Can a monk understand casting?

[Lucadibeppo]

As a monk can understand any spoken language, would they be able to understand the meaning of the verbal components? Since their ki touches the minds of other beings, would a monk be able to know what spell is being cast?

[hymer]

As a monk can understand any spoken language, would they be able to understand the meaning of the verbal components? Since their ki touches the minds of other beings, would a monk be able to know what spell is being cast?

No. The DM can rule otherwise, but verbal components are not a language describing the spell you want to cast. They're 'mystic words' and their sound rather than their meaning is what is supposed to cause the effect. Look at PHB p. 203.

[RickAllison]

No. The DM can rule otherwise, but verbal components are not a language describing the spell you want to cast. They're 'mystic words' and their sound rather than their meaning is what is supposed to cause the effect. Look at PHB p. 203.

Indeed, the specific words act more as pneumonic devices to carry the right sequence of tones than anything.

Shamalamadingdong
Shah, mala, bring (a) bong (a title, prayer beads, request for a drug intake device)
S(he) ha(s) ma(de) l'a(light of, corrupted) ma(my) ding(dang) song(close enough)

All should do the exact the same thing, but all have different meanings.

[SillyPopeNachos]

Short answer: no. Slightly fleshed-out-answer: if they have taken the magic initiate/ritual caster feat(s), or at least one level in a caster class, or are trained in Arcana.

[Slipperychicken]

As a monk can understand any spoken language, would they be able to understand the meaning of the verbal components? Since their ki touches the minds of other beings, would a monk be able to know what spell is being cast?
That sounds reasonable to me. It's not like they can do much with that information anyway. I'd probably give it to him if he was both proficient in arcana and could hear the verbal components.

And just for clarity, I'd give non-monks an arcana roll to guess what spell someone is casting. DC probably 10+spell level, maybe at advantage if the character can cast the spell.

[ClintACK]

Indeed, the specific words act more as pneumonic devices to carry the right sequence of tones than anything.

I think you mean mnemonic devices.

But the idea of pneumonic devices to carry the right sequence of tones is gorgeously steampunk-computer-meets-pipe-organ with magical effects. I love it!

[Lucadibeppo]

I guess I was thinking a monk would be able to sense the intention of the words through ki since ki is a magical ability. Maybe upon hearing a spell for the second time they would be able to pick up what's being cast better than a non-caster, since the mind of the caster is set on the spell and the ki ability is a linking of the minds. Verbal components of the spell having no meaning never made sense to me, I've always liked the idea of mystical words having some arcane meaning that non casters wouldn't understand.
I do concede the point though and wouldn't challenge a DM on this.

[Maxilian]

IMHO they would understand the words (that actually have no meaning -like Marabura-), cause spells are more words to make certain sounds, so he will get the words (but have no idea what they are supposed to be), and i as DM, if the Monk have Arcana or Arcane Knowledge one way or the other, they could identify the spell -depending how big their knowledge is, the spell that is cast, and if needed the dices-

[RickAllison]

I think you mean mnemonic devices.

But the idea of pneumonic devices to carry the right sequence of tones is gorgeously steampunk-computer-meets-pipe-organ with magical effects. I love it!

This is what I get for staying up till 4 watching Gotham and Arrow...

Now if it is a Warforged, his mnemonic devices could be pneumonic as well :smallbiggrin:

[odigity]

The bottom line re RAW: The 5e core books do not define a) the nature of Verbal components b) whether different casters use the same Verbal components for the same spell c) whether (and under what circumstances) a creature can understand a Verbal component / identify a spell based on a Verbal component, regardless of what skills / features / abilities they have.

So, by RAW, there is no answer.

The bottom line re houserules: Most experienced DMs will recognize that letting Comprehend Languages (1st lvl ritual spell) behave as Identify Spell is unbalanced and unplanned for by the game designers intent.

PS - There are entire threads in this forum dedicated to exploring the notion of identifying what spell is being cast using various means and based on various arguments. It seems to be a fairly open-ended discussion that is interesting to consider but has achieved little consensus. I recommend seeking those threads out.

[Segev]

"Darkness beyond Twilight, crimson deeper than the blood that flows. Buried in the stream of time; let your power and mine unite to destroy those who oppose us!"

"You who are mindless, obey your oath of blood and come forth from the land of Abadon."

"Burning in the depths of darkness, let the fires of hell take you. Let the fires become my sword and strike you down!"

"Dark Morphius, draw your cloak upon this place."

"By pull of string and sturdy wood, wait upon my will."



The above are all (potential) verbal components for spells. Some may be recognized from fiction; at least one I made up myself. I am sure anybody reading this forum understood the language. Does that mean you can "understand" the spell?

[Fungi]

It makes sense to me mechanically that a monk couldn't identify a spell, but if verbal components are arbitrary I don't understand how anyone could identify a spell even if they were themselves casters? (maybe there's an obvious answer to this and I just don't know it)

[RickAllison]

It makes sense to me mechanically that a monk couldn't identify a spell, but if verbal components are arbitrary I don't understand how anyone could identify a spell even if they were themselves casters? (maybe there's an obvious answer to this and I just don't know it)

Especially when you consider that there are numerous casting traditions whose casting methods must be unique to that tradition (else why shouldn't a wizard be able to copy down the techniques of a bard like that of a wizard? And there are likely multiple ways within a tradition to do so, as every sorcerer is self-taught, many bards are self-taught, and wizards have at least two spells per level that are independently researched. Odds are good that at least some were different formulae.

[georgie_leech]

It makes sense to me mechanically that a monk couldn't identify a spell, but if verbal components are arbitrary I don't understand how anyone could identify a spell even if they were themselves casters? (maybe there's an obvious answer to this and I just don't know it)

Might be worth noting that there isn't a way to identify spells as they're being cast spelled out in the rules. DM's will frequently have something for that, up to and including it being automatic, but there isn't a RAW basis for that kind of knowledge.