Spellcraft ?

[Saeviomagy]

I'd have just let him dispel it with no check.

I mean c'mon - it's pretty friggin obvious that if your buddy is totally immobile, some magic is at work. It'd be like saying
DM: "the monster throws a blue bolt at you that crackles and sparks"
Player: "I cast protection from electricity"
DM: "make a spellcraft check"
Player: "4"
DM: "Not knowing that the blue, crackling, sparking bolt was electricity, you cast protection from acid instead"

 

[azmodean]

Whereas I would rule exactly the opposite, in that:

1. It's a spell (or, in this case, spell-like ability)
2. It has a duration longer than "instantaneous"
3. It's currently in effect
4. You know the target

All of the above except for #4, the point is that the caster did not know what he was targeting. It could have been any one of several spells that cause paralysis, and while the scroll of remove paralysis is sufficiently general to take care of any paralysis effect, IMC a targeted dispel magic would need specific knowledge of what spell is being targeted. For that kind of knowledge, you need either spellcraft or a knowledge specific to the caster.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It could have been any one of several spells that cause paralysis, and while the scroll of remove paralysis is sufficiently general to take care of any paralysis effect, IMC a targeted dispel magic would need specific knowledge of what spell is being targeted. For that kind of knowledge, you need either spellcraft or a knowledge specific to the caster.

For me this would come down to whether or not "out of character" knowledge means "he looked at the monster manual" or "he figured that it was a paralysis spell, and chose hold person, because it's the first one to come to mind".

In the first case, outta luck. In the second case, he guessed and he guessed right - I'd let it work.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

All of the above except for #4, the point is that the caster did not know what he was targeting.

By "You know the target," I mean, "You know it's a spell targeted on your buddy."

I mean, let's face it, someone in my party is suddenly paralyzed, my *first* guess is going to be Hold Person. After that, the second will be Hold Monster.

In the above example, if, for instance, the spell which had caused the paralysis was really a Holy or Unholy Word, or was the result of an "Aura of Paralyzation" from the creature, then the dispel would fail because the target you selected - "the paralyzing spell targeted on my buddy" - isn't there.

A spellcraft check, in this case, would have informed you in no uncertain terms what the cause was - and whether or not Dispel Magic would even help. Without it, the character has to guess. In this case, he guessed right. Heck, I would have, too, 9 times out of 10.

 

[azmodean]

The problem in this situation is that the player possesses information that the character does not, and therefore it is not a guess.

For the classic scenario, party is fighting a troll, and their attacks aren't dealing damage normally. One of the party members "just happens to try" an oil flask, and it works, so everyone switches to using fire where availale. He could say he "guessed" the right thing to use, but I wouldn't allow this in one of my games.

In this situation, the player knows it is most likely hold person, but the character might not have the information necessary to make that informed guess. I would limit them to either casting a general dispel or dispelling a "paralysis effect" which I would give a chance to work depending on how common the spell actually is. (I'd probably give it about 50% since hold person actually is pretty common, but I won't tell the player that.)

Letting players use their gamer "common sense" like this cheapens spellcraft and the knowledge skills, some people don't have a problem with that, but I just can't stand characters displaying an encyclopedic knowledge of the world without taking any knowledge skills.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

For the classic scenario, party is fighting a troll, and their attacks aren't dealing damage normally. One of the party members "just happens to try" an oil flask, and it works, so everyone switches to using fire where availale. He could say he "guessed" the right thing to use, but I wouldn't allow this in one of my games.

On the other hand, how many times do you have to roleplay the "clueless newb" before it becomes rediculous?

I don't see a From: line on your profile, so I'll assume you're American and that you've never traveled outside the country. Why not?

What side of the road do they drive on in England? In Ireland? How about India?
What do you call the religious gathering place of Muslims?
What's the name of the head of the Roman Catholic Church?
Who were the "Musketeers"?

If you can answer at least half of those questions correctly, then your character can know that fire kills trolls.

In this situation, the player knows it is most likely hold person, but the character might not have the information necessary to make that informed guess.

Or they might; see my post above.

 

[Laslo Tremaine]

For me this would come down to whether or not "out of character" knowledge means "he looked at the monster manual" or "he figured that it was a paralysis spell, and chose hold person, because it's the first one to come to mind".

In the first case, outta luck. In the second case, he guessed and he guessed right - I'd let it work.

In actuallity, as the GM, I said to Player A "Make a Will Save to avoid being Held..."

I guess I ought to have said, "Make a Will Save, if you fail, you cannot move..."

Also, Player B did make a Knowledge: Religion check and failed. The character had never seen a Barbed Devil before, either.

Lastly, in retrospect, I should have let him make the dispel attempt because being Held is no fun what-so-ever for any player, and as long as someone is expending resources to counter it, I should do anything I can to make the game fun for the players!

 

[Laslo Tremaine]

What side of the road do they drive on in England? In Ireland? How about India?
What do you call the religious gathering place of Muslims?
What's the name of the head of the Roman Catholic Church?
Who were the "Musketeers"?

If you can answer at least half of those questions correctly, then your character can know that fire kills trolls.

I must say that I disagree with this almost 100%!

All of those questions are easily answerable in an age with advanced telecommunications infrastructure, and a systematized education system.

From my point of view, the average psuedo-medieval person has none of these things. All of their info comes from old-wives tales, rumor, myth and the occasional travelling bard. If you live on the frontier and have to worry about random, maurauding creatures, you might know that fire hurts trolls, and silver hurts werewolves, becuase those things might be attacking your village on occasion. A city person might know about things in their pervue (wererats and the like), but not trolls.

But knowledge of the spell-like abilities of specific Devils?!?! I think not...

 

[Trainz]

If you see your friend frozen in place, it's your right as a caster to assume that it is magical. You don't need to know the exact spell that is in effect to dispel it, you can just dispel whatever might be causing the paralysis, targeting whatever magical effect is paralysing your friend, if it is indeed a magical effect.

Many things can happen:

-The paralysing is indeed magical, but cannot be dispelled: no effect;
-The paralysing is from a spell or spell-like ability (hold person or any other spell that holds you in place immobile) and has a chance to be dispelled: roll dispel check;
-The paralysing is from an extraordinary ability, such as some poison, and is thus non-magical: no effect.

The DM might still want to let the player roll dispel in any case so as not to give a clue to the paralysis true nature, and just tell the player he failed.

To outright tell a player "your character doesn't know that a dispel might free your friend and thus can't cast it" when the friend is frozen stiff is... weird. If the players weren't aware that a Barbed Devil caused this (being invisible for example), would you then forbid the player from even attempting a dispel, possibly wasting it ?

Certainly not, at least not IMC.

Another example: the players are facing a door that has a glowing rune on it. They have no idea what spell it originates from, all they know is that each time they try to open the lockless door, the rune glows and the door won't budge. Would you then forbid a player to cast a dispel magic on the rune ? I wouldn't. It might be impervious to dispel magic if the adventure says so, but a player can indeed cast a dispel magic on it just to see what it does.

 

[Sheltem]

The problem in this situation is that the player possesses information that the character does not, and therefore it is not a guess.

Why? In the case set by LT, a cleric comes up to someone who is not moving, for whatever reason. Being capable of casting Dispel Magic he knows there is a spell, which he has access to himself, Hold Person that does have this effect. Why should he not guess that it was this spell that affects his friend?


There sure are situations where character vs. player knowledge is a problem but i do not see it in this case.