What information can you really get from Knowledge skills or Spellcraft?

[Mars Ultor]

The 3.5 PHB says that if you want to recall information about a monster, the DC is 10 + the creature's Hit Dice. Can a 1st-level Cleric, who doesn't have Knowledge: Local, try to identify a goblin? Knowledge is a trained only skill.

If he can try to identify a goblin, I'm assuming he doesn't need a roll to know basic stuff. Their general appearance, they're sneaky, they're cowardly. But he wants to know if they travel in groups or if they have any special abilities or weaknesses. The book says for every five points by which he's exceeded his roll (in this case, eleven), he can get one more bit of information. He has zero points in Knowledge: Local and a +2 Intelligence modifier. He rolls a twenty, his total is twenty-two. Now he knows they usually show up in groups of 5-9, or war bands up to 100; that sometimes they ride worgs; and that Will-save spells are effective against them. That's essentially all there is to know about goblins.

What if the Cleric wanted to know if they were susceptible to Will-save spells? If he'd only rolled a twelve, would he be able to choose which information he got, or does the DM just tell him "You only know they often travel in groups under ten"?


Now, Spellcraft. You're a 3rd-level Wizard who wants to recall information about a spell. I'm not asking about combat situations where you're trying to identify or counter a spell, the Fighter is just asking a question. If you're a 3rd-level Wizard and you find a book with an unknown spell, and for some reason you don't use Read Magic, you'd need 20 + spell level to know what the spell is and what it does, twenty-two. If you decided to learn Fog Cloud, it's 15 + spell level to learn the spell and copy it over, seventeen. If you use Read Magic or someone you know has a copy of the spell, they just tell you about it and you need that seventeen to learn to cast it.

But if you're a 3rd-level Wizard who doesn't cast Fog Cloud and you're just trying to remember what you learned in Wizard's College about the spell, you need a twenty-seven? It's more difficult to recall what a spell does than to decipher unknown magical writings? This 3rd-level Wizard who's maxed out Spellcraft gets a +10 to his roll, he only has a twenty-percent chance to know the details?

He rolls twelve and knows that it's medium range? Or a seventeen, now he know that it's medium range and has a 20' radius? He's got to get twenty-two or higher to know that it cancels out regular sight and Darkvision beyond a few feet? It's twenty-seven to know it's going to last a half-hour, minimum. The Fighter asks how Fog Cloud works and the Wizard's total is fourteen. He says he thinks it's medium range, a hundred feet give or take, that's it? That's the only thing he knows?

What about Clerics? They don't have to learn spells. That 3rd-level Cleric knows the complete details of every 2nd-level spell? He's not going to pray for Aid if he's under the general impression it's helpful, but he doesn't know the details. Does his god just give him complete knowledge of all the available spells, he doesn't even need Spellcraft?


Finally, what about a Dwarf Fighter who just wants to be prepared. He's trying to remember what he's heard about Fog Cloud. It's trained only, he knows nothing? If he gets a roll, his total is twelve. He knows it's really dark in the cloud and that's it?

[Crake]

I think you've got some of your numbers wrong, but needless to say, for spellcraft, think of it much like programming. Two programmers can write the same piece of software in different ways, hence why you need to roll a spellcraft check to decipher magical writing (aka, deciphering code). Likewise, watching someone cast a spell is like watching a program be executed in real time, you can see the components and how they interact, the functions being executed etc etc. But when a spell has already been cast, all you can see is the effect, which is like trying to understand a program while only being able to see it's user interface, and trying to reverse engineer it.

Take the fog cloud example. When you see the result of the fog cloud, you can, without any special check, recognize it as magical fog, since it's contained within a specific area, not spreading out any further etc etc. But, if you have spellcraft, you can maybe tell if it's an obscuring mist, or perhaps a fog cloud or maybe even an acid cloud or cloudkill. That of course, isn't necessarily so easy if all you're able to see is the fog itself, but on the other hand, if you were watching someone cast the spell, and they did the magical gesture for poison, it'd be easier to determine that the fog was in fact cloudkill for example. When you realise that many spells can actually look very similar, it becomes clear why identifying a spell just on it's visual effect can be difficult. Even fireball could be mistaken for delayed blast fireball, or simply an energy substitutioned coldball or something.

The DC27 you described was wrong by the way, DC25+ spell level is for identifying a spell that you just passed a save on, identifying based on the visual effect of the spell is 20+spell level.

[Mars Ultor]

(Lots of words.)

I appreciate your response, but you completely misunderstood the question. I'm not asking about spells while they're being cast, after they're cast, or their lingering effects. I'm asking what a person who is just sitting around can know about a spell. How do you determine how much a Wizard who hasn't learned (not memorized, learned) a spell actually knows about a spell?

[doctor doughnut]

The game rules assume a character knows nothing...or at least there IS no rule that says ''what" a character knows, might know or should know.

You can ''say" a character should know X, but the rules NEVER say that.

By the rules, there are only set ways for a character to learn and know anything: a skill check, ability or spell/magic ability.

There is some wiggle room with Knowledge local lore: the DM CAN make DCs super low so ''everyone knows something". What does a goblin look like DC 2, for example.

All spellcasters know nothing about spells or magic, unless the make a check or use magic. Spellcraft never gives you ANY information about a spell: you can only ''Identify" a spell. Yup: that is a fireball. That is IT.

Even knowledge does not allow a character to know anything about a spell. ''Spell" is not even listed.

[Eladrinblade]

If you have no ranks in a knowledge skill, you can't get a result higher than 10, no matter what you roll.

[Jack_Simth]

Per the Knowledge Skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm): "An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower)."
DC 11? Sorry, you don't know anything about it without study. Except maybe rumors, but... well, those are often wrong. Spellcraft doesn't even have the "common knowledge" clause. You can probably tell that fog cloud isn't behaving like normal fog, and it's "easy", generally, to recognize that someone is casting a spell (otherwise, no AoO could be possible), but if that's Obscurring Mist, Fog Cloud, Solid Fog, Acid Fog, Freezing Fog? You got no clue without ranks.

Ignoring that, though: This is one of those "Your mileage may vary" things. Occasionally you'll run across a critter that has a Knowledge DC table, with things in each of the DC zones... but in general, the DM is going to be winging it. A 'nice' DM will prioritize what your character would reasonably prioritize - e.g., a fire-themed Sorcerer will want to know, first and foremost, about elemental resistances and vulnerabilities, to know whether or not opening with a Scorching Ray is worth the action, and the DM will make that the first bit of useful info, and/or ask you for a list of questions, have you roll your check, and answer questions starting at the top and working his way down until you run out of answers. A 'mean' DM will give you information that's useful... to somebody else. E.g., in the middle of a fight with a troll, you get information about it's skill ranks first. A 'Neutral' DM will be generally be effectively random. An 'overworked' DM will say what amounts to "Yeah, you're familiar with these. It's an X. You can go look up the MM entry."

[Mordaedil]

Spellcraft is normally rolled for determining if you can tell what a spell is being cast in the moment based on the casters gestures and words spoken, so that means your character that is trained in spellcraft knows all of the spells on their spelllist, some knowledge outside of their spelllist but no exact details and spellcraft is checks are reserved for determining it in the moment for purposes of countering it or shouting an accurate warning.

Alternatively, a DM can call for a knowledge Arcana check for if you know spells that aren't in your spellbook yet.

It is kind of down to how your DM calls it.

[Psyren]

What if the Cleric wanted to know if they were susceptible to Will-save spells? If he'd only rolled a twelve, would he be able to choose which information he got, or does the DM just tell him "You only know they often travel in groups under ten"?

The player's best bet would be to tell the GM what he's after (e.g. weaknesses or spellcasting ability) before the roll. The specific rule is that each success threshold recalls "a bit of useful information," so the onus is largely on the player to specify what they would consider to be useful. Note that the GM can use this too - if the player rolls well but doesn't know the right question to ask and a specific fact might be useful (e.g. the monster has regeneration that is bypassed by silver weapons) the GM has the discretion to reward the good roll.



All spellcasters know nothing about spells or magic, unless the make a check or use magic. Spellcraft never gives you ANY information about a spell: you can only ''Identify" a spell. Yup: that is a fireball. That is IT.

Is it? I would say identifying a fireball gives you everything in the fireball entry; i.e. you know it's a fireball, and therefore that it's a 20ft. radius spread of fire damage with a reflex for half. So if for example you had an immediate action available to throw up some kind of defense for the party but you had to leave one party member outside of that defense, a logical choice to exclude would be the monk or the rogue, who have the best chance of avoiding that damage on their own. Or you might recognize that the party is protected from fire damage and choose to do nothing. So I'd say only getting the spell's name isn't quite accurate.

[doctor doughnut]

Is it? I would say identifying a fireball gives you everything in the fireball entry; i.e. you know it's a fireball, and therefore that it's a 20ft. radius spread of fire damage with a reflex for half. So if for example you had an immediate action available to throw up some kind of defense for the party but you had to leave one party member outside of that defense, a logical choice to exclude would be the monk or the rogue, who have the best chance of avoiding that damage on their own. Or you might recognize that the party is protected from fire damage and choose to do nothing. So I'd say only getting the spell's name isn't quite accurate.

Your free to use this houserule, of course. It's not what the rules say....maybe it is what they ment to put in the rules, but did not.

You identify the spell: some simple enough that you know what the spell is. To say ''identifying" is ''knowing a ton about the spell" seems like a leap. Worse, it has no limit: how much does the spellcaster ''ideantify"? Everything? Just that Players Handbook paragraph description? Gee...even your example is the character rolling to get meta game rule knowladge of things like reflex saves and how they work.

[Psyren]

Your free to use this houserule, of course.

No no no, none of that, back up. Show me the RAW for what "identifying a spell" actually means and we'll talk. Where does it say you get the spell's name and nothing else about it?

[doctor doughnut]

No no no, none of that, back up. Show me the RAW for what "identifying a spell" actually means and we'll talk. Where does it say you get the spell's name and nothing else about it?

Well, that is my point. The rules just say the spell is identified. That is it.

I say 'identifying' does not give all that much: if it did, the rules would say so.

You say 'identifying' is knowing, well whatever you want on a whim. I guess. The 'raw' rules don't say that, but that does not matter right?

[Boci]

Well, that is my point. The rules just say the spell is identified. That is it.

I say 'identifying' does not give all that much: if it did, the rules would say so.

You say 'identifying' is knowing, well whatever you want on a whim. I guess. The 'raw' rules don't say that, but that does not matter right?

But then how can you discover fireball has a 20ft radius? If a spellcraft just tells you "its fireball", is there no way for a character to know the radius short of casting it themselves (or watching someone else) and measuring?

[Jack_Simth]

Well, that is my point. The rules just say the spell is identified. That is it.

I say 'identifying' does not give all that much: if it did, the rules would say so.

How do you come to that conclusion? On what basis do you make the claim that the name of the spell is all that's provided? There's a lot of things the rules simply don't cover, or only briefly touch upon. What "identify a spell" actually means is never defined (to the best of my knowledge: Feel free to quote relevant rules text if you know a spot where it actually says more) in the same sense that it never defines what's meant by splicing a rope: The devs didn't want to define everything (and couldn't - there's only so much paper, and only so many man-hours they can spend on the project... and even if they tried, they'd still miss stuff, and even if they didn't, it'd produce something too long to read). So they assumed certain things either wouldn't matter, or that folks would be sufficiently familiar with them to know what they meant, or that the DM would simply make a call and move on.

However: We don't actually know what the dev's intended! We know what we think is meant by it... but different folks will have different ideas. Just because one idea doesn't match yours doesn't necessarily make it wrong. As a result, you might be correct, and that might be what's intended... or it might be that identifying the spell is license to look it up.

[Psyren]

You say 'identifying' is knowing, well whatever you want on a whim. I guess. The 'raw' rules don't say that, but that does not matter right?

So when you "identify" a magic item, all you get is its name? How about a creature? Do you have a RAW definition for the word "identify" in D&D?

[Duke of Urrel]

What Knowledge skill does is strongly milieu-dependent, so it really depends on your dungeon master's view of the fantasy world that your PC lives and moves in.

What Spellcraft skill does is a little easier to nail down, but it still depends on what your dungeon master thinks the word "identify" means, as Psyren has pointed out. When I am the dungeon master, I use the following guidelines as house rules.

When you successfully identify a spell by Spellcraft, I allow you to know only two things: (1) the spell’s name and (2) what it does when it is cast. I don’t allow you to know anything else about the spell except under one of two conditions:

1. You can cast the spell yourself.

2. You make a Knowledge check at DC 15 plus the spell’s level. The field of Knowledge is Arcana for an arcane spell or Religion for a divine spell.

[Bavarian itP]

what it does when it is cast

The rules text for a spell IS what the spell does when it is cast. Any distinction is completely arbitrary.

But thanks for sharing your houserules.

[doctor doughnut]

But then how can you discover fireball has a 20ft radius? If a spellcraft just tells you "its fireball", is there no way for a character to know the radius short of casting it themselves (or watching someone else) and measuring?

Well, I agree the rules breakdown here and there is no rules answer.


So when you "identify" a magic item, all you get is its name? How about a creature? Do you have a RAW definition for the word "identify" in D&D?

Think we established there is no raw meat rule. You are free to say ''identification means the character knows everything" in your game. It's a fine house rule.

Creatures ARE right in the rules: A successful check allows the character a bit of useful information about that creature. And the last 3.5E stuff, like MM5 even have the Offical Here is Exactly What the Character Knows too.

I guess you could use the creature rule for spells: 'a bit of information'.

[Duke of Urrel]

The rules text for a spell IS what the spell does when it is cast. Any distinction is completely arbitrary.

This isn't entirely true.

For example, some spells cannot be dispelled by means of the Dispel Magic spell but can be deactivated by other, special means. This is not included in "what a spell does when it is cast." I don't allow you to know this fact about a spell unless (1) you can cast the spell yourself or (2) you make an appropriate Knowledge check (Arcana for an arcane spell or Religion for a divine spell).

How to cast a spell is also not included in "what a spell does when it is cast."

[Psyren]

Think we established there is no raw meat rule.

So then everything about spell identification is a houserule, making the term meaningless?

[Torpin]

The 3.5 PHB says that if you want to recall information about a monster, the DC is 10 + the creature's Hit Dice. Can a 1st-level Cleric, who doesn't have Knowledge: Local, try to identify a goblin? Knowledge is a trained only skill.



yes but it wouldnt be Dc 11 since a random local goblin isnt common knowledge, would probably be closer to a 25. knowing about a monster means mechanical information

[Bobur]

A similar thing comes up on the other side of the spectrum.
One of my players is a Lv18 wiz who put most of his points into the knw skills, so he can easily get checks between 20-40 some even higher.

At that point, you don't even have to make him roll for most stuff, but it becomes more of a question what he would know on certain topics based on his time in the university (or however he studied)

Sure you can know the history of the ogre city, maybe not the most recent things. You can know the general population, the name of the king...

And I think it is similar on the lower levels. You just have to figure out for yourself and depending on your world or area what is common knowledge.
Has your character grown up in a goblin plagued village? That way he could still know some details that he shouldn't know without study.