[Opinions welcome] Spellcraft to identify spells. What are you looking at?

[Ringadon]

My Pathfinder group got into the weeds the other day with a discussion as to what you're using to identify spells via spellcraft. It was pointed out that neither silent spell nor still spell had any effect on the DC of spellcraft to identify a spell being cast which begged the question. What is it that you identify a spell with?

One also amuses that verbal components would be either nonsense sylables or in a native language. So I'm opening this up for debate.

What are the cues that you are picking up on to identify a spell?

Edit: Should be pointed out that we eventually settled on "magic" and dropped the question. Now I'm just curious as to other's Headcanons. Not asking for an arguement.

[Efrate]

Cadence? Magic has its own language, or rather is its own language, or perhaps it IS the one true language. True namers kind of support this. When wizards write in their spellbooks its spells in their own personal magic language, but read magic translates it so anyone can read and use it so the spell is the same at the base level, just everyone interprets it through their own lens. At some level that is recognized.

Maybe eveyone is essentially speaking a native language with differing degrees of an accent?

[Daefos]

My group got into the weeds the other day with a discussion as to what you're using to identify spells via spellcraft. It was pointed out that neither silent spell nor still spell had any effect on the DC of spellcraft to identify a spell being cast which begged the question. What is it that you identify a spell with?

One also amuses that verbal components would be either nonsense sylables or in a native language. So I'm opening this up for debate.

What are the cues that you are picking up on to identify a spell?

Edit: Should be pointed out that we eventually settled on "magic" and dropped the question. Now I'm just curious as to other's Headcanons. Not asking for an arguement.

No "headcanon" required.


Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm)

You do, in fact, need the components to identify the spell, so logically that's what you're using. A spell that lacks both simply can't be identified as it's being cast, though other uses of Spellcraft would allow you to identify it after the fact if it has a visual effect or forces you to make a saving throw, both at a higher DC.

[Ringadon]

I apologize I failed to tag the post correctly or mention in the first post, (will edit for clarity here)

But we're running Pathfinder which doesn't have that stipulation of components. Only that you must observe the spell being cast.

[Psyren]

What are the cues that you are picking up on to identify a spell?


The official answer in Pathfinder is that all spells have visual manifestations of some kind (https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748eaic9tza) when cast (e.g. the glowy rune circles or shapes you see around Seoni and Rivani's hands in the game's artwork.) This is why SLAs and Psychic Spellcasting can still be identified for example. To truly cast without detection you need to hide those too, not just the components, and that requires abilities (e.g. feats, skills, class features etc) that have a chance - however slim - of failure.

[ezekielraiden]

In a campaign I run--which is DW rather than 3rd/PF, but close enough--all people who have the ability to use magic also have one or more "magic senses." (Plural because there may be more than one such sense.) By having learned how to channel magical energies, you are sensitive to the motions and status of magic around you. It's sort of like having an ability to sense all electromagnetic phenomena in your general area--it's not vision or sound per se, but you can make an analogy to "seeing" the vector field of electromagnetism within a certain range, though that would probably be specifically the Wizard type of magic sense. Really strong magical effects can thus be sensed from quite a long way away, because their effect on the "thaumic field" extends a long way out from their origin point. Similarly, it's possible to design a magic item such that its "thaumic field" doesn't extend outside the body of the item, meaning that it appears mundane even though it isn't (the magical equivalent of a Faraday cage).

A Druid or Shaman might describe it instead as a wind or a current, while a Bard would probably use the kinds of descriptions often given to the different types of sound (tonal color, sound texture, etc.), and a Cleric or Paladin would probably associate it with more tactile sensations (pins and needles, smell of ozone or incense, etc.)

A Wizard, with the right training (this is a formerly lost art that the Wizard player has rediscovered), can actually "capture" a sort of "echo" of a spell or magical effect someone else has used. Paired with a tool that can store spells (which our Wizard has found), this allows him to learn new magic purely by seeing someone else perform it, though he has to roll to do so.

[Quertus]

Quertus reaches into a pouch, and pulls out a pinch of blue sand. He utters the words "ast tassarith simiralon krinawi" (it's been a few decades, that's probably not how it's spelled, just how it sounds in my head). What did the grognards use to identify that spell?

Quertus, OTOH, uses a huge array of sights to observe the magical energies directly. And has several other tricks beyond that, such that he wouldn't even have to roll in the first place.

But, as has already been covered, 3e & PF require you to observe something about the spell in order to make the check. Curiously, PF seems to be more poorly / ambiguously worded in this case.

[Mordaedil]

You do, in fact, need the components to identify the spell, so logically that's what you're using. A spell that lacks both simply can't be identified as it's being cast, though other uses of Spellcraft would allow you to identify it after the fact if it has a visual effect or forces you to make a saving throw, both at a higher DC.
Makes me wonder why it doesn't change the DC at least a little if one of them are affected. Or maybe identifying spells ought to be easier if both components are seen and heard.

Also, does this mean if you have silent spell, still spell and arcane thesis for say Charm Monster, you can charm anyone without being noticed? It'd be kind of a neat trick up ones sleeve.

[Daefos]

Also, does this mean if you have silent spell, still spell and arcane thesis for say Charm Monster, you can charm anyone without being noticed? It'd be kind of a neat trick up ones sleeve.

A Still Silent Charm Monster would still provoke attacks of opportunity, so it’s presumably clear to outside observers that you’re doing something, even if they aren’t sure what.

Personally, I’d allow it to work if you made the Concentration check to cast defensively (and therefore don’t seem punchably distracted), and then consistently made Bluff checks to pass off your remaining distraction as something harmless.

[Kurald Galain]

The spellcraft skill mentions that "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast". This suggests to me that it doesn't work if the spell lacks somatic components (or uses the Still Spell feat).

Otherwise, the answer is Octarine, clearly.

[Manyasone]

...Otherwise, the answer is Octarine, clearly.

Has been a while since i heard that particular term...
Sadness strikes again

[Psyren]

The spellcraft skill mentions that "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast". This suggests to me that it doesn't work if the spell lacks somatic components (or uses the Still Spell feat).

The thread is tagged Pathfinder though, so this isn't quite correct; there's something to see there even for a silent, somatic-less spell - this is why abilities like Cunning Caster or Conceal Spell are needed to truly hide what you're doing, and they are not foolproof. If you can hide the manifestation using an ability like this, then that clause comes into play.


Curiously, PF seems to be more poorly / ambiguously worded in this case.

The basic rule was, which is why they published a FAQ (see my previous post) clarifying how it works. It's undoubtedly a nerf for casters, but I would have thought that would be popular around here.

[Kurald Galain]

The thread is tagged Pathfinder though, so this isn't quite correct; there's something to see there even for a silent, somatic-less spell
Sure, there is enough to notice that you're casting something, but not enough to use spellcraft to identify what exactly. Which was the question.

[Psyren]

Sure, there is enough to notice that you're casting something, but not enough to use spellcraft to identify what exactly. Which was the question.

The FAQ I linked was specifically answering identification using only manifestations, so yes, it is answering that question. To avoid identification, you need to hide those too, not just the components.

(And this makes sense; otherwise, SLAs - which lack components - could never be identified by anyone.)

[Snowbluff]

The basic rule was, which is why they published a FAQ (see my previous post) clarifying how it works. It's undoubtedly a nerf for casters, but I would have thought that would be popular around here.

I would say the problem is that some spells require people not noticing for it to be useful. For examine, the unpopular charm spells (as many things are resistance and/or immune, and they aren't handy in a fight) are often used in a social setting. If it is always obvious a spell is being cast, you would need to convince someone who doesn't like you to the point you think you need to charm them to go to an isolated place where no one else is around in order to charm them without being noticed. :smallfrown:

[Psyren]

I would say the problem is that some spells require people not noticing for it to be useful. For examine, the unpopular charm spells (as many things are resistance and/or immune, and they aren't handy in a fight) are often used in a social setting. If it is always obvious a spell is being cast, you would need to convince someone who doesn't like you to the point you think you need to charm them to go to an isolated place where no one else is around in order to charm them without being noticed. :smallfrown:

The expectation is that casters who want to be sneaky should put in the work to do that - as represented by taking feats like Cunning Caster or Conceal Spell, or just plain hiding before casting something. For me it makes sense that the default is that magic is easily detectable when used right out in the open in front of people, because the pseudo-medieval societies that most D&D settings default to (especially Golarion) just don't really function otherwise.

[Warchon]

I was thinking about this and I came up with a parallel that I think helps. It starts out a bit weird but please bear with me.

Imagine a world where music videos can change the laws of physics. Obviously, there would be a lot of people who study these more closely as a result (i.e. have ranks in Spellcraft). The big thing is that the visual and audio qualities of those music videos are so intertwined that losing one doesn't hurt your ability to identify them.
For example, if I played the "Take On Me" music video without any sound, every single person here capable of identifying it would do so.
Similarly, you don't need to see the video of Links 2 3 4 to recognize Rammstein.
So seeing OR hearing it is enough, and it's not unreasonable to -not- change the DC.
If I managed to play a music video with Still Spell and Silent Spell however, you'd have no way to figure out what I was doing.
However, once the literal Valkyries started showing up in translucent Panzer tanks, you'd - probably- realize it was Wagner (by the book, it's just a +5 to DC.

I put forth that the V and S components of a spell are similarly neatly bound up, and just like a modern music aficionado might recognize an upstroke strum and pick out ska music, a sharp eyed Spellcraft fan could pick out a particular gesture likely means an acid spell, even never having seen that particular spell at all.

[Quarian Rex]

This is actually something that I have been considering lately while coming up with campaign notes/game tweaks. A couple things seem relevant to this discussion.


All magic is obvious. Your magic is accompanied by a tell-tale sign; for example, your body glows brightly, the sound of tortured souls shriek as you cast, feelings of a deep chill affect all creatures within 30 ft. This is in addition to visual aspects around the caster and the target(s). All nearby creatures know when you are using magic, as well as the nature of the magic used (attack, buff, de-buff etc.). All magic in the world functionally has the Magical Signs drawback from Spheres of Power. This does not change the effects of the spells, so casting Charm or Suggestion on a target does not make it obvious to them that they are being affected (though your requests might), but if you choose to do so in a crowded area then everyone else will be quite aware that you have just mojo'd your target.

Spells are implied to have visual effects (as has been noted earlier in the thread) but this is just specifying and removing ambiguity. Since magic can be seen as it is being used you can always make spellcraft checks to identify what you are seeing. However...


Spellcraft checks made against effects from a power type (things like arcane and divine, won't copy everything as not necessarily pertinent to the discussion) that you do not have suffer a -2 circumstance penalty. Attempting to identify a spell being cast using a component that you do not have suffers an additional -2 circumstance penalty. For example, a Cleric (having Verbal, Somatic, and Focus, components in their spells) making a Spellcraft check to determine what spell is being cast by a Mesmerist (having Emotion and Thought components) would suffer a -4 circumstance penalty to do so.


... I think that it is fair to make magic harder to figure out if you are unfamiliar with either it's source or its execution. Is it enough to confuse an archmage? Nope. Is it enough to make a neophyte feel like they are making the role untrained? Yup. I think that's appropriate.