Can you identify a spell that targeted you?


Rules Questions


4 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Core Rulebook Magic Chapter:
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.

Knowledge Skill DCs table:
Knowledge: Arcana; Identify a spell that just targeted you; DC 25 + spell level

Erh, which is it? Can you deduce the exact nature of a spell that just targeted you, or can't you? The two above rules appear completely contradictory. Looking for clarification on the matter.


Succeeding on a saving throw knows that something tried to do something to you, and it didn't work.

If you are trained in knowledge arcana (or can make knowledge arcana checks untrained), you could make a check to identify the spell you just resisted (assuming it was a spell).

Generally, skills let you do things that you can't without use of the skill.

Dark Archive

I've always interpreted this as: you can identify a spell was cast at you but you can't deduce the location of spells origin, caster, wand, trap or anything other than the spell itself. But that's only been my personal interpretation of it.

EDIT: Rephrase: Succeeding an a Save will allow you to know that a spell just targeted you and that you saved. You don't know anything else about it though, where it came from what the spell does or anything. An Arcana check will let you garner that info.

Liberty's Edge

I think that first one is universal for all folk that have a spell cast on them, like someone making a save vs charm. They just know something happened. I don't think that applies to those with Spellcraft trained. It is not spelled out explicitly, but I would let a caster that has a spell cast at him/her and they make the save to get a free spellcraft check to identify it, or even if they don't make their save.


Ravingdork wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Erh, which is it? Can you deduce the exact nature of a spell that just targeted you, or can't you? The two above rules appear completely contradictory. Looking for clarification on the matter.

It's both RD.

Without knowledge arcana you can know you were targetted by a spell and successfully resisted it. With knowledge arcana you can know what spell it was.

The "cannot know the exact nature" bit is basically saying without further action you don't know who/what did it, or what it was. With know(arcana) you can know the what.


Of course, I'd rule that you can tell what a fireball did, arcana check or not...

(It blew things up.)


...I don't see a contradiction.

A spellcraft check would identify a spell As it's being cast. This covers most scenarios where the spell is witnessed.

If the save is successful, but the spell was not witnessed being casted in any other way, it's not possible to identify it.

If the save is successful, but there's clear material evidence for the spell's nature otherwise (Such as others falling prey to the spell, AoE effects with some visual element, etc), then the spell can be identified based on Those elements instead, using a Knowledge(Arcana) check.

At least, that seems like the logical way to read the rules...


Anyone knows that some bad mojo tried to mess with them. This knowledge doesn't include the nature of the bad mojo, just that something messed with them.

However, if you are trained in Knowledge: Arcana you know more than the average slob, and in addition to automatically knowing you just got hit with the bad mojo, you can make a check (DC 25) to know what that mojo was.


Dave Justus wrote:

Anyone knows that some bad mojo tried to mess with them. This knowledge doesn't include the nature of the bad mojo, just that something messed with them.

However, if you are trained in Knowledge: Arcana you know more than the average slob, and in addition to automatically knowing you just got hit with the bad mojo, you can make a check (DC 25) to know what that mojo was.

Unfortunately, identifying a spell through the nature of the "bad mojo" alone (assuming you mean a successful save) Directly contradicts the printed rules. As far as I can see, the only interpretation remaining is the ability to identify the spell via other elements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bane Wraith wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:

Anyone knows that some bad mojo tried to mess with them. This knowledge doesn't include the nature of the bad mojo, just that something messed with them.

However, if you are trained in Knowledge: Arcana you know more than the average slob, and in addition to automatically knowing you just got hit with the bad mojo, you can make a check (DC 25) to know what that mojo was.

Unfortunately, identifying a spell through the nature of the "bad mojo" alone (assuming you mean a successful save) Directly contradicts the printed rules. As far as I can see, the only interpretation remaining is the ability to identify the spell via other elements.

Spellcraft in 3.5 required you to see the visual/somatic components to identify a spell as it was cast. PF removed that language, but most people still follow it.

Knowledge(arcana) doesn't (and as far as I know never has) made that a requirement. Presumably, if you are knowledgeable about arcana, you know what spells feel like when you are the target of those spells. As a result, you can make a check, whether you saw it being cast or not, based on being the subject of the spell.


Bane Wraith wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:

Anyone knows that some bad mojo tried to mess with them. This knowledge doesn't include the nature of the bad mojo, just that something messed with them.

However, if you are trained in Knowledge: Arcana you know more than the average slob, and in addition to automatically knowing you just got hit with the bad mojo, you can make a check (DC 25) to know what that mojo was.

Unfortunately, identifying a spell through the nature of the "bad mojo" alone (assuming you mean a successful save) Directly contradicts the printed rules. As far as I can see, the only interpretation remaining is the ability to identify the spell via other elements.

How does it directly contradict the printed rules when the printed rules say you can identify a spell that targeted you with a Knowledge (Arcana) check? The poster mentioned Knowledge (Arcana) specifically, so it doesn't sound like the save is the only thing being relied upon.

Regarding the OP, as has been mentioned, the two work just fine together.

1. Roll your save for a spell that targeted you. You cannot identify the spell based on anything at this point.
2. If you have ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), make a DC 25+Spell Level check. If you succeed, you can identify the spell that targeted you.


The rules never say that you Cannot deduce the nature of the attack "Due to a lack of knowledge about its nature." The rules say you Cannot.

The text under Knowledge(Arcana) is comparatively nonspecific; It can relate to Any spell, whether it worked or not, had a save or not, a visual effect or not, turned you into a toad and/or pile of ash or not.

The text under saving throws is specific; It refers to the particular instance of a successful saving throw against a spell.

My argument is based on the specific text trumping the nonspecific, in which case the nonspecific text only gets applied when it's specifically not in regards to the specific text.

*breath*

In other words.

Saving throw success; No knowledge arcana.
Anything else; go right the heck ahead.


In this case, saving throw is the general case. If the spell offers a saving throw, anyone can potentially resist it. If they do, having resisted it does not tell them what the effect was, only that they successfully avoided an effect.

Knowledge arcana specifically states that if you are the target of a spell, you can make a check to identify the spell. There is no condition of if the save was successful or not. Merely were you the target. This would even go for spells which do not offer a saving throw or ones which fail to penetrate your spell resistance.


This is a clear case of specific rule trumphs general.
In this case the saving throw rule of not being able to identify the spell cast at you on a succesful save is a general rule, while the knowledge arcana ability to identify a spell cast at you is a specific rule. Simple as that.


The rule in the magic chapter means you dont automatically know it. The DC's for knowledge arcana and spellcraft allows you to know it, but with some effort.

For those who are new around here RD sometimes ask hypothetical questions when RAW does not agree with RAI, but he does not often(almost never) tell you that this is a thought experiment. So if you ever find yourself thinking, "This answer is common sense", then it is likely one of his thought experiments.


Thanks, wraithstrike.

But I'm honestly perplexed by anyone that thinks that the 'general'rule is the saving throw save, and the 'specific' rule is the knowledge check. Looking at it this way directly contradicts the rules, while looking at it saving throw > knowledge check does not.

Condition: There is a spell cast on you. Can you identify it afterwards?
Knowledge check: Yes.
Saving throw text: Yes.

Condition: There is a spell cast on you with no obvious visual component, but you suffer its effects. Can you identify it afterwards?
Knowledge check: Yes.
Saving throw text: Yes.

Condition: As above, but you do not possess skill ranks in Knowledge(Arcana). Can you identify it afterwards?
Knowledge check: No.
Saving throw text: Yes, but Irrelevant; you do not possess the knowledge skill in the first place.

Condition: There is a spell cast on you, in full view and within earshot of you, but you succeed the saving throw. Can you identify it afterwards?
Knowledge check: Yes.
Saving throw text: Irrelevant; Other components are used to identify.

Condition: There is a spell cast on you, without your witness to its casting, or knowing about it in any way, save that You succeed on its saving throw and suffer no effect. Can you identify it afterwards?
Knowledge check: Normally Yes.
Saving throw text: NO.

Condition: As above, but you do not possess skill ranks in Knowledge(Arcana). Can you identify it afterwards?
Knowledge check: No.
Saving throw text: No.

In the second to last scenario, one rule claims you Cannot identify the spell afterwards, period. One rule shares absolutely no say on restrictions or conditions. Clearly, you go with the rule that actually has something to say on the matter, instead of directly contradicting the RAW and claiming you can identify the spell anyways.

Edit: Rearranged to make sense. Second-to-last condition Not moved.


I have always looked at knowledge arcana as you needing to see the spell in some form. If it was something like charm person you could not identify it. If it was a fireball then you would be able to identify it.

Also from way way I read the OP's question you could not identify the spell even if you saw the spell and had spellcraft, which is why I looked at it as a thought exercise.

I just noticed the "Identify a spell that just targeted you Arcana 25 + spell level" for knowledge arcana. I did not know the line existed until now. I only knew about the "Identify a spell effect that is in place".

The magic chapter says no if it has no obvious physical affect. The fact that you succeed on the spell does not mean that the spell does not do physical damage. It only means that you did not take any physical damage form the spell. As an example finger of death does physical damage whether you actually take damage from it or not. Before anyone reading this gets off topic I know that finger of death causes damage even if you make the save, but for this conversation I am pretending it does not have a secondary affect.

In addition on a made save you do feel something hostile so you should get a knowledge check. Now if the spell does no physical affect such as charm person, and it otherwise fits the 2nd to last condition set, then I agree that you do not get a knowledge check.

Grand Lodge

I would have to rule that you can identify the spell.

Every character gets a saving throw on every spell that allows one, barring some other rule. So the general case is that everyone gets a save and saving doesn't tell you what spell you just saved against.

Not every character has ranks in Knowledge: Arcana. Those people with special knowledge of magic can do what others can't, figure out what spell just hit them, even without having seen the spell.


Kenji Elindir wrote:

I would have to rule that you can identify the spell.

Every character gets a saving throw on every spell that allows one, barring some other rule. So the general case is that everyone gets a save and saving doesn't tell you what spell you just saved against.

Not every character has ranks in Knowledge: Arcana. Those people with special knowledge of magic can do what others can't, figure out what spell just hit them, even without having seen the spell.

Unfortunately, though that does have an element of common sense to it, that is not how the Specific & General cases are reflected in the Rules. The reason I made a post showing multiple conditions was to reflect that.

Nothing in the RULES specially enables a character with Knowledge(Arcana) to have an exception against the saving throw text. And if they didn't have the knowledge(Arcana), the saving throw text wouldn't be relevant Anyways. There wouldn't Be a check to prevent. (Though prevent it it clearly does anyways).

Grand Lodge

So you're trying to say that if you fail the save, or if there is no save, or you resist it with SR, then you can make a Knowledge arcana check, but if you make a save you're somehow prevented from using the skill? That would seem to fly in the face of being able to make the check with the others, especially SR.

Also, please spare me the patronizing tone of 'it clearly does' when if the rule was completely clear there would be no discussion here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
For those who are new around here RD sometimes ask hypothetical questions when RAW does not agree with RAI, but he does not often(almost never) tell you that this is a thought experiment. So if you ever find yourself thinking, "This answer is common sense", then it is likely one of his thought experiments.

That...is probably a good rule of thumb.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
For those who are new around here RD sometimes ask hypothetical questions when RAW does not agree with RAI, but he does not often(almost never) tell you that this is a thought experiment. So if you ever find yourself thinking, "This answer is common sense", then it is likely one of his thought experiments.
That...is probably a good rule of thumb.

Understatement. With the added note that it often makes the "experts" reconsider their understanding of the rules. I say this as someone who considers himself an expert at one rules subsystem. RDs threads are always thought provoking.

Edit: I don't consider this rule question to be a specific vs general case. It's a permissive vs non-permissive case.

The standard assumption is that unless the rules say you can, then you can't. So what we have here is a rule saying you can't and a different rule says you can. Which means you can.

Further edit: for example, the rules say you can't leave a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity. Yet the spring attack feat lets you do exactly that (under certain conditions). Specific vs general says feat overrides movement rules, but permissive vs non-permissive says that the ability to move without provoking overrides provoking when moving. In the case of spring attack, it's pretty clear, but this can be applied elsewhere in the rules.


Kenji Elindir wrote:

So you're trying to say that if you fail the save, or if there is no save, or you resist it with SR, then you can make a Knowledge arcana check, but if you make a save you're somehow prevented from using the skill? That would seem to fly in the face of being able to make the check with the others, especially SR.

Also, please spare me the patronizing tone of 'it clearly does' when if the rule was completely clear there would be no discussion here.

It's perfectly possible to have people arguing despite very little ambiguity in the rules. I argue not to patronize. I argue to show how the rules can be handled without directly contradicting each other.

As to your first point; Half right. If the spell has any component or effect whatsoever that would actually alert a creature to its existence, then of course a knowledge(Arcana) check is due. AoE effects, perhaps even some single target spells at the GM's discretion. There is no to RAW alert as to whether you've resisted a spell via SR, as far as I'm reading.

In other words, having knowledge of the spell at all would fall into the debate of whether you're actually capable of perceiving the spell or not. On the other hand, when it comes to saving throws, we have precise text about how it's handled; you know there's malevolent forces at work. You cannot deduce its nature, through the successful save alone.

Also @Ravingdork...

Thumbs up. XD Love your input elsewhere. I will never leave home without a Traveler's Any-tool again.


To me the reason why spellcraft works is because you can read their handmovements and somatic components to actually understand the spell.

Without those, it's like being shot in the dark.


Bane Wraith wrote:

Thanks, wraithstrike.

But I'm honestly perplexed by anyone that thinks that the 'general'rule is the saving throw save, and the 'specific' rule is the knowledge check. Looking at it this way directly contradicts the rules, while looking at it saving throw > knowledge check does not.

Condition: There is a spell cast on you. Can you identify it afterwards?
Knowledge check: Yes.
Saving throw text: Yes.

Condition: There is a spell cast on you with no obvious visual component, but you suffer its effects. Can you identify it afterwards?
Knowledge check: Yes.
Saving throw text: Yes.

Condition: As above, but you do not possess skill ranks in Knowledge(Arcana). Can you identify it afterwards?
Knowledge check: No.
Saving throw text: Yes, but Irrelevant; you do not possess the knowledge skill in the first place.

Condition: There is a spell cast on you, in full view and within earshot of you, but you succeed the saving throw. Can you identify it afterwards?
Knowledge check: Yes.
Saving throw text: Irrelevant; Other components are used to identify.

Condition: There is a spell cast on you, without your witness to its casting, or knowing about it in any way, save that You succeed on its saving throw and suffer no effect. Can you identify it afterwards?
Knowledge check: Normally Yes.
Saving throw text: NO.

Condition: As above, but you do not possess skill ranks in Knowledge(Arcana). Can you identify it afterwards?
Knowledge check: No.
Saving throw text: No.

In the second to last scenario, one rule claims you Cannot identify the spell afterwards, period. One rule shares absolutely no say on restrictions or conditions. Clearly, you go with the rule that actually has something to say on the matter, instead of directly contradicting the RAW and claiming you can identify the spell anyways.

Edit: Rearranged to make sense. Second-to-last condition Not moved.

This adds so much that is not written. If you fail a saving throw against a spell that targeted you, you know it but you can't identify its specific nature simply because NO ONE can EVER identify the specific nature of a spell without a Knowledge: Arcana check. The clause in the text of the saving throw section does not forbid the identification of spells under any circumstances; the lack of the appropriate knowledge skill does.

There are only two questions that need to be asked:

Did you just fail a saving throw?
No--nothing more to talk about at this point.
Yes--you know a spell was cast upon you but you don't know its specific nature.

Do you have ranks in Knowledge: Arcana?
No--you know a spell was cast upon you but you don't know its specific nature.
Yes--you can identify the spell with a high enough skill check.

That's it. No need to over complicate things.


...Are my communicative skills that poor?

The scenarios provided were to clarify whether or not it was possible to deduce the nature of the spell. In all scenarios a Knowledge(Arcana) check is needed to identify it afterwards.

The clause in the saving throw text, "but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack", DIRECTLY prevent the identification of spells via the aforementioned skill. You cannot know the nature of the spell, relying solely to a successful saving throw, Period.

The "overcomplicating things" is due to that one overlap; where a successful saving throw is made, and no other factor is present to use Knowledge(Arcana) on.

If you would argue that the clause in the saving throw text would Not prevent the identification of a spell based based solely on a successful saving throw, then I challenge you to present what you think it does prevent.


Bane Wraith wrote:

...Are my communicative skills that poor?

The scenarios provided were to clarify whether or not it was possible to deduce the nature of the spell. In all scenarios a Knowledge(Arcana) check is needed to identify it afterwards.

The clause in the saving throw text, "but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack", DIRECTLY prevent the identification of spells via the aforementioned skill. You cannot know the nature of the spell, relying solely to a successful saving throw, Period.

The "overcomplicating things" is due to that one overlap; where a successful saving throw is made, and no other factor is present to use Knowledge(Arcana) on.

If you would argue that the clause in the saving throw text would Not prevent the identification of a spell based based solely on a successful saving throw, then I challenge you to present what you think it does prevent.

I thought I handled that in my last post, but I will try to explain it again in a slightly different manner. For knowledge arcana it does not say you have to witness the saving throw. It only says that you have to be targeted.

You know you are targeted when that hostile tingle comes into being.

Going back to the magic chapter the "can not deduce" restriction is only on spells that do not have physical affects. It is not on all spells.

The knowledge arcana check does not repeat this restriction so I can see it as intending to bypass it, but even if it works with the rule in the magic chapter then it only stops spell with no physical affect.

Restating a previous claim--> RAW you could not use knowledge arcana to identify a spell such as charm person since it does not have a physical affect.


The clause attached to the saving throw description is not a further restriction over and above what is described in the knowledge skill rules, it is clarification for the "it doesn't say I can't so I can" school of thought. Rules lawyers from that side of the fence would almost certainly claim that a Knowledge: Arcana check is not needed to identify the spell after failing a save if not for the clause in question. That's how I see it anyway: specific trumps general and a smack down for the silly people :)


wraithstrike wrote:


I thought I handled that in my last post, but I will try to explain it again in a slightly different manner. For knowledge arcana it does not say you have to witness the saving throw. It only says that you have to be targeted.

You know you are targeted when that hostile tingle comes into being.

Going back to the magic chapter the "can not deduce" restriction is only on spells that do not have physical affects. It is not on all spells.

The knowledge arcana check does not repeat this restriction so I can see it as intending to bypass it, but even if it works with the rule in the magic chapter then it only stops spell with no physical affect.

Restating a previous claim--> RAW you could not use knowledge arcana to identify a spell such as charm person since it does not have a physical affect.

Aye. Sorry, but it seems there's some sort of miscommunication here. I'm not claiming that a spell that has physical presence, easily perceived components, AoE effects, or anything else that'd give it away, cannot be made known via Knowledge(arcana).

...Alright. you actually gave a good example. We'll go off that; Charm person.

A kitsune with magical tails gains Charm Person and many other manipulative enchantment spells as spell-like abilities. NO components to them being cast. Yet still perfectly identifiable, as they are spell-like abilities, IF you manage to detect it.

Kitsune in human form enters a crowded bar. Sits in a corner. Does the poop-face for a brief moment, without anyone actually noticing. They're casting Charm Person on the bartender (no verbal/somatic components). They then approach the bar. To their dismay, it turns out the bartender actually has knowledge(Arcana). What happens?

If the bartender failed the throw, they're charmed. The game goes on as per usual. When that Charm Person finally expires, they might notice! Oh s!*+! Magic shenanigans have been at work here! They roll Knowledge(Arcana) and realize; That funny-looking human cast Charm Person on him. Maybe he should alert the authorities.

If the bartender Succeeded the saving throw, a little tingle goes off in their head, as per saving throw. They *know* that some malicious voodoo is going on. But they have absolutely Nothing else to go on. Based on that, they Cannot use Knowledge(Arcana) to identify the spell used, because they "cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack". For all they know, it could have been that Witch that passed through town the day before, somehow trying a hex. The kitsune manages to arouse no suspicion, and leaves.

My little post with the various scenarios was a way to clarify that. It was also my way to show it's a matter of specific vs. general.

Are we in full agreement, now?


Bane Wraith wrote:

A kitsune with magical tails gains Charm Person and many other manipulative enchantment spells as spell-like abilities. NO components to them being cast. Yet still perfectly identifiable, as they are spell-like abilities, IF you manage to detect it.

Kitsune in human form enters a crowded bar. Sits in a corner. Does the poop-face for a brief moment, without anyone actually noticing. They're casting Charm Person on the bartender (no verbal/somatic components). They then approach the bar. To their dismay, it turns out the bartender actually has knowledge(Arcana). What happens?

If the bartender failed the throw, they're charmed. The game goes on as per usual. When that Charm Person finally expires, they might notice! Oh s&&#! Magic shenanigans have been at work here! They roll Knowledge(Arcana) and realize; That funny-looking human cast Charm Person on him. Maybe he should alert the authorities.

If the bartender Succeeded the saving throw, a little tingle goes off in their head, as per saving throw. They *know* that some malicious voodoo is going on. But they have absolutely Nothing else to go on. Based on that, they Cannot use Knowledge(Arcana) to identify the spell used, because they "cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack". For all they know, it could have been that Witch that passed through town the day before, somehow trying a hex. The kitsune manages to arouse no suspicion, and leaves.

My little post with the various scenarios was a way to clarify that. It was also my way to show it's a matter of specific vs. general.

Are we in full agreement, now?

Per RAW no. The knowledge arcana section only says that you have to be targeted. It does not say that you have to see the spell or SLA being cast. Maybe tje sensation you feel when you are targeted is enough to say what the spell is.

RAI, I am not sure if the limitation is supposed to be a general rule which is overwritten by knowledge arcana or if you can use knowledge arcana on mental, but not physical spells or something else.

I do think this is worth an FAQ however.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the bartender has sufficient ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), the bartender gets to make a check, whether the save was successful or not. That's precisely what the rule states.

You can identify a spell that just targeted you. Period. End of story. You don't need to see any other evidence. Did a spell target you? You can identify it if you have sufficient ranks in Knowledge (Arcana).

That someone can identify the spell that just targeted them does not mean that person can identify the source of the magic without other indicators. So the bartender could know someone was trying to charm him/her, but the bartender doesn't know specifically who.

Succeeding on a saving throw does not prevent a person from making a Knowledge (Arcana) check to identify the spell they were just targeted by. If it did, it would violate the equally clear rule that says "You can identify a spell that just targeted you by making a Knowledge (Arcana) check."

The only way the rules make sense in conjunction with one another is if the Saving Throw rule is the general and the Knowledge rule is the specific, which stands to reason from their very natures: everybody can make a saving throw attempt against a magical effect; only those with specific training can attempt to identify magical effects that target them.

As for your fear of rules contradiction re: the Saving Throw language, this is hardly the only instance in the rules where one rule states a clear prohibition on something, then another (more circumstantially specific) rule contradicts that first clear rule and overrides it. This is the very nature of specific vs. general rules. If the specific rule weren't overriding something the general rule were doing, there'd be no reason for the axiom to exist in the first place.

It's a hard argument to make that the Saving Throw language is a more specific rule than the Knowledge check language. So the better question is whether there is any indication that Knowledge (Arcana) is limited in the way you claim it is. If it is a more specific rule than the Saving Throw rule, then it matters not for the purposes of Knowledge (Arcana) what the Saving Throw rule says.

Also note that the ability to identify a spell after it targeted you is not new. It was allowed in 3.5, but it fell under Spellcraft instead. The relevant section said, "After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was. No action required. No retry." Not after succeeding or failing, simply rolling. That there are no existent, observable effects of the magic still in play is of no moment (that likely is why the DC to identify the spell after targeting you is 10 higher than identifying the spell as it is being cast). 3.5's section on Saving Throws had the same language PF's does, stating that a saving throw does not allow someone to identify a spell just cast on them.

PF changed how Knowledge and Spellcraft worked, expanding Knowledge in a lot of capacities. It appears that one manner in which they did that was to move the ability to identify a spell that targeted you to Knowledge, rather than keeping it in Spellcraft. In 3.5, it undoubtedly worked the way I am claiming PF works: while a saving throw does not allow one to identify a spell, being trained in magic does. In 3.5, the necessary skill to identify the spell cast upon you was Spellcraft. That PF changed the relevant skill to Knowledge (Arcana) should not change how the rules function.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In fact, I would go so far as to say the time it makes the most sense to allow a Knowledge check to identify the spell that targeted you is precisely the circumstance we're talking about.

If evidence of the spell's effects persist, you can just identify the spell's effects, as per usual (Knowldge (Arcana) check, DC 20 + spell level). If you failed a save, allowing the Knowledge check at that point in essence gives a second saving throw. What impact would it have on a compulsion spell if the target knows that s/he is under the effects of a compulsion spell? Identifying compulsion effects while you're still under the compulsion doesn't make much sense.

But if you resist a nonapparent spell (such as a compulsion spell), no lingering effects persist. This is precisely the situation when a person Knowledgeable about magic ought to be able to figure out what just happened (or at least have the chance to). "Not only did someone just try to cast a spell on me, somebody tried to Charm me!" This doesn't violate the saving throw rule because it's not the saving throw allowing the spell's identification; it's the knowledge check that does that.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pretty much everything fretgod99 said is what I was trying to say.


I'm afraid, fretgod99, that we still both view this Specific vs. General instance at opposite spectrums. It's clear to me that the saving throw text is the 'Specific' case, in this scenario. I don't see it as a 'hard' argument to make; I see it as the logical argument to make based on the number of conditions that need to be met. And I attempted to demonstrate that.

So, let's try this again.

Firstly, I think we should agree that any argument made shall be based on the text in the PRD alone; As much as bits of 3.5 may hint to one function or another, they are not the RAW.

Secondly, a hypothetical. I propose to you two phrases:
"You can Identify a spell that just targeted you."
"You cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack."
For the purpose of this argument, "Spell" and "Attack" are synonymous.

Put on the Veil of Ignorance for a moment, and discard the origin of these two phrases. Put them on equal grounds. Would you agree that these two phrases contradict one another?

I propose Yes, they would; Being unable to deduce the exact nature of a spell, is being unable to identify it. Likewise, identifying it is being able to deduce its nature.

Thirdly, an observation; In all events of the rules, especially when being enabled or prohibited by feats, class features, skills, abilities, etc., specific always trumps general. This enables the above two phrases not to contradict, but to overlap, with one taking supremacy in a particular instance. Granted the above two premises are agreed upon, let's proceed; How do we specify which is 'specific' and which is 'general'?

Your argument, thus far, seems to approach Knowledge(Arcana) as if it were a newly gained feature. Because a character has selected to invest their resources here, where many would not have, they've gained the ability to identify spells that have targeted them. This thus trumps the Saving Throw text.

And I argue they are reversed.

My arguments:

1) The number of conditions that need to be met reflect that the Saving Throw text is applicable in Less scenarios than the Knowledge(Arcana) check. This shows that the saving throw text is utilized more specifically, and thus trumps the Knowledge(Arcana) rule.

Below, "True" will refer to a successful saving throw, or having ranks in Knowledge(Arcana). "False" will refer to a failed saving throw, or the absence of ranks in Knowledge(Arcana). The assumption will be made that the ability to identify a spell is dependent on a character being aware of it in any sense.

Condition one: Can you identify a spell that has targeted you, with no awareness of it in any way?
ST text: T/F Non Applicable.
Knowledge(Arcana): T/F Non Applicable.
(You cannot 'know' this instance of it, if you never knew of its existence)

Condition two: Can you identify a spell that has targeted you, that you are aware of via non-save-related factors?
ST text: T/F Non Applicable.
Knowledge(Arcana): True=Yes, False=No.
Success contingent on Kn(Arc).

Condition three: Can you identify a spell that has targeted you, via ONLY its saving throw?
ST text: True= No, False=Yes
Knowledge(Arcana): True=Yes, False=No.
Success contingent on both Kn(Arc) and ST text.

Take any scenario, any variation, and inevitably you find this pattern. Only the third condition truly applies the saving throw text. Thus, it is the more specific, and trumps Knowledge(Arcana).

Argument 2)

The saving throw text Only applies to an instance where Knowledge(Arcana) is present. Spellcraft checks are done whilst the spell is being cast, and thus, identify it Before saving throws are applicable. Knowledge(Arcana) is the only non-magical means of identifying a spell Afterwards. Furthermore, it is only applicable to one instance of Knowledge(Arcana) being used; identifying a spell that has just targeted you that has no obvious physical effects. Since the saving throw text is dependent on Knowledge(Arcana) to be of any effect, it is the more specific of the two, and thus, trumps knowledge(Arcana).

...I think that's as clear as I can put it.
bonne chance. I actually look forward to a constructed rebuttal. If these arguments are toppled, I have no further say. If you disagree with the premise, then the argument has transferred to something else.

Finally, @wraithstrike

Aye. You're right about the knowledge(arcana) section saying you only need to be targeted. However, I'm basing most of my arguments on the need for awareness in the first place. Else, I'd call it metagaming, if a character has absolutely no justification to roll the skillcheck for a spell they've never witnessed, or know the existence of, let alone have many material to discern it with.

The above arguments are my reason why " the sensation you feel when you are targeted is enough" (Assuming you mean a successful ST) is Not enough. I welcome you to it.


Why is that hostile tingle not grounds for a knowledge arcana check? So far by RAW it only comes from spells, and a knowledge check just means you know something. As an example if someone describes something in my field I can recognize it without being told what the topic is. Why would someone who is knowledgeable about magic need to see a spell being cast?


wraithstrike wrote:
Why is that hostile tingle not grounds for a knowledge arcana check? So far by RAW it only comes from spells, and a knowledge check just means you know something. As an example if someone describes something in my field I can recognize it without being told what the topic is. Why would someone who is knowledgeable about magic need to see a spell being cast?

Because a successful saving throw explicitly says you Cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Feel free to assume it's magic. The argument above is that this trumps Knowledge(Arcana)'s attempt to identify a spell from it, though.

If you're talking about something else not present in my post above, I'm not quite understanding. Thought that'd address it pretty well.


Bane Wraith wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Why is that hostile tingle not grounds for a knowledge arcana check? So far by RAW it only comes from spells, and a knowledge check just means you know something. As an example if someone describes something in my field I can recognize it without being told what the topic is. Why would someone who is knowledgeable about magic need to see a spell being cast?

Because a successful saving throw explicitly says you Cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Feel free to assume it's magic. The argument above is that this trumps Knowledge(Arcana)'s attempt to identify a spell from it, though.

If you're talking about something else not present in my post above, I'm not quite understanding. Thought that'd address it pretty well.

You are making the fairly common error of believing that people with objections to your position do not understand your argument but they would agree with you if only they understood better.


Bane Wraith wrote:
1) The number of conditions that need to be met reflect that the Saving Throw text is applicable in Less scenarios than the Knowledge(Arcana) check. This shows that the saving throw text is utilized more specifically, and thus trumps the Knowledge(Arcana) rule.

You're misapplying this.

The Saving Throw text potentially applies literally every single time any spell that allows a saving throw is cast on someone. Every. Single. Time.

If you succeed on a saving throw, that you succeeded on a saving throw informs you that you have been targeted by magic. But nothing else about the experience lets you know what kind of magic or what specific effect.

Knowledge (Arcana) (at least the version we're talking about here) only applies when you've been targeted by a spell (likely have succeeded at a saving throw, though not necessarily, and it might also apply if no saving throw is allowed), you are otherwise unaware of the casting of the spell (prior to it affecting you) or failed your check to identify the spell as it was cast, there are no lingering effects to assist you identifying the spell, and you have ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) and a sufficient bonus to the check to possibly succeed at the check.

Knowledge (Arcana) is far more specific. You read the Saving Throw rule to say something along the lines of, "If you succeed at a Saving Throw against a spell with no obvious physical effects, you cannot possibly identify the spell by any means whatsoever." This is perhaps a possible interpretation of the language, but it is by no means the most sensible one. What I am stating it means is, "If you succeed at a Saving Throw against a spell with no obvious physical effect, succeeding at the Saving Throw does not allow you to identify the spell." In essence, you have to have some other method by which to identify the spell, namely training in Knowledge (Arcana).

Bane Wraith wrote:

Argument 2)

The saving throw text Only applies to an instance where Knowledge(Arcana) is present. Spellcraft checks are done whilst the spell is being cast, and thus, identify it Before saving throws are applicable. Knowledge(Arcana) is the only non-magical means of identifying a spell Afterwards. Furthermore, it is only applicable to one instance of Knowledge(Arcana) being used; identifying a spell that has just targeted you that has no obvious physical effects. Since the saving throw text is dependent on Knowledge(Arcana) to be of any effect, it is the more specific of the two, and thus, trumps knowledge(Arcana).

Spellcraft allows you to identify a spell as it is being cast (DC 15 + spell level). Knowledge (Arcana) lets you identify the spell based on its lingering effects (DC 20 + spell level). Knowledge (Arcana) also lets you identify the spell if there are no lingering effects (DC 25 + spell level), so long as the spell targeted you. The DC keeps getting harder and harder because you're restricting the ability of the target of the spell to identify it (i.e., it applies in fewer and fewer situations).

The Saving Throw text has absolutely no dependence upon the Knowledge (Arcana) language. None. The Saving Throw language applies any time such a spell is cast, regardless of what happens with any Spellcraft or Knowledge checks. It is specifically referencing how extensive the benefit of succeeding at a Saving Throw is; it does nothing more for you than overcoming the magical effect. You cannot identify the spell by succeeding at a Saving Throw. It does not say that you cannot identify the spell by any other means available to you. You are adding that restriction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bane Wraith wrote:
Aye. You're right about the knowledge(arcana) section saying you only need to be targeted. However, I'm basing most of my arguments on the need for awareness in the first place. Else, I'd call it metagaming, if a character has absolutely no justification to roll the skillcheck for a spell they've never witnessed, or know the existence of, let alone have many material to discern it with.
Bane Wraith wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Why is that hostile tingle not grounds for a knowledge arcana check? So far by RAW it only comes from spells, and a knowledge check just means you know something. As an example if someone describes something in my field I can recognize it without being told what the topic is. Why would someone who is knowledgeable about magic need to see a spell being cast?

Because a successful saving throw explicitly says you Cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Feel free to assume it's magic. The argument above is that this trumps Knowledge(Arcana)'s attempt to identify a spell from it, though.

If you're talking about something else not present in my post above, I'm not quite understanding. Thought that'd address it pretty well.

Succeeding at a Saving Throw means you are aware that you have been targeted by a spell.

This is precisely what is required by a Knowledge (Arcana) check. You must be targeted by a spell and aware of that fact (which is why you don't get an automatic check if you fail a Will save against a Charm spell, for instance - if you failed the check, you're not aware you were targeted). Succeeding at the Saving Throw doesn't allow you to identify what targeted you, but it does let you know that you have been targeted by a spell's effect. This, in turn, triggers your ability to make a Knowledge (Arcana) check, because these are the only conditions necessary to trigger that check.

By "awareness in the first place", do you mean awareness prior to being effected or targeted? I don't think so, because that wouldn't make any sense (there are other methods of identifying spells at that point). What do you mean by that?

So again, the Saving Throw rule says you cannot deduce the nature of the spell, but it does so within the context of Saving Throws. It does not say "by any means". If you have other means of identifying a spell, you may still do so. Knowledge (Arcana) is that means.

Also, I disagree that 3.5 is unhelpful; it demonstrates how these nearly identical rules functioned previously. The language hasn't really been changed all that much. It's not determinative, but it provides a pretty good idea of what the developers were thinking when the rules were drafted.


Sorry mate. Unconvinced, and thus at a standstill. By your logic, Anyone that Fails a saving throw should be able to identify whatever hit them every single time, regardless of knowledge checks, because there's no text that explicitly states they can't. I don't believe that to be the case at all.

And I don't believe succeeding at a saving throw needed that bit of text added in just to stop players from saying "Oh, I resisted a Succubus' Dominate Person; Now I know all about that without needing to roll a spellcraft or knowledge check." To me, it's fairly clear that that particular little bit of the saving throw text ONLY applies when a knowledge check comes into play. And thus, everything I argue above stays firm.

As for the awareness bit, it's a process of elimination; IF No other aspect of the spell-like ability is perceived other than the successful saving throw, AND the saving throw text claims it's insufficient grounds to identify a spell, THEN you cannot roll a knowledge check based solely on those grounds. WHY? see above.

wraithstrike is right though; by RAW, you don't even need that to roll the knowledge(arcana) check. The player/GM can just roll, regardless of how much their character has witnessed, or hasn't witnessed.

Ravingdork, I blame you for all of this. =P


Bane Wraith wrote:


wraithstrike is right though; by RAW, you don't even need that to roll the knowledge(arcana) check. The player/GM can just roll, regardless of how much their character has witnessed, or hasn't witnessed.

I was not saying you dont have to roll the knowledge check. I was saying that you do not need to be aware of the spell being cast to make the knowledge check. Once you are targeted you can make the knowledge check.

PS: I think you just had a typo, now that I am reading it again, but I just want to be sure.


And if you are targeted, but succeed the saving throw? (Again, given no other way of knowing about the spell and/or supernatural ability)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bane Wraith wrote:
Sorry mate. Unconvinced, and thus at a standstill. By your logic, Anyone that Fails a saving throw should be able to identify whatever hit them every single time, regardless of knowledge checks, because there's no text that explicitly states they can't.

That is not his logic so that is not what he is saying. He actually said a knowledge check is needed. Yes, I am aware this wont change your mind, but this post should clear up any misunderstandings, and avoid derailing due to misapplications of ideas.


His claim is that the saving throw text is applicable Everywhere, where as mine is that it only has an application when it comes to knowledge checks.

His logic is essentially that the saving throw text is stating the obvious instead of explicitly referring to an identifying knowledge check, where as I say that that's ludicrous; If you believe that a successful saving throw not letting you identify the cause is solely due to that one line, then it would follow you Could identify the cause (without the check) behind a failed saving throw, because there's no text preventing it.


You can only identify a spell that has targeted you with no lingering physical effects if you are trained in Knowledge (Arcana). That's explicitly what the rules allow - identifying spells that target you.

If this isn't how the rules function, at what point does a person get to use the use of that skill we're talking about here?


Bane Wraith wrote:
And if you are targeted, but succeed the saving throw? (Again, given no other way of knowing about the spell and/or supernatural ability)

This is specifically the scenario that the skill is used for. Succeeding the saving throw makes you aware of the attack. Awareness is all that is required to make the Knowledge check. Thus far, you've failed to cite any rule which states that anything more than awareness is required to use the skill in this capacity.


Bane Wraith wrote:
His logic is essentially that the saving throw text is stating the obvious instead of explicitly referring to an identifying knowledge check, where as I say that that's ludicrous; If you believe that a successful saving throw not letting you identify the cause is solely due to that one line, then it would follow you Could identify the cause (without the check) behind a failed saving throw, because there's no text preventing it.

This does not follow.

One of two things would happen when you fail a saving throw (for the purposes of our discussion): 1. a lingering physical is created which can be identified as per usual, 2. No lingering physical effect is created and the target is not aware of the spell's effects (e.g., you don't know you've been charmed because that would defeat the purpose of the charm effect), in which case no check can be made because there is no awareness of the effect.

The reason the saving throw text is in the book is because succeeding at the saving throw makes you aware of the attack, by RAW. No such text is needed for failed saving throws because either the effects themselves make you aware of the attack or you do not become aware of the attack by the very nature of the spell effect. Ergo, the Knowledge check trigger (being aware of being targeted) is never implicated.

Your interpretation doesn't make sense; it makes a nullity of a use of the Knowledge skill that we are explicitly told we are allowed to use.


fretgod99 wrote:


If this isn't how the rules function, at what point does a person get to use the use of that skill we're talking about here?

Literally any other time there is sufficient awareness of the spell, and observable factors Other than a successful saving throw.

fretgod99 wrote:
Thus far, you've failed to cite any rule which states that anything more than awareness is required to use the skill in this capacity.

Correct. Because I'm not looking for one, nor is one needed. Instead, I'm postulating that a rule that Restricts the use of the skill in a particular scenario is applicable.

That is explained above, and the only reason you have for denying it is that you believe the Knowledge(Arcana) check is more 'specific'. Which is also argued above.

fretgod99 wrote:
Your interpretation doesn't make sense; it makes a nullity of a use of the Knowledge skill that we are explicitly told we are allowed to use.

In my views, it is your stance that makes a nullity out of the saving throw text. Because the saving throw text is only applicable when someone is Capable of making a knowledge check, you're effectively suggesting it's a pointless entry, if a knowledge check trumps it. This was an attempt to demonstrate that.


No. I am not saying it is a pointless entry. You are only allowed to make a Knowledge (Arcana) check if it is trained or if you have a specific ability which lets you make it untrained. If you don't have ranks in it or cannot make the check untrained, you're stuck with the Saving Throw rule.


Bane Wraith wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:


If this isn't how the rules function, at what point does a person get to use the use of that skill we're talking about here?
Literally any other time there is sufficient awareness of the spell, and observable factors Other than a successful saving throw.

But that is what I am asking you to specifically answer. What are those times?

What "observable factors" are we talking about? Because most other such factors are already covered by other uses of the same or other skills.

See and/or them cast the spell? Spellcraft.
Observe the actual spell effects? Knowledge (Arcana) with a lower spell DC.

So what situations are you talking about?

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you identify a spell that targeted you? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.