Using Spellcraft to ID Spells...

[Ogrork the Mighty]

It kinda bugs me that someone can make a simple Spellcraft check to identify any spell ever created. For example, a low-level cleric could identify the rarest of rare 9th-lvl arcane spells simple by rolling well. Never attended wizard's college, never had any exposure to wizards before; neither of these scenarios matter.

With all the new spells that have come out, why should a character be able to ID all of them with a simple die roll?

We use a house rule that imposes a -5 penalty on a divine caster checking against arcane spells, but I'm tempted to limit spell identifications somehow (and yes, that's a house rule discussion but this thread is about identifying spells in general and how hard that should be).

Thoughts?

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think of it not as recognizing the spell being cast, but as understanding the magical energies that are being used and how those energies interact to know the effects of whatever spell they are witnessing.

 

[Victim]

It kinda bugs me that someone can make a simple Spellcraft check to identify any spell ever created. For example, a low-level cleric could identify the rarest of rare 9th-lvl arcane spells simple by rolling well. Never attended wizard's college, never had any exposure to wizards before; neither of these scenarios matter.

Considering that characters with decent spellcraft can, in fact, recognize spells from different traditions, people with spellcraft evidently are trained at least somewhat regarding other classes spells.

 

[Dross]

It kinda bugs me that someone can make a simple Spellcraft check to identify any spell ever created. For example, a low-level cleric could identify the rarest of rare 9th-lvl arcane spells simple by rolling well. Never attended wizard's college, never had any exposure to wizards before; neither of these scenarios matter.

With all the new spells that have come out, why should a character be able to ID all of them with a simple die roll?

We use a house rule that imposes a -5 penalty on a divine caster checking against arcane spells, but I'm tempted to limit spell identifications somehow (and yes, that's a house rule discussion but this thread is about identifying spells in general and how hard that should be).

Thoughts?

Given this, would you not need to consider:
Spontaneous casters? hit them with a further negative because they haven't learnt anything like the wizard or been granted understanding like the cleric.
Spells on both the divine and arcane spell lists.
casters native to other regions (planes)/with other languages
casters with differing biology: non humanoid casters such as: dragons, aboleths, phaerimm.

I agree with Thirdwizard: spellcraft allows understanding of the energies in use, and sidesteps a lot of the above issues.

 

[Rvdvelden]

I don't understand your beef with it. People need to spend precious skill points only to find out what kind of spell is being cast.

"[you]The spell cast does 38 points of fire damage, please roll reflex save for half damage.
[player] I roll spellcraft.
[you] You find out you've been hit by a fireball. Now please roll reflex for half damage."

Other skills can be far more devastating. Why do you have such a problem with spellcraft? Is it only the concept or do you dislike it mechanically as well?

 

[Aluvial]

I understand the problem you are having...

I do two things here. First is adjust the DC for the distance to the caster from the identifier.

I use the Close, Medium, and Long ranges as the standard... (Close is 25' + 5'/2 lvls., etc.) I use the identifier's caster level for the distance. If the identifier is within close to the caster of the spell, then the roll is normal. If it is in Medium range, then I add +2 to the check. If it is in Long, it is too far to see and hear what is required to identify the spell.

The second aspect is when dealing with types of magic. If there is a difference between Arcane or Divine (or Psionic), I add +5 to the roll. If the identifier is using the same type of magic, but is from a different class, I use a +2. I only use the higher of the two.

Two examples using both systems:

1) A Wizard casts Ice Storm on a 10th level Sorcerer who wants to identify the spell at a range of 50' from the Wizard. The normal DC for this is 19, (15 + 4). Because Close range for the Sorcerer is 50', then this spell is Close, no addition. Because the identifier uses the same type of magic, Arcane, but is of a different class, the DC increases by +2. My new DC for identifying the spell as it is being cast is a 21.

2) A Cleric casts Firestorm on a party with a 18th level Wizard at a distance of 200'. The Wizard is galled at the fact that Clerics have so much offensive power! What is that spell? The Wizards close range is a maximum of 70'. His Medium is 280'. He can still see what is happening at 200' but it is hard to make out.... a +2 for the range. Also this spell is a different type of magic, Divine, and something he isn't too familiar with; a +5. The DC moves from the normal 23, to a modified DC of 30!

If you find that certain spells are just too personalized or exotic, then just add another +2 to the check!

Of course, this is my personal system..... not the system as written.

Aluvial

EDIT: You know I was thinking about this... in most of my campaigns, the PC's tend to Max out Concentration and Spellcraft.... in the first example, the Sorcerer would likely have a Spellcraft of at least 13, modified by his Int. With the DC at 21 the Sorcerer has a 60% (or better with any Int modifier) of identifying the spell. Not bad...

In the second example the Wizard likely has a Spellcraft of 21 or higher... just figure that an 18th level Wizard is at least going to have a 18 Intelligence at this point, which is probably underestimating items and buff spells, they would have a Spellcraft of 25... The Wizard has at least a 75% chance of successfully identifying the strange, high-level magic of the Cleric!

Aluvial

 

[DarkJester]

My only beef with spellcraft is it zaps a little bit of the mystery of magic away.

I keep spellcraft as is in my games but sometimes I desire something more along the lines of what Ogrock is speaking of. Mainly I'd like to seperate divine and arcane magic a bit.

 

[stonegod]

Any tweaking w/ Spellcraft as above also penalizes it use as a means to counterspell/dispel as the identification is often used right before either of those are performed. I'd leave it as is.

 

[Aluvial]

Any tweaking w/ Spellcraft as above also penalizes it use as a means to counterspell/dispel as the identification is often used right before either of those are performed. I'd leave it as is.

What is funny about that is that ever since we started with this system of counterspells, not one of my caster's in three campaigns has ever tried it...

They do tend to try to identify the spells being cast though, and it does create some odd metagame problems.... it also tends to bog things down a tad....

Aluvial

 

[stonegod]

They do tend to try to identify the spells being cast though, and it does create some odd metagame problems.... it also tends to bog things down a tad....

Our party uses it quite often, not as counterspelling (which is not an ideal system) but for dispelling all the time. Better to use it on a big buff that you know about than something inconsequential (especially if you only have 1/2 dispels prepared).