What is cheating?

[Mallus]

PHB is a player book, so it's not cheating. Assuming the spell has been cast already, and the PCs have seen its effects, it's no secret.

So every PC, regardless of class, level, and personal experience is immediately familiar with every spell in existence? Isn't that sort of thing resolved by a Spellcraft check?

The PHB is a players book, used by players to make characters. I think its a stretch to say everything in it, particularly the arcane stuff, is intended to be every characters common knowledge.

 

[buzz]

So every PC, regardless of class, level, and personal experience is immediately familiar with every spell in existence? Isn't that sort of thing resolved by a Spellcraft check?

The PHB is a players book, used by players to make characters. I think its a stretch to say everything in it, particularly the arcane stuff, is intended to be every characters common knowledge.

The Spellcraft check for determining a spell as it is being cast is pretty much for counterspelling, and not much else. If we're talking about a combat situation and a spell that has been cast, the results are going to be pretty obvious (and too late to do anything about). Ergo, I don't see what the players are gaining by looking it up, other than maybe confirming that the DM is not cheating. What? My barb is going to do something other than rage and attack just becasue I know that the orc cleric just cast air walk? C'mon.

The example also didn't say whether the players acted on this information or not.

I dunno. I think that if you're playing in a game where you feel the need to restrict player access to the PHB, there are bigger issues that need to be dealt with.

 

[Oryan77]

The example also didn't say whether the players acted on this information or not.

Well I assume the reason a player would look up a spell is so he can act on it. Like finding out it's duration so you can plan ahead, see what level of spell it is to determine the casters minimum level, ect ect. As you said, if a spell is cast and the players see the effect, then it's obvious what the spell is doing. Why would they then need to look up the spell? What other information are they curious about when they already know that a flaming ball of fire is rolling and burning them? The only reasons I can think of for a player looking up a spell is to metagame. This goes with looking up PrC's when they notice an NPC using a crazy ability and the player wants to see what else that NPC may have up his sleeve.

I dunno. I think that if you're playing in a game where you feel the need to restrict player access to the PHB, there are bigger issues that need to be dealt with.

I'm just curious....since I ask my player's not to look up spells that my NPC's just cast (because they can use spellcraft to gather info about a spell), what bigger issues does my group need to deal with?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well I assume the reason a player would look up a spell is so he can act on it. Like finding out it's duration so you can plan ahead, see what level of spell it is to determine the casters minimum level, ect ect.

I'm just curious....since I ask my player's not to look up spells that my NPC's just cast (because they can use spellcraft to gather info about a spell), what bigger issues does my group need to deal with?

What's the Spellcraft check DC to know that a Magic Missile yields 1 missile + 1 missile/2 caster levels above 1, capped at 5?

If the fighter with no ranks in Spellcraft, who's watched his party wizard gradually increase over time from 1 missile to 4, sees an NPC caster throw a three-missile volley, can he figure out that the NPC caster has a lower caster level than their own wizard? Or is that a use of the (trained-only) Spellcraft skill? Can he figure out that when his own wizard was throwing three-missile volleys, he could also cast Fireball, but Enervation was beyond his power? Can he deduce that in all likelihood, the enemy wizard is powerful enough to cast Fireball but not Enervation?

Do you want to ask the wizard's player to roll a Spellcraft check to know that Shield has a duration of 1 min/level, even though every Shield spell the wizard has ever cast has lasted 1 min/level?

If the characters are using information from phenomena they have observed, in character, how is it metagaming for the players to look up that same information?

-Hyp.

 

[librarius_arcana]

I know people can't help metagaming sometimes when they know what a monster can do or what a spell can do when their PC shouldn't know. There's not much you can do about it but ask the player not to tell others and to try to play his PC as if the PC doesn't know.

But what type of things do you concider flat out cheating?

If a player looks up spells in the PHB just to figure out what spell the DM cast?

If a player knows a monster is immune to spells (but his PC doesn't) and he tells the group "I think these are immune to all spells?

If a player uses a program on his laptop to calculate ECL vs a monsters CR (he's not supposed to know the CR of the monster) and tells players that this monster is way to hard for them?

If a player purposely doesn't remind the DM of a rule the DM forgot about just so a PC won't suffer the effects? You suspect this because he coincidently brings it up 2 rounds later that you forgot something.

Do you think any/all/or none of these things is cheating? What other kind of incidents do you concider cheating that aren't so obvious?

Also, is it possible for a DM to cheat? If he's fudging things behind the screen simply to enhance the game, would you still find that cheating on the DM's part?

I don't think it really cheating as such, but it is bad form which is just as bad

and I think it's the DM's job to some times over rule the dice, you shouldn't let everyone, players, DM and the game suffer for a bad roll, thats just mindless and being a slave to the dice

 

[Barak]

Another problem with PCvPlayer knowledge, I think, is overcompensation. I think that a lot of people tend to play their characters knowing -less- than they should, in an attempt to avoid metagaming. I had that come into focus pretty heavily when a newbie in a game I played in, who I know didn't get his knowledge from any book, have his character yell "Guys! It's a ghost! I seriously doubt those of you without magical weapons are doing much!" while the more experienced players, me included, were busy swinging it without much effect with our normal weapons.

 

[Oryan77]

-Hyp.

Wow Such a snooty reply coming from you, I'm completely shocked. I can't figure out at all why you replied the way you did....my decision to deter players from figuring out an NPC's spell in the PHB is a bad thing? Keeping them from finding out durations & other properties of spells their PC's have never encountered & the player doesn't know by memory is something to be frowned upon?

What's the Spellcraft check DC to know that a Magic Missile yields 1 missile + 1 missile/2 caster levels above 1, capped at 5? ECT ECT ECT

Are you genuinely interested in hearing an answer from me for all of these smartass questions or are you just trying to make me look bad?

I guess the line under Spellcraft in the PHB that gives a 20 + spell level DC check for "Identifying a spell that's already in place and in effect" is a bogus check because a player has a PHB infront of him and should be allowed to use the PHB so his PC can avoid a spellcraft check?

If the player's have access to use a spell (it's in their spellbook, their deity grants it to them at their level, or a sorcerer knows it), I don't care if they look in the PHB to review the stats on the spell.

But if a player is freaking out during a combat because I'm beating on his PC with a spell (Flaming Sphere for example) and he isn't familiar with Flaming Sphere and doesn't even know the spell I'm using is called Flaming Sphere; he should be allowed to just randomly flip through the PHB looking for any spell that resembles "a rolling ball of fire" so they can get an idea on how to defend against it, how many rounds it lasts, what spell lvl it is? Sorry but I'd rather someone who has spellcraft actually do a DC to see if his wizard would know that's a Flaming Sphere spell...then the player can look it up in the PHB if he succeeds the check.

Man, I'm really not seeing why asking players to not look up spells they don't know during combat is a bad thing. People agree that metagaming is unavoidable, but me trying to keep metagaming down a bit is a bad thing? Player's already know so much out-of-game info, why is it bad form to try & keep the out-of-game info down?

After still being baffled from your response, the only thing I can think of is that we have different interpretations of what "identify a spell already cast" actually means. Perhaps you just think it refers to when a caster buffs himself and PC's can't visually tell what he cast. I also think of it that way; but I also think of it as identifying a spell that the player isn't familiar with but his PC may be familiar with it. If he succeeds, then I tell him the name of the spell and he can look it up. What's wrong with that?

 

[Mallus]

If the characters are using information from phenomena they have observed, in character, how is it metagaming for the players to look up that same information?
Its not.

But what if we're talking about phenomena the character(s) haven't observed?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Keeping them from finding out durations & other properties of spells their PC's have never encountered & the player doesn't know by memory is something to be frowned upon?

This is the first time in the thread that you've included "their PCs have never encountered" as a restriction on what rules they're prohibited from looking up.

If I'm playing a fighter, and I (as a player) recognise that the NPC just cast Ray of Enfeeblement, and I know that the first-time-wizard player probably doesn't, I (as a player) would tell the wizard's player "Probably Ray of Enfeeblement", since it's a spell on his character's list. If the wizard tells my fighter about the spell, I'll happily act on it directly next time it happens.

If I'm playing a mid-level wizard, and I (as a player) recognise that the NPC just cast Wall of Fire, I'll assume that my character can act on that knowledge. It's on my list. The Spellcraft check, however, might tell me that the NPC actually cast Major Image, or Mordenkainen's Flaming Barrier of Death. If I don't bother with the Spellcraft check, I'd be startled if I were told that I couldn't look up Wall of Fire, though, since I'm playing a wizard who can cast the spell.

If I'm playing a wizard, and I (as a player) recognise that the NPC just cast Wall of Thorns, I'll ask the DM what my +14 in Spellcraft and +12 in Knowledge (Arcana) tell me about it. Unless my PC's seen my buddy the druid cast the same spell before, and knows how it works already.

I guess the line under Spellcraft in the PHB that gives a 20 + spell level DC check for "Identifying a spell that's already in place and in effect" is a bogus check because a player has a PHB infront of him and should be allowed to use the PHB so his PC can avoid a spellcraft check?

Identifying a spell tells you what the spell is. Flicking through the PHB tells you what it might be... and should be filtered through character knowledge.

If the player's have access to use a spell (it's in their spellbook, their deity grants it to them at their level, or a sorcerer knows it), I don't care if they look in the PHB to review the stats on the spell.

This was the information missing from everything you've said so far.

Man, I'm really not seeing why asking players to not look up spells they don't know during combat is a bad thing. People agree that metagaming is unavoidable, but me trying to keep metagaming down a bit is a bad thing? Player's already know so much out-of-game info, why is it bad form to try & keep the out-of-game info down?

Prior to this post, your policy read to me as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The PHB contains information the characters don't know, therefore the players can't look anything up.

You've since clarified that you don't mind them looking up things the PCs do know.

After still being baffled from your response, the only thing I can think of is that we have different interpretations of what "identify a spell already cast" actually means. Perhaps you just think it refers to when a caster buffs himself and PC's can't visually tell what he cast.

If I'm a mid-level wizard, and someone casts a spell that creates a cloud of mist, I don't feel that it's metagaming for me to assume it's Obscuring Mist, Fog Cloud, Stinking Cloud, Cloudkill, Acid Fog, or Solid Fog... or possibly an Image spell. Or to look up the descriptions of those spells.

If I succeed at a spellcraft check, I expect to know that it's Stinking Cloud.

Now, the potential metagaming issue is if I roll a 25 on my "Identify a spell in place" Spellcraft check, and am told "You don't know what it is". I can deduce from that that it's probably Acid Fog, since a 25 is sufficient to identify the others. But the PC is not privy to the number on the d20.

But is it metagaming if the fighter attacks the BBEG, rolls a 19 (total 31), and misses, for him to say "Uh, gang, we're in trouble"? Does the fighter know the difference between a 31 and a 14?

-Hyp.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

If the characters are using information from phenomena they have observed, in character, how is it metagaming for the players to look up that same information?

-Hyp.

Edit: Nevermind.