call lightning

[Infiniti2000]

The clear definition is "Concentrating on the spell" even if all of the bolts were created in advance (and cleverly hidden from all who view it), concentrating on a spell is using a spell, otherwise Illusionists would have a hey day with the image spells.

That's a good point.

 

[Falling Icicle]

It's easy, you roll a normal spellcraft. "With your spellcraft check of 28, you recognize the bluish mist surrounding the enemy mage as a chill shield." When the fighter sees this, unless he is clued in by someone with a good spellcraft, he has zero chance of metagaming and, more importantly, the veteran players will find it much more interesting. Heck, I wouldn't even bother mentioned green flames because I don't even need a spellcraft check for that. Requiring the use of spellcraft for spellcraft rolls makes my suggestion very consistent.

In effect, what you're suggesting is that the players use their own knowledge of the descriptions of spells to do spellcraft and not their spellcraft roll.

I agree that they may have an in-game effect and, depending on the nature of that effect I would recommend caution. This is why I caveated my comment with "little or no effect". So, as DM you either restrict the flavor appropriately, or you just plain decide not to let it have an in-game effect.

That's exactly my point. Unless you have sufficient spellcraft, you shouldn't know what the spell is. You shouldn't let metagame knowledge when you once played an archmage up to 20th level affect what your 4th-level fighter would know.

I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I am not suggesting that players use metagame knowledge to get around not having spellcraft. I am explaining how and why the spellcraft skill works. The *character,* not the player, witnesses a spell's components and/or effect, and from seeing that, depending on the success or failure of his spellcraft check, is able or not to identify the spell. How much sense can this make if spell effects and components are ad hoc and determined by the caster every time he casts a spell? How can one learn something that has no set rules and is always changing? How can one learn to tell a fireball from some other, slightly different spell if a fireball can look like whatever its caster wants it to?

And you completely ignored the Spell Thematics feat, which is a fine example of my point. This is a feat which allows a caster to do the very thing you say all casters have an inherent ability to do. And why does spell thematics make spellcraft checks to identify your spells more difficult? That's because changing a spell's appearance makes it much more difficult to identify, for obvious reasons. Imagine you are a wizard, and you see someone throw a green flaming skull that explodes in a burst of green fire. Shouldn't you be thinking to yourself, hmm, well it seems kind of like a fireball, but fireball is supposed to be a red bead that explodes in red fire. What is going on here? Could this be some strange new spell I have never heard of before? Likewise, if a spell's verbal and somatic components could be any gesture or words the caster makes up on the spot, how could you possibly know what he is casting and counterspell him? The entire foundation of the spellcraft skill depends upon magic following rules and being consistent.

 

[Infiniti2000]

How much sense can this make if spell effects and components are ad hoc and determined by the caster every time he casts a spell? How can one learn something that has no set rules and is always changing? How can one learn to tell a fireball from some other, slightly different spell if a fireball can look like whatever its caster wants it to?

In truth, it makes a lot of sense. It's just a spellcraft roll and I can easily justify how a character could know, "You see a purplish mist, but it seems to function very much like a fire shield and you've read once where this was used as chill shield variety." I see nothing wrong with that and with no inconsistency at all.

And you completely ignored the Spell Thematics feat, which is a fine example of my point. This is a feat which allows a caster to do the very thing you say all casters have an inherent ability to do.

I don't know the feat, but making the feat semi-useless does not bother me at all. Still, with the feat you would gain an in-game benefit. What I propose offers no in-game benefit and still lets players and DMs alike express some creativity. I really really hate the restriction of requiring a freakin' feat for spell thematics. IMO it would be like requiring a feat to have brown hair and blue eyes.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I don't know the feat, but making the feat semi-useless does not bother me at all. Still, with the feat you would gain an in-game benefit. What I propose offers no in-game benefit and still lets players and DMs alike express some creativity. I really really hate the restriction of requiring a freakin' feat for spell thematics. IMO it would be like requiring a feat to have brown hair and blue eyes.

You can do whatever you wish in your own games, of course. I'm only talking about the RAW.

 

[Zurai]

Spell Thematics is a lousy feat from a game mechanics standpoint - you're able to make a Spellcraft check to identify a spell while the spell is being cast. At that point, the spell hasn't even been cast yet, let alone seen, so why is the Spellcraft check harder?

 

[zeroorez]

I just read the PDF preview of the Antimagic page from the rules compendium, and I'm not particularly impressed.

They don't tackle any of the thorny questions (instantaneous conjurations, magic arrows fired from a magic bow into an antimagic field) and seem to add in new wrinkles - I've always had antimagic fields blocking line of effect, but they say now that it doesn't block line of effect.

I don't see how this actually helps to reduce confusion or make it work better or more consistently, and it makes me wonder why they bothered to write it

Regards,

The new rules compendium antimagic does not block line of effect
so i can call lightning from within one onto a target outside one.