Spellcraft interpretation.

[Invader]

We were discussing spellcraft checks.


From the SRD

15 + spell level Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.

I read that as if the spell has both a verbal and somatic component you must be able to see and hear both components to be able to make the check.

One of my players thinks it's just one or the other if it has two components.

How do you interpret it?

[KillianHawkeye]

It says "or," not "and." I would let it be either one if both exist.

[erok0809]

It says "or," not "and," so you should only need one or the other.

Also, what makes the verbal component of a spell that has a somatic component different from one that does not? Why do you need both if it has both, but just the verbal is enough if verbal is all there is? For example, if you can identify Dimension Door just from the sounds, why couldn't you identify Fly just from the sounds?

[Invader]

Fair enough

[Darth Ultron]

I read it as you must see and hear both components.

This is a classic "rules as intended ". Sure they might have ment you only need to see/hear one component, but it makes more sense to need to hear both.

[erok0809]

I read it as you must see and hear both components.

This is a classic "rules as intended ". Sure they might have ment you only need to see/hear one component, but it makes more sense to need to hear both.

But what makes a spell with just a verbal component different from a spell with both components for this? Why is just verbal enough to identify one spell, but not the other one?

[Darth Ultron]

But what makes a spell with just a verbal component different from a spell with both components for this? Why is just verbal enough to identify one spell, but not the other one?

Simple, you must see both the verbal and somatic components of a spell, if the spell has both. If a spell has both, and you only see/hear one, you can't identify the spell.

[Ruethgar]

The "or" in the text seems to make it pretty clear to mean one or the other. Also, given the example of a V&S component spell gets Silent slapped on it. The spell level hasn't changed so it is still just as easy to identify with only half the information normally available(or by the other reading required) for identifying the spell.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There are two ways I can see to parse the sentence;

You must hear the verbal component of the spell or you must see the somatic component of the spell, whichever the spell has.

You must hear the verbal component of the spell or you must see the somatic component of the spell, regardless of whether the spell has both.

I can see solid arguments for both interpretations;

On the one hand, you can make a spellcraft check to identify a spell that's no longer in effect based on its lingering aura or what the target's remains look like. This suggests that you don't need the whole of the spell to identify it.

On the other hand, the nature of spellbooks and the difference between an arcane and divine casting, scribing, or scroll of the same spell suggests that no two casters cast a given spell quite the same way, such that getting only half of its construction from observation of the caster structuring it as he casts may not be enough information to identify the half-formed spell.

Ultimately, there's no clear answer here at least not without both examining the grammatic structure of the sentence and comparing that to the formal rules of grammar. From a perspective of game design, this is such a very minor matter that ruling in either direction will have almost no real impact on game balance. Which brings me to the criteria I'd base this decision on; the narrative effect. From a narrativve perspective, allowing the more lenient interpretation (either is enough on a spell with both) opens up a broader avenue to feed information to the players; a PC could overhear a spell being cast and glean more useful information than simply that a spell has been cast when he cannot see the caster. Likewise, seeing a caster through a plate glass window as he's gesticulating could tell you that he's casting a spell and which one rather than simply not knowing one way or the other when the spell has no obvious visual aspect.

Whenever there's a vagary like this, I rule in favor of whichever option is the more balanced interpretation and then, if balance will be impacted minimally if at all, in favor of whichever opens more narrative options. This being the case, I say go with either observation being sufficient rather than requiring both.

[Xuldarinar]

If only they did something to this to account for both situations, such as something along the lines ;


DC 15 + Spell level +x for every component the spell has that the character does not perceive. Must be able to either hear or see the spell's components to perform a check.



Lets say someone casts delayed blast fireball. If you saw the somatic, heard the verbal, and saw the material components being used, then you can figure it out relatively easily. If you saw it but didn't hear it, maybe you can still work out what was being cast. If you heard the words, but didn't see the gestures made to cast the spell, again you may be able to work out what the spell was. You might know that delayed blast fireball requires certain gestures, certain words, and certain material components.

I view it as follows; Watch a cooking show without any idea going in what they are making, or anyone on the show stating what is being made till the end. The more information you have, from the tools they are using to the ingredients, the easier the task would be. Sometimes, you don't have enough information to figure it out, or they are making something you are completely unfamiliar with. Missing information should be more difficult to determine, but it doesn't.


That having been said, the RaW is you need to either hear the verbal, or see the somatic. Because every spell evidently has a unique set of words if it has verbal components, and a unique set of hand gestures if it has somatic components.

[Florian]

I read it as you must see and hear both components.

This is a classic "rules as intended ". Sure they might have ment you only need to see/hear one component, but it makes more sense to need to hear both.

That would actually break down when you use the rules for detection ranges.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I read it as you must see and hear both components.

This is a classic "rules as intended ". Sure they might have ment you only need to see/hear one component, but it makes more sense to need to hear both.

[needless pedantry]

How does one hear a somatic component?

[/needless pedantry]

[Deophaun]

I read it as you must see and hear both components.

This is a classic "rules as intended ". Sure they might have ment you only need to see/hear one component, but it makes more sense to need to hear both.
How do you know it's rules as intended? Seems to me the intent was "You need some logical way to detect the spell being cast" as opposed to "You need to know all the things." Throw in that there is no penalty associated with only detecting one of the two (which, with their design philosophy, there likely would be if that's how it worked), and I'd wager RAI wasn't on your side. There are just too many dogs that aren't barking.

[KillianHawkeye]

There are just too many dogs that aren't barking.

This is my new favorite figure of speech. :smallamused:

[Frosty]

My houserule: The spellcraft DC goes up by 5 if you can't hear it (like if you're deafened or the spell is cast with the Silent metamagic), and goes up by 10 if you can't see the somatic component (you're blind, or the spell is cast with the Still metamagic). A Still+Silent spell imposes both penalties, for a total of +15.

[Kelb_Panthera]

My houserule: The spellcraft DC goes up by 5 if you can't hear it (like if you're deafened or the spell is cast with the Silent metamagic), and goes up by 10 if you can't see the somatic component (you're blind, or the spell is cast with the Still metamagic). A Still+Silent spell imposes both penalties, for a total of +15.

If you can neither see nor hear the spell being cast, how do you know a spell is being cast to identify?

[Necroticplague]

If you can neither see nor hear the spell being cast, how do you know a spell is being cast to identify?
Well, spells without components still provoke AoOs. So presumably there's still something there that tells you they're casting.


We were discussing spellcraft checks.


From the SRD

15 + spell level Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.

I read that as if the spell has both a verbal and somatic component you must be able to see and hear both components to be able to make the check.

One of my players thinks it's just one or the other if it has two components.

How do you interpret it?
Your player is right.
p and q is true only is both p is true and q is true. However, p or q is true as long as at least one of the two is true.

[Âmesang]

Tome and Blood, p.19, says a spell can be scrutinized not only by its verbal or somatic component, but also by a material/focus component—each lack of a component adds +4 to the DC, so its example of a Stilled, Silent adds +4 to the "15 + spell level" identifying DC.

You can use Spellcraft to identify a spell even if the spell has no verbal, somatic, or material component—there's no mistaking the concentration magic requires. However, you still must be able to see or hear the spellcaster.
Granted, that seems to contradict itself, unless it's borrowing from the "identify a spell in place and in effect" option (20 + spell level). Perhaps even a Silent spell has some sort of "crackling hum" to it that the layman could confuse with atmospheric phenomena or some such thing, and if you can see the caster perhaps you need only see the look in his eyes…

[Darth Ultron]

How do you know it's rules as intended? Seems to me the intent was "You need some logical way to detect the spell being cast" as opposed to "You need to know all the things." Throw in that there is no penalty associated with only detecting one of the two (which, with their design philosophy, there likely would be if that's how it worked), and I'd wager RAI wasn't on your side. There are just too many dogs that aren't barking.

Well, I know the real RAI was just ''a lazy way for lazy players to identify spells, so they can ****erspellz at that is an awesome ability.''

But I more RAI is just saying you need to see and hear all components of a spell.

I know lots of people want to do the old Name That Tune thing of ''I can name that spell from just hearing 1/2 of the first syllable of the first word in the verbal component."

[Necroticplague]

But I more RAI is just saying you need to see and hear all components of a spell.
What makes you think this is true? I might see a possible argument if it's ambiguous or requires lots of loophole-jumping, but this case is very straightforward.


I know lots of people want to do the old Name That Tune thing of ''I can name that spell from just hearing 1/2 of the first syllable of the first word in the verbal component."

Well, what do you think the Spellcraft check is for? To see if you can, in fact, name that tune.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, I know the real RAI was just ''a lazy way for lazy players to identify spells, so they can ****erspellz at that is an awesome ability.''

But I more RAI is just saying you need to see and hear all components of a spell.

I know lots of people want to do the old Name That Tune thing of ''I can name that spell from just hearing 1/2 of the first syllable of the first word in the verbal component."

What's your problem with counterspelling?

If you don't invest at least one feat in it, you're almost never going to be able to counter a spell and even then you're trading one standard action and one spell of a higher level to block a single attack. The enemy still has his swift action for further attacks and his move action to maneuver or direct spells already in place. It's a fairly suboptimal choice of tactics unless you're trying to capture a low-op caster with minimal harm and/or trying to kill the enemy with minimal colateral damage.

[Darth Ultron]

What makes you think this is true? I might see a possible argument if it's ambiguous or requires lots of loophole-jumping, but this case is very straightforward.


It makes common sense to me that you must see/hear all components a spell has to identify it. I can't really explain common sense, you either have it or you don't.


What's your problem with counterspelling?



It's a horrible ability. And it's useless.

And it's made for the casual gamer...and worse the casual gamer that is just playing Core with a ''no homebrew/custom'' rule so that every single spellcaster in the whole multiverse uses the handful of lame spells found in Core.

[Optimator]

Well, what do you think the Spellcraft check is for? To see if you can, in fact, name that tune.
Exactly. Requiring one to hear both components to identify is pretty heavy-handed and not actually more realistic.

[Darth Ultron]

Exactly. Requiring one to hear both components to identify is pretty heavy-handed and not actually more realistic.

Well, sure it's ''realistic''...you know for a fictional make believe fantasy role playing game.

Well, the way I see it there are only so many ''magic words'' and so many movements a person can make. There is a limit. I think a lot of spells would have the movement of ''point at the target'', for example. But the idea that a character can just see a spellcaster pointing and automatically figure out what spell they are casting is dumb. It's like saying you can identify a song, without hearing it, by seeing someone play a single note on an instrument.

[Shnigda]

It makes common sense to me that you must see/hear all components a spell has to identify it. I can't really explain common sense, you either have it or you don't.

Clearly it isn't common sense as so many people disagree with you while making their points clear and concise. It may make sense to you that you need to see/hear all components, but without explaining it, you don't really have much to stand on... (That's just common sense :smallwink: )


(Also, the grammar nazi within me compels me to let you know that something cannot 'make common sense' to anyone... Something can, however, 'make sense' to someone or just 'be common sense'.http://static.peabodyawards.com/user_images/Nbc_the_more_you_know.jpg



It's like saying you can identify a song, without hearing it, by seeing someone play a single note on an instrument.

I would argue that some songs I know well I can identify by just the first note or two... Why couldn't a spellcaster do the same with spells when their whole livelihood and life depends upon these spells?

[Kelb_Panthera]

It makes common sense to me that you must see/hear all components a spell has to identify it. I can't really explain common sense, you either have it or you don't.

That's not common sense at all. I can easily identify shows I'm familiar with from the audio track alone, the same goes for identifying certain voice actors from images of the roles they voiced. You don't need to be able to observe every part of a thing to identify the thing unless it can only be observed by one sense.


It's a horrible ability. And it's useless.

It's a niche ability and it can be -very- powerful. A dedicated counterspell specialist can basically shutdown other casters and that's no mean feat. It's less efficient than simply blasting him to kingdom come or attacking an avenue of defense he neglected with a SoL. In fact, it's just about the only thing that -can- capture a T1 or T2 caster that's being run at high-op.


And it's made for the casual gamer...and worse the casual gamer that is just playing Core with a ''no homebrew/custom'' rule so that every single spellcaster in the whole multiverse uses the handful of lame spells found in Core.

There are too many spells in core to reliably stop with counterspelling unless you take improved counterspell and then it doesn't matter in the least if you're core only or all splats open since you're countering with spells one level higher from the same school. Unless you're countering with dispel magic and then you don't even need to know what you're counterspelling, just roll against the target DC.

As for casuals, they're unlikely to choose counterspelling as a tactic. It's all about stopping the other guy from doing something cool instead of doing something cool yourself. That said, even if it -was- designed as a tool for casual players, casuals aren't a bad thing. That sort of elitism kills hobbies.

Homebrew screwing up the system (regardless of intentions to the contrary) are a whole discussion of their own.