Players Handbook vs the Dungeon Master

[Aaron L]

We use a Spellcraft check. If you make your Spellcraft checjk, you know all the details of the spell, and can look it up. If not, then you don't know what spell it was,you can't look it up, and someone will smack you if you try.

 

[smetzger]

First off don't tell them that the enemy cast AMF, instead describe the effects of the spell. That will go a long way to solving the problem. Then if they want to know what the enemy cast you can ask for the spellcraft roll.

As a DM I never tell them what they are up against I always describe what the characters notice. This will cut out a lot of metagaming.

*:> Scott

 

[Janos Audron]

"You try to cast cone of cold on the fire giant, but about 10 ft. in front of it, the cone stops and it leaves the fire giant completely unharmed. Some 10 ft. behind the giant, the cone continues."

Well, how will this NOT lead to metagaming:

"What could that be? Not an AMF, unless the giant is a 11th level caster, which would be way too high CR for us. He couldn't have gotten it from a scoll or staff (most players (and DMs) know that AMF is centered on the caster), since then he's either a rogue or a wizard, which would be way too tough too... It can't be an Anti-Magic Aura, because that doesn't have 10 ft. range...what the hell is it?!"

I think that not saying what spell it is, just increases the amount of metagaming...and besides, most of the time, it's far easier to say what spell it is and describe a bit of the effect than to describe the complete effect and not name the spell...

It would be bad for, say a fighter, if he heard that the enemy had a Leech Field, to suddenly switch to his bow and start firing arrows long out of range...but my DM says, in such cases: "you have absolutely NO reason to suddenly switch to your bow when for the past 5 sessions you've only used your greatsword, so you use your greatsword." And I don't think that is such a bad solution at all...

 

[Urbannen]

I agree that Spellcraft checks should be used. The Spellcraft skill represents a character's knowledge of spells, oddly enough. The PHB even gives the DC for identifying spells that have already been cast. If the character recognizes the spell, they should really be allowed to read the spell description.

 

[Mulkhoran]

I handle it like this:

I let any PC make a knowledge (arcana) check at DC 15+spell lvl in order to know the basics of a spell, assuming that they can cast it in the first place. If it isn't on their spell list, the DC is more like 30+spell level.

Spellcraft checks are certainly the way to go, but...........

Are you kidding? An arcana check to know what it does if they can CAST it?? Don't you think that's, well, insane? I mean, if I was playing a wizard, and the DM told me I couldn't remember the details of a spell in my spellbook, I don't think I'd stick around much longer.

Or are you saying to identify it from it's effects? In that case, disregard the ranting.

 

[Ravellion]

I agree that Spellcraft checks should be used. The Spellcraft skill represents a character's knowledge of spells, oddly enough. The PHB even gives the DC for identifying spells that have already been cast. If the character recognizes the spell, they should really be allowed to read the spell description.

That DC (20+spell level IIRC) is for spells already in place with detect magic, which will take 3 rounds to get a proper analysis.

15+spell level for if the characters actually see the spell being cast.

IMC it's moot anyway - I do allow players to look stuff up, but if their initiative comes up and they don't know what they are doing they hold: In this case:

Wizard PC: Oh, wait I know this, I know this!
Fighter PC: Well hurry the F up!
Monster: Claw, smash, bite!
Cleric PC: Well hurry up already!
Rogue PC: I pick the wizards pockets!
Wizard PC: *mumbles* components, range, balh blah*
Fighter PC: Come on dude!
Monster: Claw, smash, bite!
Fighter PC: AAAAARGH!
Cleric PC: I heal the fighter.
Wizard PC: Ah! Concentrate all your fire on the super star destroyer!
Cleric PC: Crap, the figther died!
Wizard: Hey, where's my wand?
Rogue PC: *botches Use Magic Device Roll* Kablam!

Ie., they are better off going by their instincts...

(part of the above was joking of course)

Rav

 

[Saeviomagy]

If they have knowledge(arcana), and the effects of the spell are visible (ie - hey, look, all our magic stops within this sphere!), let them look it up with a successful check (probably a DC of 15 or 20+level).

If they know the spell themselves, smack yourself in the head for calling it metagaming.

Otherwise, there will always be someone who knows the stats on every spell and monster in the book. You really need to get creative, and alter some of them a little if you want to keep a mystery alive.

 

[darkbard]

Spellcraft checks are certainly the way to go, but...........

Are you kidding? An arcana check to know what it does if they can CAST it?? Don't you think that's, well, insane? I mean, if I was playing a wizard, and the DM told me I couldn't remember the details of a spell in my spellbook, I don't think I'd stick around much longer.

Or are you saying to identify it from it's effects? In that case, disregard the ranting.

i may be off base here (though i'm pretty sure i'm not) but i think what p-kitty is saying is that a caster must have the spell on her spell list--in the way a character must have a spell on their spell list in order to use a wand of x spell, for example. i.e. a wizard can identify any spell being cast that's on the sorcerer/wizard list, (perhaps even if its a divine version cast by a cleric or currently being cast by a bard, what have you). for example, a 1st level wizard can try to recognize a fireball being cast because it's on her list even though she can't yet cast it.

by the by, the PH specifically notes that each wizard's spellbook is very different (one could easily expand this methodology to clerics as well, with separate religions having different ways of invoking power through rituals/incantations/etc), requiring even friendly pc's to make spellcraft checks to decipher the notes and such, so i see no reason why there wouldn't be similar differences in ways spells are cast as well.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

That DC (20+spell level IIRC) is for spells already in place with detect magic, which will take 3 rounds to get a proper analysis.

15+spell level for if the characters actually see the spell being cast.

Rav

You don't actually need detect magic, all you need to be able to do is see the effect. So for a anti magic field already in effect it would be DC 26 spellcraft check. Personally i'd prefer id as knowledge arcana to actually give that skill some use. (maybe spellcraft to identify it, knowledge arcana to get some useful info on the spell)

 

[hong]

I handle it like this:

I let any PC make a knowledge (arcana) check at DC 15+spell lvl in order to know the basics of a spell, assuming that they can cast it in the first place. If it isn't on their spell list, the DC is more like 30+spell level.

Actually, this is a standard use of the Spellcraft skill.

DC 15+spell level: identify a spell being cast (you must see or hear the spell's somatic or verbal components)

DC 20+spell level: identify a spell that's already in place and in effect (you must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell)

[PHB p.74]