A concern with Spellcraft

[DragonLancer]

So Spellcraft is being used to identify spells cast by other casters. But why should the PCs know what every single other spell in the world is just because they make a check? I much prefer the idea that Spellcraft can be used to identify commonly used or well known spells. But that lurking goblin shaman who has a lot of home brewed magic . . .

How do you handle this in your games?

In my eyes, the character does not know all spells but can recognise the nature of whats coming by the words, phrases, gestures ...etc. In game terms we let the player know the spell name, but in the game world they know what sort of spell is coming not what it does. Its a conceit for the sake of the game.

 

[Arnwyn]

I much prefer the idea that Spellcraft can be used to identify commonly used or well known spells. But that lurking goblin shaman who has a lot of home brewed magic . . .

How do you handle this in your games?

Since I actually went to the effort in 2e to categorize spells as Common/Uncommon/Rare, and kept with it in 3e, I have the ability IMC to tack on a modifier to the DC of the Spellcraft check if the spell is Uncommon or Rare.

 

[sniffles]

Ah the voice of logic.

If you alter your in-game explanation of what spellcraft represents, then rules work fine. Simply put, you're not identifying the spell literally. You're identifying that the wizard is focusing a lot of fire energy to be centered on your position with a 20' radius. It's simply a lot faster for the DM to get the point across to name the spell as Fireball. The DM doesn't have to actually name the spell (and a lot of ambiance might be generated if he described it instead), but lazy DM's like me tend to summarize.

Janx

That's a good way of looking at it. You tell the player that the other spellcaster is casting charm person, but the character making the Spellcraft check doesn't know that, he just knows that it's a spell intended to affect another person's mind. I like that.

 

[genshou]

Even if said Goblin Witch Doctor is tossing off Glurg's Spiffy Chieftain Killer instead of just another magic missile, Why wouldn't a mage know that when Glurg intones the arcane words of power, that his choice of intonations and gestures, as well as the chartreuse-to-jade mists forming little balls of light are evidence of an evocation spell that is similar to magic missile? Or more to the point, it's unlike any spell he's seen before, and has no counter prepared? Or that based on the way this shaman handles magic, that it will have a duration of roughly X? Even if the DM decides that magic is more chaotic than codified, the ways to call magic mean that if he's well studied, he can identify the basics of magic being used?

Now, what I have a harder time seeing is identifying a Silent, Still Spell with no material components, whom the caster has cast defensively. It would be like "naming that tune in 1 note" to recall an old phrase.

Doesn't the Spellcraft skill specifically state that you must see the spell's somatic components or hear its verbal components?

15 + spell level
Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.