not have. "You want to spring attack and you dont even have dodge. Ok, roll your attack at a -8"

Skills that are not used by default can also work like this. Roll using your base attribute bonus and an additional -4. People pick up a lot of information in their lives and there is no telling what someone can actually know simply because he has heard someone speak of it at one time. This gives them a small chance, because not every skill can possibly be covered by the characters.

This was brought to my mind becasue I am playing a monk and one character is constantly casting detect magic. He was told what it does. When I acted like I knew what the mage had cast, I was told that there was no way according to the rules because I did not have the spellcraft skill and I had not made a roll. My argument is that he may not understand the arcane language and the reasons for certain gestures, but he should be able to identify the effects of it.

What do you guys think?

I think that if someone brings out some fur and a rod of glass I look for cover.

Repetitive use of the same spells could give someone without any spellcraft a chance of identifying what is going on. The thing is that should somone do a counterspell effect of the same spell it would already look, sound and "feel" different. With so many variables and different spells around allowing a non-caster to identify the favorite tricks of a spell caster isn't asking too much, IMO.

On the other hand this isn't flawless or spell craft. A DM is fully within his rights not to allow someone without any spell craft to identify even the most basic of spells. Every wizard writes his spells differently, and so every spell is also cast differently.

For the most part I'm a bit more lenient about these things, but as soon as an enemy spell caster pulls out an ace those without spell craft are left without any clues as to what is going on.

Either way none of this really makes much of a difference game mechanically. A character doesn't get any bonuses on a Ref-save against a Fireball even if he guesses one is coming. It adds a bit of flavor, and a minor tactical balance, but that's about all that I can see...

 

[ciaran00]

Here is my thought. The DM places a penalty of -4 for not having that specific feat, plus and additional -2 for each prerequisite that the character does not have. "You want to spring attack and you dont even have dodge. Ok, roll your attack at a -8"

He doesn't automatically tell you that you don't get any of the feat's bonuses if you don't have it? Horrifying...

Skills that are not used by default can also work like this. Roll using your base attribute bonus and an additional -4.

You are getting ripped off if the skill is "Untrained Yes". Fewer skills are Trained Only in 3.5. However, Spellcraft is one of those that people just can't fudge on this way.

This was brought to my mind becasue I am playing a monk and one character is constantly casting detect magic. He was told what it does. When I acted like I knew what the mage had cast, I was told that there was no way according to the rules because I did not have the spellcraft skill and I had not made a roll.

Well, if you didn't have any ranks in Spellcraft then it's a fair call. Since your character hasn't bothered buying any ranks, he apparently doesn't pay much attention (read: learn) to spells being cast and what they do. However, a sense motive vs. bluff check is perfectly legitimate for your monk to be able to gauge the caster's reaction after casting the spell.....

ciaran

 

[the Jester]

Well, if you want to spring attack, take the feat. Until you do, accept that you'll take an AoO as you move in and attack and that it will take you an extra round to spring away.

Seriously, the fact that you have to take the feat- and that it has prereqs- is because you have to make choices when you build your character. You gain some abilities, you don't gain others. If you want to be able to spellcraft someone's spells you need to buy a rank cross-class.

 

[clark411]

It's not so much your DM saying "no you can't" so much as it is your character sheet saying it. If the actions you wish to perform, be it knowing something or doing something, fall under the category of something you have chosen to not take, or simply can't take yet, there's no reason to play Blame-Ball with the DM.



Feats are a big deal, and individual characters only get a handful (okay- perhaps more than a handful for pure fighters, wizards, and OA Monks)... and turning feats into proficiencies for omni-use abilities seems sort of disappointing to me.

I'd much rather go "Yay! Level 3, now I have Combat Reflexes!" than go "Well, I'm level 3 and I can use Combat Reflexes at a -2 penalty.. at least I have Improved Feint with no penalties... yah" only to hear literally everyone from the peasant to the imp to the peasant's horse say "So? Same here."

... what's a peasant doing with a horse anyway, really? What?

Back on track... Now, if you've spotted wizards pinching bat doopie from his mojo bag again and again just before the blast of a fireball... Okay- you have a case that you've seen it before and your character should be able to figure out the deal. Not that it matters at that point, as your fellow probably can't counterspell it, or do anything for that matter if he's "looking down the barrel," so to speak. Nothing he couldn't do anyway (reflex save). You might not understand the subtleties of the nuances of weaving the fabric of magic with fingers covered in bat guano (no really, think about it), but you know the signs of danger.

 

[Erila of Sune]

Frankly, I think this may be a case where the rules are being applied a little /too/ heavily.

Sure, different wizards, different variables, different ways of casting spells with basically the same effect. But for something like a Detect Magic, being used over and over and over again by a wizard you're in close proximity to, it makes sense you'd eventually pick up on the fact that his saying a particular word is usually followed up by a declaration of "I sense powerful magic here." If he explains what this spell he's always casting casting does, so much the more obvious. I'd even allow a wizard or sorcerer to explain "Okay, when I wave my hands like so, duck, because I'm about to blow up the room with a Fireball." You'd still need a spot check, but you know there's a fireball incoming if you see him casting it.

 

[the Jester]

Sure, different wizards, different variables, different ways of casting spells with basically the same effect. But for something like a Detect Magic, being used over and over and over again by a wizard you're in close proximity to, it makes sense you'd eventually pick up on the fact that his saying a particular word is usually followed up by a declaration of "I sense powerful magic here." If he explains what this spell he's always casting casting does, so much the more obvious. I'd even allow a wizard or sorcerer to explain "Okay, when I wave my hands like so, duck, because I'm about to blow up the room with a Fireball." You'd still need a spot check, but you know there's a fireball incoming if you see him casting it.

I agree to an extent, assuming the wizard shares info about what he's doing. I think a character without spellcraft might still learn to recognize spellcasting, and if he's expecting the wizard to cast a certain spell in a certain circumstance, he might recognize that spell after it's cast a bunch. But I don't think a character without ranks in Spellcraft could recognize one spell vs. another; he'd most likely just know the wizard always casts detect magic on the loot pile at the end of the adventure, and expect a fireball in combat.

2 skill points is the absolute most it will cost a character to be able to attempt Spellcraft checks. That's not a very heavy cost except to very low Intelligence characters of classes without Spellcraft as a class skill that get 2 skill points per level; and these are exactly the guys who should have a hard time with this kind of thing. It takes smarts.

I would love to see a group develop a 'hand talk' among themselves, however; for 2 skill points per character (a silent version of Speak Language) they could have a difficult to break code. (Note that tongues works on spoken languages only.)