Bryk, perhaps if the PCs notice the enemy actually casting, I would allow them a "free" arcana check to see if they know what spell is being cast. If it is cast before the PCs enter the area and it has a visible or visceral effect, the I would give a passive check. But if it is already cast before the PCs enter the area, then unless there is a palpable effect that can be sensed by the PCs, I would not allow any chance to know.
D&D 5E Bless and Bane spell
Agamon
Adventurer
That's certainly not an invalid way to do it, but I can see a case for using a passive check, for the first two situations, anyway (agreed that if there's no way to know a spell has been cast, there should be no check). The passive check simulates what you know off the top of your head, from what the caster is doing and saying, to the effects the happen because of it. I see rolling as taking the facts and considering the situation, actually thinking about it for a moment. Thus why the rolled check takes an action.
Psikerlord#
Explorer
Isnt spellcasting obvious? So when the orc casts the party sees him do it. If they cant see the effect, theyll prolly still target him or work it out later when they start missing when they shiuld hit. I suppose the orc could make a sleight of hand check, maybe with disad in combat, to cast a spell stealthily, opposed by either passive or active perception? Im not sure about that actually.
sithramir
First Post
Spell casting is obvious but concentration is not necessarily. If it is so obvious wouldn't every monster run at the casters? Doesn't take that much intelligence to want to eliminate PC casters or that orc shaman cold also order them?
I think seeing it cast is the important part of the perception
I think seeing it cast is the important part of the perception
Andor
First Post
I wouldn't think so. But that only matters at my table. It's a GM call.
But I don't think concentration is all that obvious given that it doesn't stop you from fighting at full ability or even casting other spells. It's not like the 2e chant spell where you have to stand there incanting and anything will break your spell.
So I personally wouldn't have foes automatically know whether a spell was concentration or not. They might go after a caster because they know he's a caster, but not simply becuase they are trying to break a buff. OTOH I would be more likely to have them attack if he had cast bane because they know he's inflicting them with something. But barring a high Arcana roll they are not going to know what spells are concentration and which are not. So they might go after the caster trying to break a blindness/deafness spell even though that one is not concentration.
Kill spellcasters first
Spellcasters have always been high priority targets because they can make things go really bad for the other side. The new concentration rules make it even more important to take them out first because there is a decent chance that taking them out can stop ongoing effects as well as future ones. Twice the incentive.
I really hate the concentration rules. Concentration + Bounded accuracy plus + ever increasing damage makes fireball (or other area spells) the best dispel magic option (and two handed weapons arent shabby either). Of course then you reveal yourself as a spellcaster and move to the top of the list for killing.
Spellcasters have always been high priority targets because they can make things go really bad for the other side. The new concentration rules make it even more important to take them out first because there is a decent chance that taking them out can stop ongoing effects as well as future ones. Twice the incentive.
I really hate the concentration rules. Concentration + Bounded accuracy plus + ever increasing damage makes fireball (or other area spells) the best dispel magic option (and two handed weapons arent shabby either). Of course then you reveal yourself as a spellcaster and move to the top of the list for killing.
Similar Threads
