Identify a spell that is being/has been cast?

[Crake]

I know in 3.5 this used to involve a spellcraft check, but I can't find any reference to it in 5th? Is there a way to know what spells people cast beforehand? Or is that now completely obscured unless you see the effect and know firsthand what the spell is?

[dead_but_dreaming]

I think it's one of the things that's up to the DM. No one knows (unless there's a tweet out there adressing this?) until the DMG is out.

[hymer]

There is a hint that Arcana is lore about spells, but there's no indication of any DC.

[Cambrian]

I think it's one of the things that's up to the DM. No one knows (unless there's a tweet out there adressing this?) until the DMG is out.That's what I understand.

In the meantime I've houseruled it to be:
Arcana - Arcane spells
Religion - Cleric and Paladin spells
Nature - Druid and Ranger spells

DC = 10+spell level

[Elesthor]

That's what I understand.

In the meantime I've houseruled it to be:
Arcana - Arcane spells
Religion - Cleric and Paladin spells
Nature - Druid and Ranger spells

DC = 10+spell level

Or you can make it so the DC is equal to the caster's spell DC to keep it closer to the system's logic.

[stitchlipped]

Or you can make it so the DC is equal to the caster's spell DC, that's more close to the system's logic.

I quite like the idea that identifying a spell would be more difficult than simply resisting/dodging it.

There are all sorts of reasons why figuring out what spell is being cast might be tricky:


Many spells take an action or less to cast. They're being snapped off by the caster within the space of a few seconds, likely in the heat of combat, when the person trying to identify the spell is probably a little preoccupied.
You may not be familiar with the caster's language.
You may not be familiar with the caster's physiology: a monstrous wizard with four arms (or no arms) is going to have different physical gestures when casting the spell.
The caster may have a unique version of the spell (different spell words, gestures, or spell appearance: eg. you might not know a fireball is a fireball if it appears as a purplish flame in the shape of a skull).

[Elesthor]

I quite like the idea that identifying a spell would be more difficult than simply resisting/dodging it.

There are all sorts of reasons why figuring out what spell is being cast might be tricky:


Many spells take an action or less to cast. They're being snapped off by the caster within the space of a few seconds, likely in the heat of combat, when the person trying to identify the spell is probably a little preoccupied.
You may not be familiar with the caster's language.
You may not be familiar with the caster's physiology: a monstrous wizard with four arms (or no arms) is going to have different physical gestures when casting the spell.
The caster may have a unique version of the spell (different spell words, gestures, or spell appearance: eg. you might not know a fireball is a fireball if it appears as a purplish flame in the shape of a skull).


You can give disadvantage if you think that it's appropriate.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, it's just that when I'm thinking about a house-rule I try to keep it close to the philosophy of the system and in the case of 5th that is simplicity.

Both ways are correct, just throwing out ideas :tongue:

[Shadow]

I think it's missing on purpose.
Counterspell is now a single spell which does not require a similar school of magic like it did before. There used to be a reason that you sometimes needed to know what spell was beng cast. Now, with the way counterspelling works, there really isn't a reason that you need to know.
Counterspell is a reaction.
A reaction is defined as "an instant response to a trigger of some kind."
If you spend time studying the spellcaster to figure out what he's doing, you're not instantly responding. You're studying instead. Counterspell is no longer a valid option, logically.
Plus, counterspell is a spell in and of itself. It's not something that happens immediately and instantly. If you spend time figuring out what he's casting, by the time you actually start your counterspell his spell is already complete. You need to decide as soon as you see him casting, not as soon as you figure out exactly what he's casting.

This also falls in line with 5e trying to make things simpler and more streamlined.
I think the fact that there are no rules for identifying spells as they are being cast is completely intentional.

[stitchlipped]

I think it's missing on purpose.
Counterspell is now a single spell which does not require a similar school of magic like it did before. There used to be a reason that you sometimes needed to know what spell was beng cast. Now, with the way counterspelling works, there really isn't a reason that you need to know.
Counterspell is a reaction.
A reaction is defined as "an instant response to a trigger of some kind."
If you spend time studying the spellcaster to figure out what he's doing, you're not instantly responding. You're studying instead. Counterspell is no longer a valid option, logically.
Plus, counterspell is a spell in and of itself. It's not something that happens immediately and instantly. If you spend time figuring out what he's casting, by the time you actually start your counterspell his spell is already complete. You need to decide as soon as you see him casting, not as soon as you figure out exactly what he's casting.

This also falls in line with 5e trying to make things simpler and more streamlined.
I think the fact that there are no rules for identifying spells as they are being cast is completely intentional.

A very good point, but I can still see there being some situations where you might want to try and figure out another mage's bag of tricks without it necessarily being because you want to counterspell them.

Maybe your character is a brainiac who prides themselves on an encyclopaedic knowledge of spells, or maybe they enjoy trying to figure out the purpose of a spell they've not seen before by analysing the verbal, somatic, and material components used. Such a character would want to identify a spell purely from intellectual curiosity.

In a game where mages are allowed to customise how their magic looks, it may not be immediately obvious what a spell is even when it is cast. You might therefore be watching a rival mage fight or take part in a formal mage's duel, trying to figure out what their spells actually are and do so you know their strengths and weaknesses for when it's you who has to fight them.

[Joe the Rat]

Sounds like Arcana to me.

[Ramshack]

That's what I understand.

In the meantime I've houseruled it to be:
Arcana - Arcane spells
Religion - Cleric and Paladin spells
Nature - Druid and Ranger spells

DC = 10+spell level

I did this, and the player had advantage if they could cast the spell themselves.

[Theodoxus]

A very good point, but I can still see there being some situations where you might want to try and figure out another mage's bag of tricks without it necessarily being because you want to counterspell them.

Maybe your character is a brainiac who prides themselves on an encyclopaedic knowledge of spells, or maybe they enjoy trying to figure out the purpose of a spell they've not seen before by analysing the verbal, somatic, and material components used. Such a character would want to identify a spell purely from intellectual curiosity.

In a game where mages are allowed to customise how their magic looks, it may not be immediately obvious what a spell is even when it is cast. You might therefore be watching a rival mage fight or take part in a formal mage's duel, trying to figure out what their spells actually are and do so you know their strengths and weaknesses for when it's you who has to fight them.

Between Shadow's reply (which I agree with 100% - to the point of saying pretty much the same thing in the last thread this question popped up in) and my own experiences - I think these fringe reasons to do a spellcraft check are just that - fringe.

It's all well and good to have a plan/reason in place if a player asks about it - being so very common in 3rd (I don't know about 4th) - it'll come up. But in my experience, when it did, I asked "why?" The player was curious, but when I explained that without Counterspell, there was literally nothing they could do to the spellcasting, and I'm not cryptic with my descriptions - If a mage casts Melf's Acid Arrow, I say 'melf's acid arrow' not 'A green tipped, dripping arrow magically appears in the wizards hand and slings its way across the intervening space, burning into Ted's chest. Oozing acid burns a happy trail down to his pants.' But that's just me.

Curiosity is quickly satisfied once the spell effect goes off.

YMMV, of course.

[Abithrios]

It makes sense that there would be some ways to determine how much magic an enemy is putting into a spell. Even if those ways are difficult, level 7 wizards are not beginners when it comes to magic, they are powerful, professional mages. Those who choose to learn how to counterspell will have picked up some tricks to determine what level of slot to use to counterspell.

Casting a 1 action spell may take four seconds to complete. A reaction spell is probably much faster, maybe a second at most. If the counterspell takes half a second to take effect and you assume a generous half a second for human reaction times, that leaves two more seconds to listen to the chanting and watch the hand signs. Can a professionally skilled mage who happens to be the smartest person in the world guess what spell someone is chanting from two seconds of listening? I think the answer is "sometimes", which is exactly what a check would represent.

This also makes sense from a game perspective. If you establish a mechanical way of determining what level spell a an opponent is casting, you take some of the guesswork out of using the spell. Powerful spellcasters are less of a risk to game balance if they spend their spells on counterspelling. At the same time, players are less frustrated by spending spell slots with absolutely zero effect when they could have spent a more expensive spell slot to actually contribute. Enemy spellcasters can counterspell the PCs and everyone knows that the results are fair, and the DM does not have to worry about accidentally playing the NPCs as stupid or as omniscient.

In short, the question of "Do I know what spell that guy is casting before he finishes?" could go either way, which is exactly the sort of question typically answered by rolling a die and adding a number.