Knowledge/spellcraft checks

[jedipotter]

So old DM, but still new to 3E.

So it's an all wizard group exploring the ruins of a magic school. So I had the school ruins mostly done. With the main doors wizard locked, and with a 'spell turning force' feild around them. I just needed a good reason why no one had just knocked open the doors.

So the chaacter get to the main doors, and cast knock on them. I tell the player ''your spell is reflected away.'' The player quickly rolls a Spellcraft check to see what happened. And I tell the player about the spell turning feild. But the player wants more, what what spell. But I don't have a spell to give. I try to think quick and just say it a permanent spell turning, but the players quickly say that you can't make the spell permanent. Well, i was at a loss....

In 3E can't a DM just say ''I know it's not in the book, but it exists anyway" any more like in older games? I needed a rules legal way to have a permanent turn magic effect....but found none.

Spellcraft even lists a ''strange or unique magic effect''. can't a turn magic ward count as that?

Does a turn magic ward count as a already in place and in effect?


Then how about Knowledge? Is the history of a magic school arcane or history? Both? How much information is normal a check, like a single line or one or two?

[Emperor Tippy]

So old DM, but still new to 3E.

So it's an all wizard group exploring the ruins of a magic school. So I had the school ruins mostly done. With the main doors wizard locked, and with a 'spell turning force' feild around them. I just needed a good reason why no one had just knocked open the doors.

So the chaacter get to the main doors, and cast knock on them. I tell the player ''your spell is reflected away.'' The player quickly rolls a Spellcraft check to see what happened. And I tell the player about the spell turning feild. But the player wants more, what what spell. But I don't have a spell to give. I try to think quick and just say it a permanent spell turning, but the players quickly say that you can't make the spell permanent. Well, i was at a loss....

In 3E can't a DM just say ''I know it's not in the book, but it exists anyway" any more like in older games? I needed a rules legal way to have a permanent turn magic effect....but found none.

Spellcraft even lists a ''strange or unique magic effect''. can't a turn magic ward count as that?

Does a turn magic ward count as a already in place and in effect?
Yes, its a DC 30 or higher spellcraft check and it would tell him the properties of the magic.

No you, don't need a specific spell to put it in place. Maybe its the creation of a Wish or Miracle for all it matters.



Then how about Knowledge? Is the history of a magic school arcane or history? Both? How much information is normal a check, like a single line or one or two?

I would count it as either with the information given being emphasived differently for both. Arcana might tell you about famous magical innovations from the school or its alumni while History might tell you how long its been around for (for example).

[Gildedragon]

Or the names, but not effects of certain obscure spells, or the -rumoured- effects possible by certain culture, or the existence of alternative magic disciplines (there is where I put psionics, true naming, sha'irnannigans, warlocry, binding, and shadow magic)

As for how much: follow the 5 point increase guidelines in the srd.

[CaladanMoonblad]

There is a handy paragraph in the DMG on page 18;

"You are the arbiter of everything that happens in the game. Period."


As for the spell; in the future, use the "lost magic" explanation. It goes like this; the current field of magic uses the agreed upon sourcebooks for the campaign. However, there is 'older magic' that is currently lost. This allows for your spell turning field spell. Just jot down the description in your GM notebook, and if they meet the DC, you can show it to them.

The PCs can't use the spell, and current NPCs can't use the spell... but a permanent version of it could easily be still in place.

[Humble Master]

Well as the DM you are more than welcome to say that the magic present is not a standard spell. It could easily be a Wish of Miracle or even Epic Magic. You could also say that it is the product of a special ritual or something.

Also I would personally say that you can use either Spellcraft or Knowledge(Arcana) to identify strange and unknown magic.

[Urpriest]

Random unknown magic is fine, just a) make sure it was created by characters with access to power the PCs don't have access to (ancient civilizations usually work), b) give them enough info on a good Spellcraft result to know enough about how it works and c) be rock solid on the rules for it, to the point of having rules written down in a binder somewhere.

[BowStreetRunner]

I would actually just call it Wondrous Architecture (from Stronghold Builder's Guidebook - it's like a wondrous item, but building-sized). You could still use "spell turning" as the base spell, but like all magic items it becomes irrelevant whether it can be affected by permanency at this point - it is the Craft Wondrous Item feat that allows you to permanently imbue the building with magic.

As everyone said before, you as DM can do anything you like by mere fiat. However, if you can do something within the existing rules it becomes easier for you to overcome the player's willingness to suspend their disbelief.

[Phelix-Mu]

I would actually just call it Wondrous Architecture (from Stronghold Builder's Guidebook - it's like a wondrous item, but building-sized). You could still use "spell turning" as the base spell, but like all magic items it becomes irrelevant whether it can be affected by permanency at this point - it is the Craft Wondrous Item feat that allows you to permanently imbue the building with magic.

As everyone said before, you as DM can do anything you like by mere fiat. However, if you can do something within the existing rules it becomes easier for you to overcome the player's willingness to suspend their disbelief.

+1. Magic can be used to do just about anything, particularly if the casters aren't stuck in the middle of some campaign plot and have the resources of a major institution behind them (say, I don't know, a college of magic).:smallwink: Custom spell research, magical architecture, the previous mention of wish/miracle making unique effects, some kind of self-resetting counterspell trap, who knows.

Knowing the precise mechanic behind a desired effect is a big bonus, though, as mentioned. It will make it easier for you to determine which challenge solutions work or don't work, as well.

The results of a Knowledge check are pretty much up to a DM. Higher check gets more details than a lower check, but I don't think there's any absolute metric on what you hand out. I usually just give out what I feel they should know and reward good rolls and significant character investment. Unless it's monsters and there is a guideline published or the generic monster knowledge thing.

[Gildedragon]

Oh. And don't give false information. Give incomplete information; or potentially misleading info, but nothing false. There was a great example in a past threwad that boiled down to:

Bears
Low check: sharp teeth and claws, capable of rending flesh (implying an obligate carnivore diet)
High check: despite that bears are actually omnivores, and can be bribed with honey
Etc...

[Spuddles]

The extant 3.x ruleset lets you do create or anything, from a sentient, psychic sandwich, to literal save game crystals that you can revert reality to whenever you want, to plotting to overthrow gods from beyond time and space, crearing nanobot swarms, piloting a giant flying zombie whale, or create a reality from a subject's dreamscape.

Chances are, if you want to do something, it can be justified somewhere in the rules. If you really need to justify it, just get on these forums and we'll come up with something for your rules lawyer players.

[Phelix-Mu]

Oh. And don't give false information. Give incomplete information; or potentially misleading info, but nothing false. There was a great example in a past threwad that boiled down to:

Bears
Low check: sharp teeth and claws, capable of rending flesh (implying an obligate carnivore diet)
High check: despite that bears are actually omnivores, and can be bribed with honey
Etc...

Much has been made of the "false info" thing. I think it's generally bad form, but if there is a good in-game plot reason that everyone in the game world has bad info on a certain issue, then I think it's fair game.

Without a good excuse, though, one should generally not kick pcs in the unmentionables like this, though. If they paid their dues/skill points, give 'em the perks.

If you dislike Knowledge and Spellcraft functionality, you should houserule it, give players full details on the new functionality, and allow retraining for free to anyone that feels they need to recalibrate their resource allocation.

I empathize if you are suffering from a player or two with greater system mastery. Can be a distressing situation to be in, from time to time, but remember, as DM, your control over what goes on in the world around the pcs is pretty complete, and the main issue is to not be unfair OOG or self-contradictory. If you have a good reason for ruling a certain way that you think will allow for more fun in the long run, then so rule. Good luck.

[Gildedragon]

As an aside on dealing with players with greater system mastery: ask them for help. If they can help with the construction of plot or the mechanics of a certain thing, they may be less inclined to break it, shows trust & transparency from the DM to the players, and it is a cute control to see how much meta gaming is happening.

[Namfuak]

Can I just throw out there that if the player was actually complaining that you used permanency on a spell outside the ridiculously restrictive list it gives, the problem is with the player and not you? I would have been fine with you just saying it's a field that redirects magic and I think I can be a rules lawyer.

[Krobar]

I've been DM'ing and playing for a long time now. Every spellcaster I've ever played has researched a few of his own spells. As DM I've done the same thing.


"You've never seen or even heard of this spell effect before. Its duration seems to be permanent, but you're not sure if that is a characteristic of the spell itself, or if someone cast permanency. You just don't know."

If your players cry about that, then THEY are the problem.

[Phelix-Mu]

Can I just throw out there that if the player was actually complaining that you used permanency on a spell outside the ridiculously restrictive list it gives, the problem is with the player and not you? I would have been fine with you just saying it's a field that redirects magic and I think I can be a rules lawyer.

Doesn't the permanency spell itself say the DM can opt to amend the list if desired, thus rendering the player's argument moot?

[Bakkan]

Something I try in situations like this, when a player points out that something I've just described is impossible, I say, "Yes, it does seem that way. How interesting." Turn a rules debate into a plot hook and let the wizards spend days in-game trying to figure out how this thing came to be. Just be sure to have an answer in your notebook or at least your head by the next session, and eventually let them figure out what's going on. It will give them a sense of accomplishment both for noticing the discrepancy and finding out the answer, and your story remains unmolested.

[Deophaun]

Well, there's complaining that permanency was used on the spell, and then there is the player saying "are you sure?" The first is a rules lawyer. The second is taking notes.

[Phelix-Mu]

Something I try in situations like this, when a player points out that something I've just described is impossible, I say, "Yes, it does seem that way. How interesting." Turn a rules debate into a plot hook and let the wizards spend days in-game trying to figure out how this thing came to be. Just be sure to have an answer in your notebook or at least your head by the next session, and eventually let them figure out what's going on. It will give them a sense of accomplishment both for noticing the discrepancy and finding out the answer, and your story remains unmolested.

Brilliant. I do like this approach, and have used such myself on occasions where I've been inspired. I like to stroke my chin suggestively while I do it, and pull out my best Vincent Price impression.

[BowStreetRunner]

Something I try in situations like this, when a player points out that something I've just described is impossible, I say, "Yes, it does seem that way. How interesting." Turn a rules debate into a plot hook and let the wizards spend days in-game trying to figure out how this thing came to be. Just be sure to have an answer in your notebook or at least your head by the next session, and eventually let them figure out what's going on. It will give them a sense of accomplishment both for noticing the discrepancy and finding out the answer, and your story remains unmolested.

+1. I really like this approach. Even if I do not have the answer as DM, I just gave myself time to do a little research and figure one out. :smallcool:

[TuggyNE]

Doesn't the permanency spell itself say the DM can opt to amend the list if desired, thus rendering the player's argument moot?

What's more, you really really need to, since it was never expanded upon outside of Core.

[Emperor Tippy]

What's more, you really really need to, since it was never expanded upon outside of Core.

Savage Species expanded it, and those tend to be nicer spells.

[Chronos]

I would just add that when you have an effect like this, it's a good idea to make it at least theoretically accessible to the players, if they decide they really, really want to be able to do it themselves. We already know it's possible in the game world, after all. Now, it might be really, really hard to do, requiring something like five levels of a homebrewed prestige class that doesn't offer full casting progression (and if that's the case, drop hints that it'll be hard when the player starts researching it), but it should be possible somehow.

[TuggyNE]

Savage Species expanded it, and those tend to be nicer spells.

OK, OK, besides 3.0 sources. Better?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Doesn't the permanency spell itself say the DM can opt to amend the list if desired, thus rendering the player's argument moot?

It doesn't make his observation moot. It simply changes the meaning of it. If the DM says that a spell is added to the permanency list, he should do so -after- considering whether it would be detrimental to his game for the -players- to have it.

That said, I'll agree with the wondrous architecture comment. It's not spells on the door, it's the door itself that's repelling the magic aimed at it.

[BowStreetRunner]

That said, I'll agree with the wondrous architecture comment. It's not spells on the door, it's the door itself that's repelling the magic aimed at it.

...and to be honest, it is harder to bring down a wondrous item's effect than it is to bring down a spell with permanency. Permanency has that last sentence where it states "Spells cast on other creatures, objects, or locations (not on you) are vulnerable to dispel magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm) as normal." Items can only be suppressed by dispel magic however, and only with the targeted version of dispel.