Arcana checks: What does it do?

[The Shadowdove]

Hey peeps,

What does using your intelligence-arcana skill actually give you?

We have a bit of confusion with what we're allowed to use it in an attempt to find out, and our dm seems confused as to what information to give when there's a high/low roll.

On top of that, our warlock uses it mercilessly whenever he wants to know something. For Example:

1) "I'll do an arcana check to see if there's anything magical in the room."

2) "I'm going to pick up the sword and do a knowledge arcana check"

3) "I'm going to see if I can do a knowledge arcana check to see if I can tell what his summoning circle does."

4) "I am going to attempt to identify his spell with a knowledge arcana check"

5) "I am going to see if I can tell where this spell is tethered to with an arcana check"

6) "I want to see if I can tell how long ago the spell was cast with an arcana Check"

and many more, any situation involving magic.

how would you guys rule the arcana checks work? (high/low rolls)

How about in relevance to these examples/any examples you may have?

What should they 'not' work with?

What gives advantage to your check(examples)?



thanks a dozen, your superior booksmarts are inspiring!

-Dove

[Mr.Moron]

In general Arcana in my game doesn't function like Detect Magic in that it won't tell you about the presence or lack of magic. Though everyone can do that innately to some degree in my setting. It basically has 3 major uses:

A: Understand the general rules of magic in the setting. "Why in the world am I rolling wild magic on 5+ instead of 1+ in this ancient tower?"
B: Understand the general limits of specific magic effects. "The magical wall holding up this water, what happens if I hit it with a hammer? Can it be destroyed in any fashion?"
C: Understand the magical abilities of creatures: "How long until that crazy elemental can use that Fire Wave attack again?"

Other minor uses are social ones. For example if they're trying to convince someone to help them because bad magic is going to something I might ask them to roll Arcana to successfully explain the stakes, and grant a lower Persuasion DC on the subsequent check to convince them to come along.

It might also be used when characters get into debates with NPCs on magical topics.

[DivisibleByZero]

What would Knowledge Religion tell you?
Exchange priestly information with magical information.

The examples listed by you were all basically a function of Spellcraft, which no longer exists, as there is no need for it to exist in 5e. Basically, K:a doesn't do any of that stuff you listed at our table except 2 & 3, which would be functions of K:a (and 2 would only work if you already knew it was magical).

[Slipperychicken]

#1 is in the DMG (page 121), but only for magical traps. Intelligence(Arcana) may be used to both detect and disarm magic traps. Aside from that, you need a special power like detect magic. #3, #4, and #5 are perfectly reasonable. #6 is a little iffy, but seems reasonable. #2 could give you some examples of what such a sword might do, but you can't be sure until you cast Identify on it.

Additionally, Arcana, according to PHB 177: "recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes." Arcana is also used to identify and recall information about creatures like abominations and dragons (undead fall under Religion, while beasts and fey are Nature). I guess the description means that Arcana now covers outsiders too, perhaps creating some overlap with Religion.

[Shining Wrath]

Per the DMG, Arcana can be used to detect and bypass magical traps. That's pretty useful.

It is not detect magic, though. You can't use Arcana to pick the magic sword out the rack of physically identical mundane swords.

Aside from that, it ought to allow you to know things about creatures that are innately "not natural" - aberrations, monstrosities, oozes, and dragons come to mind. By tradition, undead are religion, as are fiends, but if someone told me they wanted to use arcana to identify a type of undead I might let them, especially if the type of undead can be created by a spell on the wizard spell list.

[Ninja_Prawn]

My opinion: The warlock should not be asking if he can roll his arcana. The DM should demand arcana rolls when it is appropriate to do so. That way, the DM always knows what the reward for a successful roll is.

And I agree. Int(arcana) is not Detect Magic. It can give you some insight into magical effects that you've already detected, or provide Intel on magical monsters. It might help you understand spells and scrolls, but identifying spells as they're cast is a special case, because of the interaction with Counterspell.

[DivisibleByZero]

It might help you understand spells and scrolls, but identifying spells as they're cast is a special case, because of the interaction with Counterspell.

Identifying spells as they are being cast does not exist in 5e, because Counterspell is now its own entity instead of a process.

[Theodoxus]

Hey peeps,

What does using your intelligence-arcana skill actually give you?

Arcane lore.

To answer your questions specifically:

1) "I'll do an arcana check to see if there's anything magical in the room."
That's a function of Detect Magic. Arcana doesn't do that - knowing about magical lore can't show you otherwise invisible magical auras.


2) "I'm going to pick up the sword and do a knowledge arcana check"
I don't know what the warlock is expecting from this. If it's to find out if a sword is magical, sorry, that's Detect Magic, again. If it's to determine arcane lore about the sword, I suppose if it's sufficiently famous (or he rolled fabulously) it could be determined that it's 'X' sword used by 'Y' guy to do 'Z' things, and thus probably has AB&C abilities.


3) "I'm going to see if I can do a knowledge arcana check to see if I can tell what his summoning circle does."
This I would allow, though if it's a summoning circle, it summons things... as opposed to a teleportation circle, which teleports things. If he's trying to determine specific summons, I'd allow it - on a sufficiently difficult DC.


4) "I am going to attempt to identify his spell with a knowledge arcana check"
Much discussion in the early days of last August about this, and what you could glean (lots of houserules for Arcana for bard/sorc/war/wiz spells, Religion for cleric/pal spells and Nature for druid/ranger spells). I fell with the crowd that ultimately decided it wasn't really necessary. Even in the fringe cases where you'd want to counterspell something, there wasn't anything game breaking to simply let everyone know what spell was being cast.
Obviously, it becomes table specific as to how much secrecy you want to shroud spells in. The above uses for Arcana, Nature and Religion are as good as any.


5) "I am going to see if I can tell where this spell is tethered to with an arcana check"
Another use for Detect Magic. I don't think having lore about arcane magic would allow you to see the magical tethering energies. Perhaps if you had the spell on your list and knew intimate details on how it works and what is required for it to tether, you could make an Arcana check for an educated guess... but exact details would require Detect Magic.


6) "I want to see if I can tell how long ago the spell was cast with an arcana Check"
Another fringe case, and would again be best served with Detect Magic. Outside of that, perhaps a generic 'short, medium, long' designation evidenced by the general knowledge of how the magic warped the area around it... but I wouldn't make it any more granular than that without additional magical aid.

[pwykersotz]

1) "I'll do an arcana check to see if there's anything magical in the room."
2) "I'm going to pick up the sword and do a knowledge arcana check"
3) "I'm going to see if I can do a knowledge arcana check to see if I can tell what his summoning circle does."
4) "I am going to attempt to identify his spell with a knowledge arcana check"
5) "I am going to see if I can tell where this spell is tethered to with an arcana check"
6) "I want to see if I can tell how long ago the spell was cast with an arcana Check"

First thing first, he shouldn't be asking to roll those checks. His questions should be "Does anything in this room have mundane signs that magic has been in use? Does this sword have any magical symbols? How long ago was the spell cast?" and so on. It's a small shift, but an important one. When the player asks for the check, if the DM isn't ready for it, they can feel shoehorned into making it usable by that skill. If the DM chooses the relevant skill, it's more likely to be appropriate. Plus, some information may be obvious or impossible, and a roll might not be needed.

Past that:
1) No check (as others have said). Arcana is not Detect Magic.
2) No check, you haven't stated what you were looking for.
3) I'd base the DC of this one on the save of the person making it, unless it was designed to be understood. +5 to the DC if it's particularly obscure magic.
4) I'd put the DC at 10+Spell Level, with advantage (or auto-success) if the spell is on that player's spell list and accounting for if the target took pains to be discrete.
5) No check, Detect Magic would probably cover this one instead.
6) With Detect Magic active, I'd set the DC pretty high, 20-25 to get a decently accurate idea. I figure magical traces of spellcasting fade pretty quickly under normal conditions. If the spell is still active, I'd lower the DC by 5 or else base it on the save of the caster once more.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Identifying spells as they are being cast does not exist in 5e, because Counterspell is now its own entity instead of a process.

What I mean is (and what Theodoxus alludes to) is the fact that, if the DM does not tell the player what spell an NPC is casting, and they can't or won't table talk it, a Couterspell could fail. Equally, the DM could cast from a higher-level spell slot with the same result. Thus, players will want to Arcana/Religion/Nature check the spell to make sure they give it the right magnitude of Counterspell.

So it's a special case and I, personally, would allow Arcana to work for that, with the DC at 10+(actual) spell level. However, I would straight-up tell the player what the spell is if it's one they themselves have access to.

[Slipperychicken]

My opinion: The warlock should not be asking if he can roll his arcana. The DM should demand arcana rolls when it is appropriate to do so. That way, the DM always knows what the reward for a successful roll is.

In terms of rolling for mental skills (knowledge skills, investigate, and so on), there's a huge gap between what should happen and what actually happens. DMs should call for such checks whenever they're appropriate and give useful information on a success, but they usually don't do either (why they don't is a whole different story).

In actual games, DMs tend to announce things which are obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes, then call for perception checks to see things which are harder to see, and only provide further information when a player asks to use his character's knowledge skill. Only after a player has declared such a check and rolled a 15 or 20 (depends on how the DM is feeling), then the DM decides whether or not he wants to give useful information to the player. If he wants to give the information, he usually does so. If he doesn't want to give useful information, then he reaches for one of several common excuses ("it's too obscure", "knowledge is overpowered", and "I don't want to give you all the answers" are the main ones). This is a far cry from how knowledge skills ought to work.

[DivisibleByZero]

What I mean is (and what Theodoxus alludes to) is the fact that, if the DM does not tell the player what spell an NPC is casting, and they can't or won't table talk it, a Couterspell could fail. Equally, the DM could cast from a higher-level spell slot with the same result. Thus, players will want to Arcana/Religion/Nature check the spell to make sure they give it the right magnitude of Counterspell.

So it's a special case and I, personally, would allow Arcana to work for that, with the DC at 10+(actual) spell level. However, I would straight-up tell the player what the spell is if it's one they themselves have access to.

Once again, Counterspell being its own entity now instead of a process removes the need for any of this.
If you want to cast Counterspell, you don't have time to determine what spell is being cast and how strong that spell will be compared to a normal casting.
By the time you determine that stuff, the spell is done.
By the time you determine that stuff, you are no longer "instantly reacting," which is what a reaction is. If you analyze the spellcasting, you are not reacting instantly.

All you know is that an enemy is casting a spell, and that it's probably not going to be a good thing for you.
Attempt to counter it, or don't. That's the choice.

[ChubbyRain]

I have a new use for Arcana (and religion/nature...) that I'm going to implement in a game at some point.

Arcana (Con): Whenever you cast a spell from an Arcana spell list as a ritual, you perform a skill check versus DC 8 + Spell Level at the end of the casting time for the spell. On a success you cast the spell as normal for the ritual, on a fail your spell is still cast but the duration or effect of the spell is halved in some way.

Casting a ritual is taxing on the body, between the long chanting and the focus... One may not make it through the entire spell without messing something up (perhaps a PC sneezes). Failing this save doesn't stop the spell from being cast, but it will lower a duration such as for Alarm from 8 hours to 4 hours.

[Slipperychicken]

Once again, Counterspell being its own entity now instead of a process removes the need for any of this.
If you want to cast Counterspell, you don't have time to determine what spell is being cast and how strong that spell will be compared to a normal casting.
By the time you determine that stuff, the spell is done.
By the time you determine that stuff, you are no longer "instantly reacting," which is what a reaction is. If you analyze the spellcasting, you are not reacting instantly.

All you know is that an enemy is casting a spell, and that it's probably not going to be a good thing for you.
Attempt to counter it, or don't. That's the choice.

I'd say the caster would get to roll to identify it. Remember that each spell has unique gestures and words, sometimes accompanied by unique objects being brandished. Noticing the beginning of the process gives observers a chance to guess what spell it is, much like how one can guess the content of a phrase or sentence from its first words and interrupt it. The whole process happens in seconds, or even less. I'd set the Arcana DC to identify a spell at 10+spell level.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'd say the caster would get to roll to identify it. Remember that each spell has unique gestures and words, sometimes accompanied by unique objects being brandished. Noticing the beginning of the process gives observers a chance to guess what spell it is, much like how one can guess the content of a phrase or sentence from its first words and interrupt it. I'd set the Arcana DC to identify a spell at 10+spell level.

And remember that each caster has his or her own unique notation and style. My fireball and your fireball will not necessarily be cast the same way.
And also remember, identifying a spell as it was being cast was a function not of K:a, but of Spellcraft. Spellcraft no longer exists, because it's unneeded.
You can house rule hat K:a fills in for it, but that's exactly what it is. An house rule. And an unneeded one that will slow the game down, at that.

And also remember that during those six or so seconds that the enemy is casting their spell, you are also casting your own spell. And now you're trying to analyze and react to their casting. If you can take 6 seconds and turn it into:
1) run 30 feet
2) chant and remove mats and make movements for your own spell, firing that spell in the exact place that you want
3) analyze another caster's style and words to understand what they are casting
4) react to that casting and cast Counterspell before their casting is finished

Step 3 is the one that kills you. There's no time for it. That's why a reaction is "an instant response" Instant being the key word. Your imaginary step 3 makes it no longer instant, and therefore no longer a true reaction as they are described in the book.
If you want to house rule K:a to fill in for the no-longer-existing Spellcraft, then that's fine. But it's not RAW at all, because there's no need for it to ever even be done.

[SharkForce]

generally speaking, arcana should be used to gain knowledge about magical things based on evidence that is available. it doesn't make any evidence available to you (it won't reveal magical auras), but it can certainly let you know that the fancy engravings on that blade you found are of a protective nature, or are related to fire, or are a magical warning symbol.

it might reveal details about a spell, but only if the spell has something to analyze; you can use it to tell the difference between a wall of fire and an aganazzar's scorcher spell being cast from below, but you can't use it to tell how long is left on the duration of a wall of fire unless there is some physical evidence to analyze that would enable you to do so.

for example, you might be able to recognize a rune that triggers a magical trap, and know that it cannot be triggered more often than once every 10 minutes, and that the trap you're observing only lasts for one minute, thus gaining the valuable information that it was triggered less than a minute ago, and that it should be safe to pass for the next 9 minutes after the trap stops working.

[Ninja_Prawn]

generally speaking, arcana should be used to gain knowledge about magical things based on evidence that is available. it doesn't make any evidence available to you

I agree with this, but it makes me wonder... could you gather some magical evidence with a Wisdom (Arcana) check? Like, just get a gut feeling that someone conjured something here in the last few hours?

I'm just thinking aloud here.

[BRC]

I agree with this, but it makes me wonder... could you gather some magical evidence with a Wisdom (Arcana) check? Like, just get a gut feeling that someone conjured something here in the last few hours?

I'm just thinking aloud here.
Depends on the setting. That requires some sort of extranormal Magic Sense independent from Detect Magic. If anybody was to have it, I might give it to Sorcerers.

That said, Arcana represents a Knowledge check, so while it can't necessarily give you answers, but you can make educated guesses.

Like, for the summoning circle example, an Arcana check couldn't tell you exactly what a summoning circle was used to summon, however, it could help you guess. You spot some writing in Ignan on the circle, or notice that some of the shapes are used by several magical traditions to indicate a connection to elemental fire, thus letting you guess that this is probably set up to summon a fire elemental.

[ChubbyRain]

Arcana (Wisdom) versus Deception or Sleight if Hand.

You are using your years of knowledge with dealing with arcane arts to know when someone eis trying to hide their somatic or verbal components of a spell.

Perhaps they are using deception to instead of saying "fireball" they say something like "The fire in your eye looks like a ball of light" ... OK that was bad but you get the point.

Essentially Arcana Insight.

[Vogonjeltz]

What does using your intelligence-arcana skill actually give you?

To quote the PHB (with bolding and italics for empahsis): "Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.

So to answer your list:

1) Does not work. You'd want Detect Magic to empirically determine if something is or isn't magical.

2) Does not work unless you happen to have empirical evidence (or the claim) that the sword is magical or a particular magic weapon.

3) Works.

4) Works.

5) Possibly works if the nature of the spell makes the "tether" obvious, otherwise possibly just results in: You have no idea.

6) Probably tells the person how long the spell might persist, so it would have had to have been cast within the last minute, hour, day, or whatever. Would almost certainly be inexact.

I'd give advantage if the character had access to a spellbook with the spell in it, or books/libraries with information on the topic.


And remember that each caster has his or her own unique notation and style. My fireball and your fireball will not necessarily be cast the same way.
And also remember, identifying a spell as it was being cast was a function not of K:a, but of Spellcraft. Spellcraft no longer exists, because it's unneeded.
You can house rule hat K:a fills in for it, but that's exactly what it is. An house rule. And an unneeded one that will slow the game down, at that.

And also remember that during those six or so seconds that the enemy is casting their spell, you are also casting your own spell. And now you're trying to analyze and react to their casting. If you can take 6 seconds and turn it into:
1) run 30 feet
2) chant and remove mats and make movements for your own spell, firing that spell in the exact place that you want
3) analyze another caster's style and words to understand what they are casting
4) react to that casting and cast Counterspell before their casting is finished

Step 3 is the one that kills you. There's no time for it. That's why a reaction is "an instant response" Instant being the key word. Your imaginary step 3 makes it no longer instant, and therefore no longer a true reaction as they are described in the book.
If you want to house rule K:a to fill in for the no-longer-existing Spellcraft, then that's fine. But it's not RAW at all, because there's no need for it to ever even be done.

More to the point, the skill functions to recall knowledge about spells, not spell casting.
If, however, I were inclined to offer any check at all, I'd make it a passive check, not an active one (that would require an action, which isn't happening on someone else's turn).

[ChubbyRain]

To quote the PHB (with bolding and italics for empahsis): "Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.

So to answer your list:

1) Does not work. You'd want Detect Magic to empirically determine if something is or isn't magical.

2) Does not work unless you happen to have empirical evidence (or the claim) that the sword is magical or a particular magic weapon.

3) Works.

4) Works.

5) Possibly works if the nature of the spell makes the "tether" obvious, otherwise possibly just results in: You have no idea.

6) Probably tells the person how long the spell might persist, so it would have had to have been cast within the last minute, hour, day, or whatever. Would almost certainly be inexact.

I'd give advantage if the character had access to a spellbook with the spell in it, or books/libraries with information on the topic.



More to the point, the skill functions to recall knowledge about spells, not spell casting.
If, however, I were inclined to offer any check at all, I'd make it a passive check, not an active one (that would require an action, which isn't happening on someone else's turn).


In order to make it worth it I tend to make knowledge skills usable with an Action (most info), Bonus Action (2nd most info), or Reaction (3rd most info).


Reaction goes off their passive score, bonus action will tell you half as much as an action hitting the same DC, and an action can tell you pretty much anything.

But I also just don't give everything, players can typically ask for a couple pieces of info which is given in in game terms and not out of game terms.

[Mandragola]

What I don't understand with counterspell is when it happens. As in, do you counterspell at the point when the other wizard is waving his arms about and chanting, thereby ruining the casting of the spell in some way, or do you do it as the fireball flies towards you through the air, causing it to dissipate? If the latter is the case, then that would be easier to identify. It would probably also look cooler.

I think the game as written work on the understanding that the DM just tells you what spell is being cast.

[Ashrym]

It sounds like the warlock is trying to combine lore, the detect magic spell, and the identify spell all for free in that check.

As a general rule, if it's something either of those spells do then it's not something the skill check does, unless there's a specific reason to allow the check. A specific arcane sigil on a rare sword, for example.

[Chronos]

DivisibleByZero, your argument doesn't work. People are telling you how it would be beneficial to identify spells, and you're telling them that they can't, because Spellcraft doesn't exist any more, and it doesn't exist any more because it's no longer necessary. But they're showing you that it is, in fact, still necessary, and it's just as valid to say "Spellcraft was rolled into Arcana" as it is to say "Spellcraft doesn't exist any more". Counterspelling is still a process: You see someone casting, and you decide whether it's worth bothering to counterspell them, and then you decide what level of spell slot you want to use to do it, and then if the level you chose wasn't high enough, you roll to see if it succeeds. It's a simpler process than it used to be, but it's still a process.

To the original proposed uses:

1: Doesn't work. That's what Detect Magic is for.
2: "The sword does not appear to be suited for use as an arcane focus"
3: You can get some information about the circle, but I'm not sure how much the player wants. Certainly you can tell that it is a summoning circle, and if it's keyed to summon creatures from a particular plane, you can probably identify the plane. If it's keyed for summoning a specific entity, you might be able to determine that, and you might be able to determine how powerful an entity it can be used to summon.
4: As stated, I think this one should work. There should be some means of trying to identify a spell, and nothing makes more sense for that than Arcana.
5: Maybe if you use the skill while under the effect of Detect Magic, but I'm not really sure what "where the spell is tethered to" is supposed to mean. If it's something like a Silence spell cast on an object, then you could find that object by looking for things near the center of the circle, picking them up and moving them and seeing which one moves the effect, and so on, but that would be Investigation, not Arcana.
6: I don't even know what cues you're supposed to be picking up on to determine age of a spell. If it's possible, it'd probably involve an Arcana check, probably in conjunction with Detect Magic, but I'm not sure it's even possible.

[Eriol]

For the record, I'm in the "some things are reasonable (Teleportation/Summoning circle for sure), but if you're trying to replace Detect Magic, Legend Lore, and Identify with one check, then No."

That said, everybody here has missed one thing that's in the DMG for Intelligence (Arcana) checks: copying wizard spells from scrolls. As per the DMG, P.200 under the Spell Scroll entry:

A wizard spell on a spell scroll can be copied just as spells in spellbooks can be copied. When a spell is copied from a spell scroll, the copier must succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check with a DC equal to 10 + the spell's level. If the check succeeds, the spell is successfully copied. Whether the check succeeds or fails, the spell scroll is destroyed.
So everybody remember that one for a usage of Arcana. Also note that Arcana does NOT apply to the check to casting a spell of a higher level than you have, just copying it, no matter what the level. That's on the same page as well.

I've also house-ruled that this applies to copying ritual spells that are on scrolls, and thus applies to a Warlock with the Book of Ancient Secrets, or anybody with the Ritual Caster feat doing the same thing, as that's just reasonable IMO. Even though Ritual Caster (PHB 169) doesn't say that it is necessary to make the Arcana check, it's in the DMG that it is, and I'm going for consistency that way.

[ProphetSword]

Hey peeps,
On top of that, our warlock uses it mercilessly whenever he wants to know something. For Example:

1) "I'll do an arcana check to see if there's anything magical in the room."

2) "I'm going to pick up the sword and do a knowledge arcana check"

3) "I'm going to see if I can do a knowledge arcana check to see if I can tell what his summoning circle does."

4) "I am going to attempt to identify his spell with a knowledge arcana check"

5) "I am going to see if I can tell where this spell is tethered to with an arcana check"

6) "I want to see if I can tell how long ago the spell was cast with an arcana Check"

and many more, any situation involving magic.



Even though it's already been said in this thread, I'm going to repeat what others have said; because I feel it's important to how 5th Edition is played and I really want people to stop thinking 5e works like 3.5:

At no time should a player be telling the DM that they are going to roll a skill check. The DM tells the player when to roll a skill check. That's how the system works.

Instead of this:

Player: "I want to see if I can tell how long ago the spell was cast with an arcana check."

It should be like this:

Player: "Can I tell how long ago the spell was cast?"

Then the DM will tell the player if they can, what skill check is appropriate, etc. It is perfectly okay for the DM to tell the player that they have no way to know that information, or to even decide that they can figure it out without even requiring a roll at all.

I just felt it needed to be repeated.

[SharkForce]

Even though it's already been said in this thread, I'm going to repeat what others have said; because I feel it's important to how 5th Edition is played and I really want people to stop thinking 5e works like 3.5:

At no time should a player be telling the DM that they are going to roll a skill check. The DM tells the player when to roll a skill check. That's how the system works.

Instead of this:

Player: "I want to see if I can tell how long ago the spell was cast with an arcana check."

It should be like this:

Player: "Can I tell how long ago the spell was cast?"

Then the DM will tell the player if they can, what skill check is appropriate, etc. It is perfectly okay for the DM to tell the player that they have no way to know that information, or to even decide that they can figure it out without even requiring a roll at all.

I just felt it needed to be repeated.

honestly, i see no reason to get upset about the player asking to use their skill. when they want to hide, do they have to wait for the DM to tell them that it's stealth? saying no to most of these requests, sure. but it's silly to complain about who is asking about the skill check.

[DivisibleByZero]

DivisibleByZero, your argument doesn't work. People are telling you how it would be beneficial to identify spells, and you're telling them that they can't, because Spellcraft doesn't exist any more, and it doesn't exist any more because it's no longer necessary. But they're showing you that it is, in fact, still necessary, and it's just as valid to say "Spellcraft was rolled into Arcana" as it is to say "Spellcraft doesn't exist any more". Counterspelling is still a process: You see someone casting, and you decide whether it's worth bothering to counterspell them, and then you decide what level of spell slot you want to use to do it, and then if the level you chose wasn't high enough, you roll to see if it succeeds. It's a simpler process than it used to be, but it's still a process.

Spellcraft no longer exists because it is no longer needed. They weren't rolled together, except in some players' minds.
Counterspelling is no longer a process.

Previous counterspell process:
- Roll Spellcraft to determine spell being cast
- If successful, you learn the spell (or school and level). If unsuccessful, you learn nothing.
- If successful and you learned the spell (or school and level), you cast a spell of equal or higher level from the same school.

Now Counterspell looks like this:
- You cast Counterspell.

That's not a process, that's a choice. Multiple steps is a process. One step is not a process. One step is a choice. There is no more process involved than there is in deciding what you want to eat for lunch. You just decide.

[Beleriphon]

honestly, i see no reason to get upset about the player asking to use their skill. when they want to hide, do they have to wait for the DM to tell them that it's stealth? saying no to most of these requests, sure. but it's silly to complain about who is asking about the skill check.

I agree, but I think one needs to ask the questions and include what the result they're looking to get from a skill check. Just asking to roll Knowledge:Arcana on a sword isn't helpful, asking to roll Knowledge: Arcana to determine if the sword is magical is at least giving the DM something to work with.

[mephnick]

I allow arcana to identify spells being cast like the old spellcraft because I think it enhances the game. I'm not sure why you wouldn't do this.

But then again I make heavy use of the knowledge skills compared to others, so I like to make them attractive.

[Once a Fool]

First of all, in games that I run, players don't tell me what ability+skill check they're going to roll. Rather, they tell me what they are trying to do and I tell them what check, if any, to roll (as per the default RAW for this edition, incidentally).

If they're trying to figure something out, that's Intelligence. If they are skilled in arcana and what they are trying to figure out has anything to do with magic, they may add their proficiency bonus.

All this, assuming, of course, that I don't just tell them that a trained character automatically succeeds (which is how I often treat "knowledge" checks, for instance).

[ProphetSword]

First of all, in games that I run, players don't tell me what ability+skill check they're going to roll. Rather, they tell me what they are trying to do and I tell them what check, if any, to roll (as per the default RAW for this edition, incidentally).

If they're trying to figure something out, that's Intelligence. If they are skilled in arcana and what they are trying to figure out has anything to do with magic, they may add their proficiency bonus.

All this, assuming, of course, that I don't just tell them that a trained character automatically succeeds (which is how I often treat "knowledge" checks, for instance).

That's the same point I made on the last page. And I agree with you. Sometimes a roll isn't even necessary. What is necessary is breaking players of the idea that they need to roll for everything in the first place.

The general rule is that the DM only calls for a roll if the outcome is in doubt. So, that's a good guideline.

[Once a Fool]

That's the same point I made on the last page.

It was such an important point it was worth repeating. :)


And I agree with you. Sometimes a roll isn't even necessary. What is necessary is breaking players of the idea that they need to roll for everything in the first place.

One thing I do if I have a player who is in the habit of stating what skill they're using and automatically rolling is to interrupt them and ask exactly what they are attempting and how. After (and if) I then assign a check to the task, they can roll or re-roll as appropriate.

I feel it is important to disrupt the flow when old habits conflict with the play-style that you're trying to foster. I might have to do this every session (we play infrequently), but generally only once or twice in a session.

[SharkForce]

ok, so maybe i'm just being stupid here, but i have to ask:

why the hell do you even care if the player is asking to make an arcana (intelligence) check to know about whether the sword is magic, or if the player is just asking to know about whether the sword is magic?

if they don't need to roll, then oh well, no big deal. they rolled a die. it's not like the die needs to be destroyed now because they used it at the wrong time or something. if they needed to roll a different check for some reason (though the vast majority of the time, it will use the expected check), then so what. they still needed to roll, there's a die roll that already happened, just use that one with the new check.

it really isn't a big deal. this isn't a habit that needs to be broken, from my perspective. it doesn't disrupt the game to expect that your stealth skill will be based on dex and needs to be rolled because the DM shouldn't be telling you whether there is a person to hide from or not. it doesn't disrupt the game to expect that grappling a target is an athletics check. and it doesn't disrupt the game to expect that you roll arcana(int) to see if there is any arcana-related knowledge to gain from the situation.

they should clearly say what they're hoping to accomplish in advance, yes. but who cares if they roll the die before you give them permission. are you DMing for kindergarten-age children that you don't believe can handle the responsibility of rolling a die without adult supervision or something?

[ProphetSword]

why the hell do you even care if the player is asking to make an arcana (intelligence) check to know about whether the sword is magic, or if the player is just asking to know about whether the sword is magic?


Because the example given in the original message is counter to how the game is meant to be played. A player saying "I will roll my Arcana to see if this sword is magical" goes against a DM who determines that the player shouldn't need a roll and will succeed automatically, has no chance to know anything and will fail automatically or who even might have felt another skill, like "Investigation" is the skill that should be used.

I won't tell people how to play at their tables, but in the example given in the original message, one way to put an end to a player who is trying to use Arcana for everything is to politely tell them that the DM will tell them when the roll is appropriate and when they should roll it.

[ChubbyRain]

Because the example given in the original message is counter to how the game is meant to be played. A player saying "I will roll my Arcana to see if this sword is magical" goes against a DM who determines that the player shouldn't need a roll and will succeed automatically, has no chance to know anything and will fail automatically or who even might have felt another skill, like "Investigation" is the skill that should be used.

I won't tell people how to play at their tables, but in the example given in the original message, one way to put an end to a player who is trying to use Arcana for everything is to politely tell them that the DM will tell them when the roll is appropriate and when they should roll it.

Just because you don't play it that way doesn't mean others are doing it wrong.

In the situation above all the DM has to do, if it was an auto success, is not tell the player the roll wasn't needed and just go with it.

The player, if they rolled bad or moderately will have a moment if suspense. If the player roll well or a 20 they will have a moment of celebration.

Those two things are never bad in a game.

*Edit
If the player needed a different skill, then an Arcana check would fail, thus allowing the same thing to happen but can open up others using the skill... "as you watch your party member study with arcana, anyone with passive investigation of 12 or higher, you notice something... Give me an Investigation check.
*end of edit

You may not be telling people how to play at their table but you sure are using "bad wrong fun" as an argument.

[pwykersotz]

ok, so maybe i'm just being stupid here, but i have to ask:

why the hell do you even care if the player is asking to make an arcana (intelligence) check to know about whether the sword is magic, or if the player is just asking to know about whether the sword is magic?

if they don't need to roll, then oh well, no big deal. they rolled a die. it's not like the die needs to be destroyed now because they used it at the wrong time or something. if they needed to roll a different check for some reason (though the vast majority of the time, it will use the expected check), then so what. they still needed to roll, there's a die roll that already happened, just use that one with the new check.

it really isn't a big deal. this isn't a habit that needs to be broken, from my perspective. it doesn't disrupt the game to expect that your stealth skill will be based on dex and needs to be rolled because the DM shouldn't be telling you whether there is a person to hide from or not. it doesn't disrupt the game to expect that grappling a target is an athletics check. and it doesn't disrupt the game to expect that you roll arcana(int) to see if there is any arcana-related knowledge to gain from the situation.

they should clearly say what they're hoping to accomplish in advance, yes. but who cares if they roll the die before you give them permission. are you DMing for kindergarten-age children that you don't believe can handle the responsibility of rolling a die without adult supervision or something?

It drastically alters the flow of the game, give it a try. It becomes apparent fairly quickly how it affects immersion for the group to limit metagame references. Its not something for a DM to be a jerk about like you seem to assume, my players like doing it but we all forget sometimes and need to be reminded.

[SharkForce]

It drastically alters the flow of the game, give it a try. It becomes apparent fairly quickly how it affects immersion for the group to limit metagame references. Its not something for a DM to be a jerk about like you seem to assume, my players like doing it but we all forget sometimes and need to be reminded.

either the DM or the player is going to need to use the words "arcana check" or some variation thereof to tell you whether an arcana check is required. i fail to see why it is a terrible disaster that the player rather than the DM should be the one to say them.

[pwykersotz]

either the DM or the player is going to need to use the words "arcana check" or some variation thereof to tell you whether an arcana check is required. i fail to see why it is a terrible disaster that the player rather than the DM should be the one to say them.

Its not a terrible disaster, no need to exaggerate. Its a play style, nothing more or less. Like I said, give it a try sometime. It can be fun.

[ProphetSword]

Just because you don't play it that way doesn't mean others are doing it wrong.

According to the rules, they are.

Player's Handbook, Page 174:
The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented bya Difficulty Class.


Can a player suggest a skill or attribute? Sure. The same page covers that:
Sometimes, the DM might ask for an ability check using a specific skill-for example, "Make a Wisdom (Perception) check." At other times, a player might ask the DM if proficiency in a particular skill applies to a check.

The emphasis in 5e is that the DM makes the call when dice are rolled. That's all I'm saying. Some people just don't realize it due to habits that have been carried over from previous versions of the game.



You may not be telling people how to play at their table but you sure are using "bad wrong fun" as an argument.

Hardly. I am giving a solution to the issue presented in the original message about the Arcana skill check, which was this:
"our warlock uses it mercilessly whenever he wants to know something"
To which one of the solutions is to not allow the player to mercilessly decide when to make the roll.

Again, I don't care how people play. If they have a playstyle that works for them, good. I hope they're having fun. I'm just telling you what the rules say and how it's supposed to work. Feel free to change it all you want, but then you end up with situations like the one posted in the original message.

[SharkForce]

oh no, not a player rolling dice while playing an RPG!!! whatever shall we do!

seriously, who cares. let him roll dice. if there's nothing to learn, tell him he learns nothing. if he didn't need the dice, then it isn't a big deal. the problem is not him rolling dice. it isn't even with him asking the DM if he can make skill checks.

you *could* fix that problem by throwing a hissy fit every time he rolls dice without your explicit permission. but then again, you *could* fix the problem that your clothes are dirty by throwing out your old clothes and buying new ones instead of doing your laundry. just because something solves a problem doesn't make it a *good* solution.

in this case, the problem appears to be that the player either doesn't know what their skill does (solve by education - if i had to guess, i'd say the player might have played 4e when arcana basically was the detect magic spell on top of everything else it did) or is trying to push the DM around (solve by discussing with the player) or doesn't understand that their behaviour is disruptive (again, solve by discussing with the player). in none of these cases is it likely that the best solution is to punish the player for saying how their character is trying to use their skills. in fact, i'd say it's incredibly unlikely for it to be even a good solution at all.

[Once a Fool]

ok, so maybe i'm just being stupid here, but i have to ask:

why the hell do you even care if the player is asking to make an arcana (intelligence) check to know about whether the sword is magic, or if the player is just asking to know about whether the sword is magic?

if they don't need to roll, then oh well, no big deal. they rolled a die. it's not like the die needs to be destroyed now because they used it at the wrong time or something. if they needed to roll a different check for some reason (though the vast majority of the time, it will use the expected check), then so what. they still needed to roll, there's a die roll that already happened, just use that one with the new check.

it really isn't a big deal. this isn't a habit that needs to be broken, from my perspective. it doesn't disrupt the game to expect that your stealth skill will be based on dex and needs to be rolled because the DM shouldn't be telling you whether there is a person to hide from or not. it doesn't disrupt the game to expect that grappling a target is an athletics check. and it doesn't disrupt the game to expect that you roll arcana(int) to see if there is any arcana-related knowledge to gain from the situation.

they should clearly say what they're hoping to accomplish in advance, yes. but who cares if they roll the die before you give them permission. are you DMing for kindergarten-age children that you don't believe can handle the responsibility of rolling a die without adult supervision or something?

It's an immersion thing. The first way (as presented by the OP) assumes a world whose fiction is determined by the rules. The second (presented in RAW as the default) assumes that narrative determines the fiction of the world and that the rules only step in when the results of the narrative is otherwise uncertain.

In other words, it's a matter of running a world with rules meant to help describe it, rather than define it. It's not the only right way; it's just one right way. Maybe it's just an old-school thing.

[pwykersotz]

oh no, not a player rolling dice while playing an RPG!!! whatever shall we do!

seriously, who cares. let him roll dice. if there's nothing to learn, tell him he learns nothing. if he didn't need the dice, then it isn't a big deal. the problem is not him rolling dice. it isn't even with him asking the DM if he can make skill checks.

you *could* fix that problem by throwing a hissy fit every time he rolls dice without your explicit permission. but then again, you *could* fix the problem that your clothes are dirty by throwing out your old clothes and buying new ones instead of doing your laundry. just because something solves a problem doesn't make it a *good* solution.

in this case, the problem appears to be that the player either doesn't know what their skill does (solve by education - if i had to guess, i'd say the player might have played 4e when arcana basically was the detect magic spell on top of everything else it did) or is trying to push the DM around (solve by discussing with the player) or doesn't understand that their behaviour is disruptive (again, solve by discussing with the player). in none of these cases is it likely that the best solution is to punish the player for saying how their character is trying to use their skills. in fact, i'd say it's incredibly unlikely for it to be even a good solution at all.

Edit: Removed, that wasn't productive. But your arguments aren't based on what is being said, your interpreting this in a way that's completely off base.