Identifying spells being cast

[Negative Zero]

indeed. by your estimation it would seem that you also don't see the movements of opponents until you turn, when they magically teleport from the place they stood when it was last you turn, to the place they stand now on your next turn.

of course by the rules, a free action can only be done as part of another action, as you've pointed out. and i usually agree that logic shouldn't be accepted as a de facto argument against rules. but in this case, it just doesn't make sense. how can you not see something that you're looking at. now if you want to take facing into account for this purpose, that's a different thing. (but only if the character isn't facing his opposing spell caster.)

 

[Henrix]

Perhaps you'd have to stop doing what you do for a moment and be attentive to exactly what the other spellcaster is doing for a second or so.
If you don't have an action readied you are probably involved in some other activity. You are obviously not sitting in front of your TV.

 

[Negative Zero]

well, if we're at "perhaps" ...

perhaps you're actually not engaged in melee combat at the time. perhaps you just tried to hit him with a missile weapon, or perhaps you just cast a spell at him and so you're looking at him anyway. perhaps you're intending to attack him next having just felled the immediate threat to you.

for every "perhaps" you can think of to support your agrument, there's at least one more for the other side. it's not really a valid way of making your point. particularly in something that's as dynamic and chaotic as combat where there are an infinite number of "perhaps" situation to go around.

now, i'm not attacking you personally, Henrix, just trying to point out that this line of arguments will likely get us nowhere.

 

[gfunk]

Spellcraft by the rules:

1. Using Spellcraft is not even considered an action,

PHB p. 61 under "Time and Skill Checks:"

"Some skill checks are instant and represent reactions to an event, or are included as part of an action. These skills are not actions."

Therefore you can Spellcraft as many times as you want in a round.

2. Unless you creat a house rule, Spellcraft can identify divine or arcane spells:

PHB, p. 74 under "Spellcraft"

"DC 15 + spell level Indetify a spell being cast"

PHB, p. 281 under the definition of "spell"

"spell: A one-time magical effect. The two primary categories of spells are arcane and divine."

3. Unless you ready an action, there is little to nothing you can do when someone casts a spell that you identify correctly.

4. You can use Spellcraft on metamagiced spells that have been Stilled or Silence and also on spell-like abilities, but the DC is increased.

Tome and Blood, p. 19 under "Spells Being Cast"

"You scrutinize the spellcaster, listening to the words used in the spell, observing the caster's gesture, and noting any material components or focus. For each of these elements you cannot discern, the DC increases by +2. For example, if a foe casts a still and silent spell, your Spellcraft check DC increases by +4. You can use Spellcraft to identify a spell even if the spell has no verbal, somatic, or material component -- there's no mistaking the concentration magic requires."

Therefore Spellcraft DC for spell-like abilities is +6.

5. For those of you who don't think a spell-like ability works like a spell:

PHB, p. 281, under "spell like ability:"

"spell-like ability (Sp): A specail ability with effects that resmemble those of a spell. In most cases, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of the same name."

Clearly this means that Sp's work like spells, *except* where noted (e.g. cannot counterspell/be used to counterspell).

 

[Negative Zero]

fairly comprehensive there, gfunk. well done :thumbs up:

 

[Li Shenron]

But I'll tell you what, my games are consistent as hell!

Or inconsistent as abyss?

By the way, we play quite freely with it, so our PCs with Spellcraft can really check anytime to identify a spell being cast (1 try per spell), as a "not an action", but I don't know if the latter is really correct.

Until now, it has not really be very useful unless if they are counterspelling: if they identify the spell, they don't really get a great advantage on the effect. If they miss it, they are probably going to find out what spell it is when they get the consequences on their skin . If the spell is a 1-action spell, they don't have time to react unless they are readying, and if it's longer there are not pretty much possibilities on which spell could it be (unless it is a metamagicked sorcerer spell).

BTW, there are DM that even make this Spellcraft use pointless by directly saying "The evil Wizard casts a Fireball centered on you" before you can ask for the check...

 

[kreynolds]

Why?

This is good role-playing...<snip>...but I just take that as flavor text.

Excuse me? Last I checked, using Bluff in combat (Feinting) is a standard action. That's what happens when the DM doesn't pay attention.

 

[Henrix]

Spellcraft by the rules:

1. Using Spellcraft is not even considered an action,

PHB p. 61 under "Time and Skill Checks:"

"Some skill checks are instant and represent reactions to an event, or are included as part of an action. These skills are not actions."

Therefore you can Spellcraft as many times as you want in a round.

No, the fact that some skills are not considered actions does not make all skill use not considered actions.

To quote the text just above your quote, the passage begins with:
"Using a skill might take a round, take no time, or take several rounds or even longer. Most skill uses are standard actions, moveequivalent actions, or full-round actions."
But that still does not say anything about spellcraft checks.

On Spellcraft time to identify a spell being cast PHB p. 128, table 8-4 Miscellaneous Actions:
"Free Actions
Make a Spellcraft Check on a counterspell attempt"

and Counterspells, p. 152:

"If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level). This check is a free action."
(Emphasis mine.)

So, using Spellcraft to identify a spell being cast takes a free action.

In other words, if the DM does not want to reveal the spell being cast, and the PC has not readied an action, he does not have to do that.

Otherwise your reiteration of the spellcraft rules seems correct.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

oh boy - here I go into one hell of a tirade -

According to the SRD:

Free Action: A character can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, the DM puts reasonable limits on what a character can really do for free.

That means that they may not be done unless it is your turn, or you have readied an action.

See also:

No, I am telling you that you cannot do a Free Action while it is not your turn.

***** WARNING *****
Engage pissed off rant mode about this type of issue is now ON - as my extreme pet peeve has just been stepped on. (Apology in advance for any heated statements in the following)
***** End Warning *****

What in the hell is that crap?

Use some first order logic, even REASON... sheesh.

In first order terms:
The character is taking an action of the category "not an action" namely observing. Therefore, he may take a free action (in this case a spellcraft check) - within reason - to determine wether or not the character can identify that which he is observing.

The above is an example of the "you cant do jack s**t unless it is your F*****G turn. You can't blink - you can't roll saves... you can't fall - you can't do ANYTHING unless it is your turn "according to the rules".

Wake up - you "do" things, but you do not INITIATE them. This is why it is called "Initiative" and not "turn order determination".

D&D combat is not a game of lets go out into the dungeon and "take turns bopping one another on the head". This kind of view of the game is one that ticks me off to absolutely NO end. The myopic view leads to some very strange statements and arguments on this board.

**** Rant Mode disengaged ****

I shall be have to be vigilant - and I shall have to harp on this point at every given opportunity... every time I see it... so get used to hearing from me if I catch someone posting this type of argument.

- Jerel

 

[Negative Zero]

in a somewhat similar manner to Magus_Jerel, i fail to see what the fuss is all about here. what's the big deal in letting a mage character use his skill at a relevant time? particularly in this case where, other than making the player feel good about succeeding at a check, it has no real effect on the game.

as has been said before, without a readied action to go with it, knowing what is being cast won't profit him/her anything. save perhaps giving them a few extra seconds to contemplate their imminent death, or a few extra minutes to think about their next move (which can likely save game time later on when his/her turn comes around).

so what's the point about arguing (what seems like a silly point to me anyway) whether a character can mentally process info that he/she's likely seeing, at the time that they actuall see it? lets not forget that attempting the skill doesn't mean that you automatically succeed.

to address one of the original Qs by Xar, a 1st lvl mage can very easily have read/heard about magiks that he wants to learn how to cast someday. study of magic isn't limited to arcane magic only either. the roll that you make, is to determine if your character has in fact had enough exposure to this spell so that he/she can identify what it is by seeing someone casting it. bad roll? sorry, you've never come accross this spell before. or, you've never come accross it cast quite this way before.

now, i fail to see how one extra die roll and a few seconds worth of words can "hopelessly [slow] down combat". as for the mystery, well, isn't that the point of taking knowledge skills? to get rid of some of the mystery? it's the DMs job to create mystery, and the players' to solve it. it's done quite often with a die roll. it's up to the DM to create more.

i still say though, who cares when the mage understands what he sees. what's the difference between him knowing now, or in a few seconds time? it's not like he can do anything with it. so where's the argument?

~NegZ