Detect Magic vs Spellcraft

[Kealios]

The SRD/RAW states that you can use Spellcraft to "Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry."

You can also use Detect Magic to do something similar.

My friend, a player in my game, Rules Lawyer extraordinaire and wizard player, compares the two:

"Spellcraft is instantaneous and doesnt require concentration. Detect Magic takes time and constant attention. The main difference is that while Spellcraft is instantaneous, Detect Magic doesnt lie."

My main question is:
If NPC #1 has buffed himself with lots of spells before a battle, and walks into the room the PC's are in before battle, are they going to (with successful Spellcraft checks) know right away what he is buffed with?

Our argument around the gaming table has always centered around this issue. Do "Buffs/Spells" leave Everquest-ish evidence as they shimmer around the caster they are on? Can one be enhanced with spells and not have people know this? Is the comparrison between Spellcraft and Detect Magic on or off?

Thanks,
Kealios

 

[Infiniti2000]

If NPC #1 has buffed himself with lots of spells before a battle, and walks into the room the PC's are in before battle, are they going to (with successful Spellcraft checks) know right away what he is buffed with?

They will only have a chance to recognize the buffs that have visible effects or that they can otherwise detect them (such as smell, I suppose). An example would be unholy aura.

Our argument around the gaming table has always centered around this issue. Do "Buffs/Spells" leave Everquest-ish evidence as they shimmer around the caster they are on? Can one be enhanced with spells and not have people know this? Is the comparrison between Spellcraft and Detect Magic on or off?

Spellcraft only works if you can see or detect the spell. Although a number of aburations piled on top of each other may leave a visible aura, it's not likely that anyone would agree that seeing that aura would give you the opportunity to discern each and every spell in the 'pile'.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

The SRD/RAW states that you can use My friend, a player in my game, Rules Lawyer extraordinaire and wizard player, compares the two:

"Spellcraft is instantaneous and doesnt require concentration. Detect Magic takes time and constant attention. The main difference is that while Spellcraft is instantaneous, Detect Magic doesnt lie."

My main question is:
If NPC #1 has buffed himself with lots of spells before a battle, and walks into the room the PC's are in before battle, are they going to (with successful Spellcraft checks) know right away what he is buffed with?

Our argument around the gaming table has always centered around this issue. Do "Buffs/Spells" leave Everquest-ish evidence as they shimmer around the caster they are on? Can one be enhanced with spells and not have people know this? Is the comparrison between Spellcraft and Detect Magic on or off?

Ultimately, this is an issue for the DM to decide. That being said, unless the spell description states that the spell's effect is visible or it is obvious from the spell description that it would be, I would rule that they are not visible (and thus not identifiable via Spellcraft checks alone). The most important thing is that you be consistent with your rulings, however: if owl's wisdom leaves "Everquest-ish evidence," then it always leaves that evidence. This is a side effect that will be more irksome to the PCs than to their opponents, I would predict.

 

[nittanytbone]

Our argument around the gaming table has always centered around this issue. Do "Buffs/Spells" leave Everquest-ish evidence as they shimmer around the caster they are on? Can one be enhanced with spells and not have people know this? Is the comparrison between Spellcraft and Detect Magic on or off?

Some spells obviously do this (Blur, Mirror Image, etc) and thus could be identified by Spellcraft. I think something like Magic Missiles impacting on a Shield or Minor Globe spell might also leave visible evidence.

Others are campaign specific (its up to you what Owl's Wisdom or a Dispel Magic looks like).

Even if there are no obvious effects I might allow a reflexive roll after seeing something like Bull's Strength in action for a few rounds, with the DM's Friend -2 penalty attached. If it passes, I might say something like, "This little guy is hitting a lot harder than he should be for his size." Of course, I'd be sure to throw a similar line in occasionally when there are no buff spells running (maybe a bluff vs. sense motive check to determine that), just to keep them on their toes.

 

[dcollins]

My main question is: If NPC #1 has buffed himself with lots of spells before a battle, and walks into the room the PC's are in before battle, are they going to (with successful Spellcraft checks) know right away what he is buffed with?

No. There's nothing to "see or detect" about the effect of buff spells.

Our argument around the gaming table has always centered around this issue. Do "Buffs/Spells" leave Everquest-ish evidence as they shimmer around the caster they are on?

No, D&D is not Everquest. You get the effects stated in the spell description and nothing more.

 

[Caliban]

To answer your question: No. A spellcaster would need to have Arcane Sight up (and a high spellcraft) to identify non-visible spell effects right away.

As for Detect Magic and Spellcraft, they work best together.

Detect Magic will let you detect non-apparent spell effects (takes 3 rounds to target a specific spell effect). Then you can use spellcraft to identify the school (DC 15) and the spell (DC 20+spell level).