Spellcraft - Universal Dual Language of Magic or Metasense?

[Boci]

Okay, so a while back I had a debate about spellcraft and how its explanation doesn't really work too well. As written, it seems that there is a dual universal language of magic. One for verbal components, and one for somatic components. Everyone who casts magic spells uses this language, and ranks in spellcraft reflect an increased understanding of it. But this has several problems.

1. Why can't casters use this language to communicate? There is president for a secret language with that of the druids.

2. What about casters with no ranks in spellcraft? How can they fail to identify the spell they just cast the previous round when it is employed by an enemy caster if casting it required the exact same words in two languages?

3. Natural spell. By RAW, the druid is not speaking the same language as his human form would, yet spellcraft works just the same.

4. How is this language learnt? You cannot always be born with it, because most humanoids are not born with skill ranks.

5. The biggest. Using this interpretation, a tribesman from black marsh and a lithid high priest speak the same language, twice. That kinda strains suspension of disbelief no? Such an idea could work, but it has implications that need to be addressed.

But it's easy to criticize. Has I got an alternative? Yes. Metasense. Metasense relies on seeing and hearing energy markers hidden in hand signs and words used to cast spells. You do not know the spell's name, but you know what it does (and so the DM can just say the spells name to save time). Silent spell and still spell remove the energy markers from the respective components. What are the problems with metasense?

1. Energy markers oddly tied to the components. But you use the components to cast the spell, so I do not see why this is a big deal.

2. Using spell craft to identify magical writing. This require to stretch the concept of energy markers a bit, but still works. Since magical writing is still magic, the energy markers should be imprinted in the magic. That is what you are using the spellcraft skill for.

Now I understand that some people may not want to use metasense, its a big game changer. That is fine. But what is your thought on this alternative approach, regardless of whether or not you would use in your game?

[Urpriest]

One thing to keep in mind is that spells (unlike some Psionic powers) have very specific effects that are distributed relatively arbitrarily. Fireballs exist, coldballs require metamagic. Lesser Planar Binding, Planar Binding, and Greater Planar Binding exist, but there are no spells in between for intermediate numbers of hit dice. The way magic works is in some way universal, whether or not Spellcraft provides for a universal language.

The other thing to think about is that such a language doesn't necessarily find itself useful for communication. Mathematicians don't have a secret language made of math, nor do musicians have one made of music. Just because your field gives rise to a certain convergence of formulae doesn't mean you can use those formulae to communicate.

[Greyfeld85]

In the game I'm currently running, I broke spells down into two components: the "schematics" and the "energy source."

The verbal and somatic components are the schematic for the spell, then the mage pulls energy from wherever he pulls it from (wizards use leylines, sorcerers use their own blood, bards pull it from their music, clerics channel it from their deity, etc etc), and applies it to the schematic to bring the spell into being.

It doesn't really change how spellcraft works, but I think it creates and interesting dynamic with the fluff for the skill.

[ahenobarbi]

The other thing to think about is that such a language doesn't necessarily find itself useful for communication. Mathematicians don't have a secret language made of math, nor do musicians have one made of music. Just because your field gives rise to a certain convergence of formulae doesn't mean you can use those formulae to communicate.

That I was about to write. And maybe the words/gestures don't have to be exactly the same (or maybe they have to be customized to fit caster...).

[Urpriest]

That I was about to write. And maybe the words/gestures don't have to be exactly the same (or maybe they have to be customized to fit caster...).

One thing we do know is that the magical notation definitely is customized to fit the caster, since a spell in another wizard's spellbook must always be decoded, and thus a wizard cannot choose to write in the same notation as another wizard.

[Malimar]

1. Why can't casters use this language to communicate? There is president for a secret language with that of the druids.

I always thought of it as more like a coding language. Do you know any hackers that communicate with one another in Perl?

But I like Urpriest's examples of math and music more. Though music is itself a form of communication. And much analytic philosophy is firmly rooted in Bertrand Russell's "philosophical grammar", based on pure logic, which is itself basically math.

So, based on those three analogies, I'd say "sure, it would be possible to come up with a way to use this language for communication, but it would only be useful in such obscure circumstances that nobody bothers".

Probably, just as certain analytic philosophy papers are written partially or mostly in logical notation, and most math and theoretical physics papers are written mostly in mathematical notation, all the prestigious magical research journals have entire dissertations written mostly in spellcraft-ese. But nobody writes, say, personal correspondence in logical notation, math, or spellcraft-ese, because that's not what it's useful for.


2. What about casters with no ranks in spellcraft? How can they fail to identify the spell they just cast the previous round when it is employed by an enemy caster if casting it required the exact same words in two languages?

They're just winging it and don't have any real theory-based comprehension of what they're actually doing? The verbal and somatic components are so delicate and precise and quick that you need special training to even see them? Like the contents of spellbooks, the specifics vary enough from individual to individual that you need special training to be able to identify them? Maybe somatic and verbal components have a lot of stuff that doesn't perform a function, like junk DNA, and you need special training to be able to identify the load-carrying syllables and gestures from the ones that are just filler.


3. Natural spell. By RAW, the druid is not speaking the same language as his human form would, yet spellcraft works just the same.

He's speaking the same language, else the magic wouldn't happen. He's just competent enough with his animal limbs and vocal cords to get the syllables and gestures close enough that they provoke the desired response from the universe, i.e., a spell happens.

(Though that does bring up the side question of whether Natural Spell still lets you cast spells with verbal or somatic components if you wildshape into something without limbs (e.g., a snake), or without the ability to make noises (e.g., a jellyfish).)


4. How is this language learnt? You cannot always be born with it, because most humanoids are not born with skill ranks.

You learn it from whomever teaches you magic, or from books, or you derive it from base principles. Like math or music.


5. The biggest. Using this interpretation, a tribesman from black marsh and a lithid high priest speak the same language, twice. That kinda strains suspension of disbelief no? Such an idea could work, but it has implications that need to be addressed.

When a tribesman from the black marsh does math, he's doing the same thing as the illithid high priest is doing when he does math. When the tribesman plays the bongos, he's fundamentally speaking the same language as the illithid is when he plays the tentacle organ (or whatever). When an American or Chinese web designer creates a webpage, they're both using HTML. (The first two are better examples, because HTML was created by humans, while "discovered" would be a better word for math and music.) I see not the slightest absurdity in magic working just the same way.

[Boci]

I'm not going to debate my first problem with the UDLoM because it was a relatively minor point and I pretty much agree with what have been said.


They're just winging it and don't have any real theory-based comprehension of what they're actually doing?

So they speak two languages but have no idea what either means, nor can they ever tell when someone repeats what they did?


The verbal and somatic components are so delicate and precise and quick that you need special training to even see them?

But quicken spell doesn't affect spellcraft.


Like the contents of spellbooks, the specifics vary enough from individual to individual that you need special training to be able to identify them?

I guess I could accept this...but It a creates a very fine line between this precise language everyone speaks almost exactly the same.


Maybe somatic and verbal components have a lot of stuff that doesn't perform a function, like junk DNA, and you need special training to be able to identify the load-carrying syllables and gestures from the ones that are just filler.

Nitpick: I'm pretty sure junk DNA has been disprove. May be wrong though. As for load-carrying syllables? I guess so, but spell casting is already quite quick. How much junk is in there? Especially for swift/free action casting spells.


He's speaking the same language, else the magic wouldn't happen. He's just competent enough with his animal limbs and vocal cords to get the syllables and gestures close enough that they provoke the desired response from the universe, i.e., a spell happens.

Read the feat. That's not what it does. You are using animal grunts. Sudden this incredibly precise language can be that sloppy?


(Though that does bring up the side question of whether Natural Spell still lets you cast spells with verbal or somatic components if you wildshape into something without limbs (e.g., a snake), or without the ability to make noises (e.g., a jellyfish).)

No it doesn't raise that question. You can. It does however raise the question of "How?" if you continue to use the UDLoM.


You learn it from whomever teaches you magic, or from books, or you derive it from base principles. Like math or music.

Wizard academies teaching a language the vast majority of sorcerers know by default has implications that are never addressed by the rules, to the best of my knowledge. Ditto on clerics being inspired with the same language. It works, but without some more writing on the subject it feels like a cop out.


When a tribesman from the black marsh does math, he's doing the same thing as the illithid high priest is doing when he does math.

Really? Theory of math has not changed in the history of a single race?


When the tribesman plays the bongos, he's fundamentally speaking the same language as the illithid is when he plays the tentacle organ (or whatever).

No he isn't. Two different musical instruments are not the same language, and that without even getting into the debate of it a musical instrument a language.


When an American or Chinese web designer creates a webpage, they're both using HTML. (The first two are better examples, because HTML was created by humans, while "discovered" would be a better word for math and music.)

So two intelligent races who have never met would both use HTML for their version of the information super highway? No other way things could play out?

[kabreras]

For me, a when you decipher a spell from an other wizard spellbook, the somatics, verbal and materials compnents are obious, they would prety much be writen at the top of the page.

Now the problem in the spell are not the gestures or such, it is the way to impulse magic power in it (or every farmer would be copying a wizard gestures and make magic, they canot because they dont understand how to impulse magic in it).

A spell is not just movement, yelling and guano, its also a state of mind, a specific idea focus and such abstract things that actually are the big part of the spell.

Spellcraft help you see the basic and writen in stone part of a spell, somatics, verbals and materials.

[deuxhero]

The other thing to think about is that such a language doesn't necessarily find itself useful for communication. Mathematicians don't have a secret language made of math, nor do musicians have one made of music. Just because your field gives rise to a certain convergence of formulae doesn't mean you can use those formulae to communicate.

/*
Programers do have one though
*/

[ahenobarbi]

/*
Programers do have one though
*/


# O'really?
// Yeah, really.
(* Are totally sure. *)
; Yeah

[Ravens_cry]

I think of Spellcraft not as a 'language' of magic, but rather knowledge on magical theory, like a chemist knowing what colour flames signify what elements.

[Snowbluff]

Really? Theory of math has not changed in the history of a single race?


Yes, it's been revised and amended , but it's fundamental in it's function and usage. If your concept of math is flawed, your results will be flawed. Magic is the same way. Flub your Vocals (it happens, when Deafened, for example) or flick your hand the wrong way, and you don't get a spell.

[Togo]

The main implication from this is that magic is essentially a single discipline, following a single set of rules, based in turn on a single set of principles. Ithillids, wizards, paladins and bards all use variations on this same basic magic.

Which is fine if that's what you want your setting to be. However, I typically emphasise exactly the opposite. That there is no single language of magic, that different practioners are drawing on cosmic forces in ways that are entirely different from eachother, and the principles employed to do so may not just be different, but violently opposed to eachother. That's why different kinds of practioners have different spell lists, why you don't get a bonus to recognise spells you can cast yourself, and why different people spellcasters are so often different in the effects they actually produce.

I'd suggest that such a change has profound implications for your setting.

[Urpriest]

So two intelligent races who have never met would both use HTML for their version of the information super highway? No other way things could play out?

They have met, though. Both have the capacity to take levels of Druid, and all Druids speak Druidic. So all D&D cultures are required to have enough contact for that to happen.

[deuxhero]

Druidic, due to being described as ancient and seemingly magically stagnant, it's more likely from super continent era than having met somewhere in the present (though scrying and teleporation likely make it easier for early cross continental hikes if you have a good wizard/sord)

[Waker]

Urpriest and Malimar both raised good points, I'll explain my additional views on the topic.
While you could view it as a language, I imagine that what verbal and somatic components utilize is more of a law of the universe. The rhythm and cadence of your words, regardless of language, invokes certain magical powers. It's not what you say, but rather how you say it that shapes the magic. This also applies to somatic components, like how swordsman of completely different disciplines could still identify the intent and purpose of each others movements.
Deciphering the universal components is what spellcraft allows you to do. And as someone commented about the wizard spellbook earlier, that extra time spent is tailoring the spell to your physiology and energy signature.
Feats such as Still or Silent spell complicate the spell by removing one of the two necessary components, making it more difficult to shape the spell, hence why they have level adjustments.

[rot42]

<snip>
speaking the same language as the illithid is when he plays the tentacle organ
</snip>


Oh dear, is *that* what the kids are calling it these days?

for the OP: I fluff Spellcraft a lot like being able to recognize and divine the purpose of simple machines constructed by an alien culture based on a solid understanding of the universal principles of physics. The actual devices (gestures and syllables) are different, but the underlying physics/math/magic is universal. Metasense sounds like perfectly workable fluff as long as you are careful about special senses - a human in a darkened room would not be able to sense a spell being cast naturally, but a Blindfold of True Darkness would allow the information to pass.

[Tvtyrant]

Well if we assume there is an objectively correct way to do magic, there isn't any reason they wouldn't all gravitate towards it. Think of convergent evolution, but in this case for a language used to speak to reality.

[ericgrau]

1. Why can't casters use this language to communicate? There is president for a secret language with that of the druids.
The same reason it requires a difficult check to decipher it. Even though the gestures are universal the symbols for a certain gesture aren't precisely the same and the caster needs to decipher it and piece it together. I think it's like roman numerals vs. arabic, even if both are used for base 10. And with a bit of work you could convert and probably figure one out even if you hadn't seen it before.

Second, like numbers and mathematical symbols, it isn't a language that represents everything that exists in English. Only everything that exists in magic.

I think the answers to the remaining points hinge on the same issue: the symbols only describe magic and nothing else.

[jackattack]

At one point in the rules history, wasn't the language of verbal magic actually draconic?

Addressing the actual issue:

Yes, a metasense for magic works, but it doesn't necessarily eliminate the need for a spellcraft skill. The sense would show background magic, ley lines, magic items, ongoing spells, and spells being cast. Imagine being able to sense electricity -- just because you can tell where the current is and how much, you don't necessarily know what the device using the electricity does. If you determine that metasense does automatically analyze and identify spells, then there will never be an unknown/unidentified magic item in your game.

Addressing universal concepts and common language:

Math may be a universal concept, but it can be expressed using different base numbers (some human cultures did use numbers other than ten). Music may be a universal concept, but it can be written using different keys and scales (Asian music was written using five notes, not seven), and some instruments use different notation (guitar). Magic may be a universal concept, but it is entirely possible that different users or traditions would have multiple ways of expressing it and understanding it and accessing it.

Or, there might be one proper way to cast every spell with no variations allowed.

I tend to think of magic as being a mental discipline. Words and gestures may be used to achieve a mindset for casting. Or, the words and gestures may tell the universe that you actually want to cast the spell, you aren't just thinking about it. Material components might have power, or they might be additional indicators that the caster is serious. This goes to why a person can't just mimic a spellcaster's actions and cast a spell after seeing it done a few times.

[Psyren]

Yet another way in which psionics is cleaner and more intuitive. No words in a Power Stone :smalltongue:

[Snowbluff]

Addressing universal concepts and common language:

Math may be a universal concept, but it can be expressed using different base numbers (some human cultures did use numbers other than ten).



Incorrect. It is axiomatic in it's function. When someone works in base 8 instead of base 10, they simply have 64 potatoes when they say 100. The actual math does not change. :smallsigh:

A more capable counter point would have been metamagic. Silent spell and Still spell remove components from a spell. I would reply that in Algebra you can not divide by zero while in Calculus you can.

[Roguenewb]

In my setting, Dragons discovered arcane magic at the beginning of time. They took the inherent language of it, and adopted it as their tongue, we remember it as Draconic. Every spellbook and scroll is written in Draconic, and non-inherent casters, all have to know it. I go so far as to prevent non-arcane-casters from non-dragon influenced races from starting the game with Draconic.

Divine magic is in Celestial, Infernal, or Abyssal, as appropriate. The verbal components are in plain phrases of those languages. Casting Bless in celestial for a cleric of Pelor is simply "Pelor, please bless your servant and his allies".

As a result, spellcraft represents a combined knowledge of all bits of relevant draconic, celestial, infernal, and abyssal. As well, as a knowledge of the delicate gestures of arcane magic, and the rough prayer gestures of a different faiths.

[Hecuba]

Incorrect. It is axiomatic in it's function. When someone works in base 8 instead of base 10, they simply have 64 potatoes when they say 100. The actual math does not change. :smallsigh:

But how they represented and communicated it did: the mathematical outcome is the same, but the language is different.

In this context, to my understanding, spellcraft would represent the skill necessary to recognize the underlying principles when seeing a spell preformed/recorded in base(stupid ninja hand gestures) when you're used to working in base(wiggly fingers and bad fake latin).

[Psyren]

But how they represented and communicated it did: the mathematical outcome is the same, but the language is different.

But that's his point. If you understand math, you can compute in base 10, 2, 8, 16, even base 27 if you wanted. It's not like you'd have to take a "Base 2 course" followed by a "Base 8 course" etc. You'd just have to learn one subject, math.

That's how Spellcraft works. Even if elven wizards scribe their scrolls with flowing ink in base 16, and goblin sorcerers scribe theirs in dung in base 4, the human wizard who knows math/Spellcraft can understand them all.

[Flickerdart]

# O'really?
// Yeah, really.
(* Are totally sure. *)
; Yeah

<!--I'm positive. -->

[Ravens_cry]

But that's his point. If you understand math, you can compute in base 10, 2, 8, 16, even base 27 if you wanted. It's not like you'd have to take a "Base 2 course" followed by a "Base 8 course" etc. You'd just have to learn one subject, math.

That's how Spellcraft works. Even if elven wizards scribe their scrolls with flowing ink in base 16, and goblin sorcerers scribe theirs in dung in base 4, the human wizard who knows math/Spellcraft can understand them all.
True, but it will take some translating.
After all, it's not always immediately obvious what base one is using, especially if it is more than base 10* or less than base 10**
*in binary
** in base 10

[sreservoir]

True, but it will take some translating.
After all, it's not always immediately obvious what base one is using, especially if it is more than base 10* or less than base 10**
*in binary
** in base 10

right, and that's why you need training instead of just automatically being able to identify a spell just by existing.

[KoboldsAreLittl]

As a linguist, I have to add my two cents to this:
Every language has its own grammar and rules associated with it. Some languages have a very mutable grammar that allows for extreme variations in speaking/writing, while others are very constrained. When one first starts to learn a new language, they have to learn how to put the words together to make a complete phrase. Experienced linguists understand that even within a single language there are a variety of dialects, as well as regionalisms.
Spellcasters are in the same boat here. In our games, spellcasters draw from various power sources (as noted in a previous post). I like to think of the different sources as functionally different languages. All wizards can cast and speak wizard-ese, but depending on where they learned it, they speak a different dialect or regionalism. Someone from Seoul, Korea can understand the gist of what someone from Cheju Do, Korea is generally saying in Korean (they passed their Spellcraft check), but due to dialectual differences, they may not understand all the specific words (or they can fail to understand completely; i.e. fail their Spellcraft check).
By the same token, any Wizard worth their salt has taken an interest in spellcasting in general, and familiarized himself with the basics of Cleric-ese (taken ranks in Spellcraft). What I knowingly don't account for is how an untrained Sorcerer can understand what a Cleric is casting; I generally chalk this up to the idea that body language is (almost) universal. I can look at someone from France hitting on a woman, and possibly derive that he is hitting on a woman, without actually understanding the language at all.

[Ravens_cry]

right, and that's why you need training instead of just automatically being able to identify a spell just by existing.
Maybe it over complicates things, but a certain increase in DC for banned schools and different kinds of magic, like divine verses arcane, could be appropriate then.

[Urpriest]

One problem with the idea of a Metasense of energy, is that you can still use Spellcraft in an AMF.

[Ravens_cry]

One problem with the idea of a Metasense of energy, is that you can still use Spellcraft in an AMF.
Which is why I classify it under an understanding of magical theory and law.

[Psyren]

True, but it will take some translating.
After all, it's not always immediately obvious what base one is using, especially if it is more than base 10* or less than base 10**
*in binary
** in base 10

Actually, I'd say it is immediately obvious. If I look at the equation "10 + 10 = 100", I instantly know it's in binary, i.e. base 2. It's the only possible thing it could be. Just as "10 + 10 = 20" could only be base 10. And no matter what language the scriber himself speaks, or his culture/background, this math will be universally true everywhere on the planet.

[sreservoir]

Actually, I'd say it is immediately obvious. If I look at the equation "10 + 10 = 100", I instantly know it's in binary, i.e. base 2. It's the only possible thing it could be. Just as "10 + 10 = 20" could only be base 10. And no matter what language the scriber himself speaks, or his culture/background, this math will be universally true everywhere on the planet.

er, 10 + 10 = 20 is true in any base greater than 2; it would work just as much in base 3 or base 18 or base 2.71. (hell, 10 + 10 = 20 is even true in base -2i.)

[jackattack]

Yeah, but you might have to think for a moment when confronted with 6+7=13, and your initial reaction is likely to be "that's wrong!" instead of "aha, he's using base 8 mathematics!"

Now go figure out compound interest on your bank account for the past two years in base 13. Or work out the factorial of 345 in base 7. Or copy a waltz in classic Asian music notation. Or transcribe music for piano as guitar tablature.

It isn't that the math is somehow different, it's that it is expressed in a different manner. Nor that the music changes, but the written forms are not the same. What might be second nature (to some) requires actual thought.

Which is difficult enough for some when you can sit down with all of your books and references. In the middle of combat it's going to be fairly difficult.

[georgie_leech]

Er, 6+7=15 in base 8; it equals 13 in base 10.

[/nitpick]

[jackattack]

< sigh... >

[Malimar]

Nitpick: I'm pretty sure junk DNA has been disprove. May be wrong though.

I asked some biologist friends, and it turns out that it's not so much that junk DNA has been disproven (any claims to that effect pretty much turn out to originate in creationist propaganda) as it is that "junk DNA" is a deprecated term.

"Noncoding DNA" is now the preferred term, for various good reasons, and noncoding DNA is still very much a real thing that exists.

For example, a substantial amount of human DNA comes from viruses, which found its way into our chromosomes but has been deactivated, no longer codes for any proteins, and doesn't do anything except get copied every generation.

[Hecuba]

Actually, I'd say it is immediately obvious. If I look at the equation "10 + 10 = 100", I instantly know it's in binary, i.e. base 2. It's the only possible thing it could be. Just as "10 + 10 = 20" could only be base 10. And no matter what language the scriber himself speaks, or his culture/background, this math will be universally true everywhere on the planet.

The truth of the math is not in question: question is the speed and ease with which the foriegn expression there can be recognized and understood.

The Eye of Horus, for example, might not be immediately recognizable as a fraction system if you don't know Heiroglyphics.

Furthering the issue is the fact that a spell might well be far complex than a simple number. For example, an expression of the exact value of pi will look remarkably different when presented based on Somayaji's method (based on trigonometry relations) than when presented with Liu Hui's method (based on the area of an N-gon). Both methods, when constructed in an infinite series, give the same result, but the expressions are themselves vastly different-- without prior exposure their equivelence might not be apparent.

To follow this conceit, two spellcasters might have vastly differently structured methods of casting a spell. The fact they the result is equivelent need not preculde this. And if such is the case, far more significant skill levels may well be justified to understand how someone else casts than to cast one's self.

As such, the skill necessary to cast a spell does not imply the skill necessary to recognize it being cast: thus spellcraft can exits and function without all spells being cast the same way by everyone.

Moreover, this skill, of itself, does not imply present a simple avenue for general communication: being able to make another spellcraft-compitent individual understand the idea "evocation" or "fireball" or a person well versed in geometry understand "pi" or "phi" does not provide any inherently clearer path to generalized communication than does simple gestural communication.
Even with significant ranks, you're looking at something that might well be no better suited to complex communication (outside it's specific scope) than the hand gestures from Heroes of Battle.

[Boci]

They have met, though. Both have the capacity to take levels of Druid, and all Druids speak Druidic. So all D&D cultures are required to have enough contact for that to happen.

No, that's silly. Its far more likely to be a poorly thought out rule than a rule that means any two civilization which have not met being a house rule from the DM. And if you insist on that rule being observed, the druid secret language is a mind meld. Follows RAW, and actually makes sense.


Yes, it's been revised and amended , but it's fundamental in it's function and usage.

Doesn't revised and amended mean changed?


Yet another way in which psionics is cleaner and more intuitive. No words in a Power Stone :smalltongue:

Good point. If we are using psionics, doesn't metasense already exist? So it isn't metasense or UDLoM, its either metasense or both.



Yes, a metasense for magic works, but it doesn't necessarily eliminate the need for a spellcraft skill.

Yes it does, metasense is the way you explain how the spellcraft skill works ingame.


If you determine that metasense does automatically analyze and identify spells, then there will never be an unknown/unidentified magic item in your game.

No, because spells and magical items are not the same. There are plenty of abilities that will allow to identify one and not the other.


One problem with the idea of a Metasense of energy, is that you can still use Spellcraft in an AMF.

So its an Ex ability.

Another problem with UDLoM spellcraft: if all you are doing is reading a language, then that means you need to know of the existence of every spell you can identify. For 1 rank in spellcraft with an intelligence modifier of +1, is that every single spell below level 8 that you know of. You may not be able to identify it in the heat of the moment, but you must know of its existence and affects, since all spell craft does is allow you to read the UDLoM, it doesn!t tell you what the spell does. Oh, and if someone casts fox's cunning on you, you suddenly remember every spell pre-epic every printed or made up by the DM in the setting you are playing in.

And another:
1. Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.

2. Identify materials created or shaped by magic, such as noting that an iron wall is the result of a wall of iron spell. No action required. No retry.

3. After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was. No action required. No retry.

How are you doing that under the UDLoM? Maybe the second one you are looking for tell tale signs of magic created stuff, but 1 and 3?