D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] New Spellcraft Use

[Jhyrryl]

Not sure if anyone had noticed this yet.

Found something that's new to 3.5 on the topic of knowing what someone failed to cast on you. At a Spellcraft DC of 25 + spell level, "After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was. No action required. No retry."

So well-trained spellcasters can probably identify any spell they save against, even if they don't see the caster.

 

[Tzarevitch]

I only allow that if it is a common spell or the character might somehow have heard of its capabilities. If Bob the Wizard created a new spell that is only known to him and has never been documented before, no amount of Spellcraft is going to let the character know what it is as far as I am concerned. The check might allow you to know what school it was and basically what the spell can do but it does not automatically conjure a full dossier on the spell's capabilities.

Tzarevitch

 

[Skaros]

I only allow that if it is a common spell or the character might somehow have heard of its capabilities. If Bob the Wizard created a new spell that is only known to him and has never been documented before, no amount of Spellcraft is going to let the character know what it is as far as I am concerned. The check might allow you to know what school it was and basically what the spell can do but it does not automatically conjure a full dossier on the spell's capabilities.

Tzarevitch

I will add to the DC for checks against unique spells.

If Bob makes a save against some new paralyzation spell called "Jim's Paralyzing Punch", I don't see why he wouldn't be able to get a good sense of what almost happened to him.

The more unique (having less similar spells), the higher the DC.

Skaros

 

[kreynolds]

I only allow that if it is a common spell or the character might somehow have heard of its capabilities.

You mean you wouldn't even allow the caster to know what the spell was trying to do?

 

[Tzarevitch]

You mean you wouldn't even allow the caster to know what the spell was trying to do?

That is not what I was trying to say. You DO get to find out generally what the spell was trying to do based on what you felt or witnessed (i.e. burn you, paralyze you, teleport you, transform something etc.). You do NOT get to get a full dossier on what the spell's capability is (name, range, damage dice, duration etc.) unless you have encountered it before or have some additional knowledge on it (i.e. fairly well-known spell, have seen it before, have a description of it or have been affected by it).

Tzarevitch

 

[smetzger]

Interesting, I think I'll pencil this one in under my Scry spell description.

 

[kreynolds]

You DO get to find out generally what the spell was trying to do based on what you felt or witnessed (i.e. burn you, paralyze you, teleport you, transform something etc.). You do NOT get to get a full dossier on what the spell's capability is (name, range, damage dice, duration etc.)...

I gotcha, but neither was I saying that you should be able to identify a spell to such an extent that you learn every inner working function of it and can scribe the thing into your spellbook.
Note that Spellcraft says you can identify it with that check, not _learn_ it. There's a difference. So, while my successful check will allow me to identify that virtually unknown Bob's Hysterical Punching Fish spell that you just cast on me, it won't let me learn it.

 

[Metallian]

Re: Re: [3.5] New Spellcraft Use

Interesting, I think I'll pencil this one in under my Scry spell description.

That's an interesting idea, so I went and checked...it looks like Scry isn't strictly "targeted," so I don't think this new use of Spellcraft is applicable to Scry attempts.

The Metallian

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: [3.5] New Spellcraft Use

...it looks like Scry isn't strictly "targeted," so I don't think this new use of Spellcraft is applicable to Scry attempts.

The subject gets a Will save, so why wouldn't it be? Are you thinking that it isn't applicable because it doesn't have a Target entry? So fireball wouldn't be applicable either? Possible, I suppose.

 

[Metallian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: [3.5] New Spellcraft Use

The subject gets a Will save, so why wouldn't it be? Are you thinking that it isn't applicable because it doesn't have a Target entry? So fireball wouldn't be applicable either? Possible, I suppose.

Yeah, it was the lack of a "Target" entry that led me to that conclusion. D&D often uses terms like "Targeted" in a pretty specific manner (like in Potion-making rules...that's why we couldn't make See Invisibility potions in 3.0, but we can now), so I assumed that was the case here.

Of course, if your character needs a Spellcraft check to detect a Fireball after a saving throw...well, he probably has some big problems!

The Metallian