Do other classes know of all other classes spells

[methanos]

Would a Wizard know what spells druid can cast or what the spells are called?

My party wanted to revive a character and they looked up a druid spell Reincarnation even though none of them are druid. I asked the Wizard how he would even know of such a spell when he is not a Druid.

He assumed he would know of any spell for any class with a Knowledge check. So basically he knows of every Cleric spells, Druid Spell and Bard Spell as long as he makes a knowledge check was his point.

I think other classes would not know of all the other classes spells and abilities. Especially, if they have not even met a Druid before. How would they even know the spells a Druid has or what the spells are called?

I ruled that they were metagaming and using players knowledge to gain access to hire a Druid to cast Reincaration a spell which they should have no idea about since its a Druid Spell.

What do you all think? IS that reasonable? Can you just roll a knowledege check and know the spells another class could possess?

[A Man In Black]

Spellcraft is the relevant skill of identifying and knowing about spells.

[Troy Loney]

A Man In Black wrote:

Spellcraft is the relevant skill of identifying and knowing about spells.

Yes,I understand that, but don't you have to see the spell being cast to identify it via its Somatic and Verbal components? Are you saying if you roll high on spell craft you would know of every spell a Druid, Cleric and Bard can cast without seeing the somatic or verbal components?

How would the Wizard know of Druid Spells such as Reincarnation? It seems like the players were using players knowledge about a spell their characters would know nothing about.

[Ressy]

Since Spellcraft is used to identify spells as they are cast, one would assume that a Spellcraft check would allow someone to know of the existence and effect of spells.
Essentially, how would a Wizard recognize it when a Druid casts reincarnate, if the Wizard has no idea what reincarnate is.

If you don't like having players read through other classes spell-lists, you could have them make a spellcraft check to find a spell that has a certain effect, and then give them the information if they made the check.

[Vulcan Stormwrath]

Troy Loney wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

Spellcraft is the relevant skill of identifying and knowing about spells.

Yes,I understand that, but don't you have to see the spell being cast to identify it via its Somatic and Verbal components? Are you saying if you roll high on spell craft you would know of every spell a Druid, Cleric and Bard can cast without seeing the somatic or verbal components?

How would the Wizard know of Druid Spells such as Reincarnation? It seems like the players were using players knowledge about a spell their characters would know nothing about.

Look at it this way, a wizard with an Int 0f 20 has read over 10,000 books and possesses perfect recall.

[kyrt-ryder]

There's something your forgetting in your analasys of the situation Troy.

PC's don't exist in a vacuum, only manifesting when it's time to play.

PC's are people, with lives and experiences and resources and minds.

The spellcraft (or knowledge if you prefer) check isn't there to 'make the character know the spell' but rather it's there to determine whether or not the PC learned about that particular spell during his studies and such.

The typical D&D world is, literrarily speaking not far behind our own world, with vast libraries of knowledge in the bigger cities, with a great deal of information available.

The DC of the check reflects how rare such information is, and the odds of whether or not the character would have stumbled across it.

[A Man In Black]

Troy Loney wrote:

Yes,I understand that, but don't you have to see the spell being cast to identify it via its Somatic and Verbal components? Are you saying if you roll high on spell craft you would know of every spell a Druid, Cleric and Bard can cast without seeing the somatic or verbal components?

How would the Wizard know of Druid Spells such as Reincarnation? It seems like the players were using players knowledge about a spell their characters would know nothing about.

Well, you set a Spellcraft DC, and make them roll to hit it. There aren't any written rules for knowing the properties of a spell that isn't being cast in front of you, no, so you'd probably use the Knowledge rules as a guideline for figuring out the DCs. Presumably, if druids exist in the world and are not some sort of obscure secret, then characters with appropriate Spellcraft mods know about druids and druidic magic from having studied magic extensively, the same way they tell the difference between a Permanent Image and a Programmed Image.

You seem to have given us half a story here. Do you want the players to be able to do this and have to work for it? Do you not want them to be able to do it at all? Why or why not?

[DigMarx]

Wouldn't knowledge of a spell's existence be more of a Knowledge Arcana thing, especially if it falls outside of a certain class's purview? "Hmm, what spells do the disciples of nature use to restore life to the deceased? To the library!"

Zo

[methanos]

A Man In Black wrote:

Troy Loney wrote:

Yes,I understand that, but don't you have to see the spell being cast to identify it via its Somatic and Verbal components? Are you saying if you roll high on spell craft you would know of every spell a Druid, Cleric and Bard can cast without seeing the somatic or verbal components?

How would the Wizard know of Druid Spells such as Reincarnation? It seems like the players were using players knowledge about a spell their characters would know nothing about.

Well, you set a Spellcraft DC, and make them roll to hit it. There aren't any written rules for knowing the properties of a spell that isn't being cast in front of you, no, so you'd probably use the Knowledge rules as a guideline for figuring out the DCs. Presumably, if druids exist in the world and are not some sort of obscure secret, then characters with appropriate Spellcraft mods know about druids and druidic magic from having studied magic extensively, the same way they tell the difference between a Permanent Image and a Programmed Image.

You seem to have given us half a story here. Do you want the players to be able to do this and have to work for it? Do you not want them to be able to do it at all? Why or why not?

Thanks for you responses and input. Sure I think they should be able to do it with some research or time and by making knowledge check or spell craft check. However, I do not think they should know of every spell that exists for every single class simply by rolling spell craft check. Maybe a combination of Knowledge or spellcraft checks.

I am a very resonable DM I think it was the way they assumed they would know of this spell like its common knowledge.

[kyrt-ryder]

So... your dictating to the player what his PC was doing during his offtime?

Your acting like the PC couldn't have been reading and researching in his spare time.

Is it so wrong to think that a character does it's homework?

The DC is based on whether it's common knowledge, rare, or extremely rare virtually unavailable information.

Pick a DC on a 5 between 10 and 40, and let the player roll, to see what his character already knows. (Not what the check will teach the PC, but what the PC learned from his studies, travels, rumors, etc etc etc)

[A Man In Black]

methanos wrote:

Thanks for you responses and input. Sure I think they should be able to do it with some research or time and by making knowledge check or spell craft check. However, I do not think they should know of every spell that exists for every single class simply by rolling spell craft check. Maybe a combination of Knowledge or spellcraft checks.

I am a very resonable DM I think it was the way they assumed they would know of this spell like its common knowledge.

Well, it's a signature spell, and even you are saying that the challenge involved in figuring out if it's possible are nothing more than a formality.

Is it common knowledge that wizards cast fireball? How about wish? Clerics and raise dead? Get on the same page as your players about what spells are common knowledge, but don't be afraid to just follow their lead. This is a really silly thing to pick a fight about.

[Stebehil]

I think I would have them making a knowledge arcana roll with the same DC as for recognizing a spell with spellcraft, 15+ spell level. This would be a DC 19 check in this case.

EDIT: for non-core spells, I would add another +2 to +4 on the check, depending on the obscurity.

Stefan

[Remco Sommeling]

paging through a book to find a cheap way to have a spell cast is probably metagaming in my opinion,

they might know druids are capable of such things,
they might recognize it if it is being cast before them,
they also know clerics are capable of this and presumably better
I doubt they will know reincarnation is cheaper than raise dead

I don't think they know specifics of all the spells without researching it, if a spellcraft check conferred all that knowledge a cleric would by that logic be able to handle some fairly simple arcane magics without trouble.

I think druids for hire are a pretty rare breed anyway, they look for a druid to reincarnate someone.. why ?

Is it because they try to save money, assuming the druid works cheaper than a cleric raising the dead ? why would the druid agree to this ?

I do not have the whole picture here, but I'd not make such a thing easy on them. I have to ask why they are looking for a druid though, can they not afford a cleric casting raise dead ?

Maybe you are making it too hard on them to have a party member raised back from the dead, paying a hefty fee just to continue playing the game isn't necesarily beneficial to you as a DM. the raised character gets a negative level and his share will probably be cut to pay for the cost, seeing as they are pretty cheap ;) this will upset party balance, it might be best to make some kind of deal instead.

the party might bargain for a cheaper raise dead. Though in the casting he can use some shoddy materials (reflecting the 5,000 gold component, really how much diamond dust can one have ??).

maybe the cleric was a bit short on the components needed and hope it wouldnt affect the casting, or maybe he did it deliberately.

whatever could happen is up to you, be creative and have fun, though dont screw the party over too much either ;)

[Remco Sommeling]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

So... your dictating to the player what his PC was doing during his offtime?

Your acting like the PC couldn't have been reading and researching in his spare time.

Is it so wrong to think that a character does it's homework?

The DC is based on whether it's common knowledge, rare, or extremely rare virtually unavailable information.

Pick a DC on a 5 between 10 and 40, and let the player roll, to see what his character already knows. (Not what the check will teach the PC, but what the PC learned from his studies, travels, rumors, etc etc etc)

I disagree with this rather strongly, as a DM you should be able to dictate how far knowledge goes, certainly it is not enough to cast the spell, he would probably know nothing about the cost of such a spell, or about druidic religion by default, or where to find a druid.

I do not see a viable reason for them to go looking for a reincarnate over a a spell raise dead, which I assume more common knowledge and generally more desirable.

[kyrt-ryder]

Remco Sommeling wrote:

I disagree with this rather strongly, as a DM you should be able to dictate how far knowledge goes, certainly it is not enough to cast the spell, he would probably know nothing about the cost of such a spell, or about druidic religion by default, or where to find a druid.

I do not see a viable reason for them to go looking for a reincarnate over a a spell raise dead, which I assume more common knowledge and generally more desirable.

Of course he wouldn't know enough to cast it, he hasn't learned to cast it, but there's no reason he can't have learned about it.

You don't know the whole story Remco, maybe there's a reason they are looking for a reincarnation. Maybe the PC's body isn't even around anymore and the gameworld doesn't have NPC's high enough level to cast a resurrection. Of maybe there was some kind of crippling physical problem the PC had (such as a disfigurement) that raising him wouldn't fix.

Or maybe, he was of a race that was hated in this part of the world, and they wouldn't be able to find a cleric willing to bring a member of that race back, especially not within the time limit.

Speaking of the time limit, it might already be up. That's a big problem with trying to have someone raised ya know.

(for the record, I also agree that the check wouldn't show them the cost of the spell or anything about the druid religion -not that I see any relevance to their religion to the question at hand- or the location of the druid. Heck the location of the druid would probably be an adventure in and of itself really, tracking someone down to get the job done and then persuading them to do so)

[Remco Sommeling]

true I don't know, but it appears the DM disgrees for some reason.

going through the effort to track down a druid having nothing to go on but a good spellcraft check for uncertain results, since he didnt give all the info I just made some random comments that might help him deal with the situation.

[kyrt-ryder]

Remco Sommeling wrote:

true I don't know, but it appears the DM disgrees for some reason.

going through the effort to track down a druid having nothing to go on but a good spellcraft check for uncertain results, since he didnt give all the info I just made some random comments that might help him deal with the situation.

Yeah. Sorry if I got a little rough around the edges there. I've seen alot of DM's get an adversarial perspective with the players, where they're looking for 'metagaming' and 'munchkinning' bla bla and they don't give the players much respect if you understand what I'm saying.

I'm a huge advocate of player freedom incase you hadn't noticed lol.

[Remco Sommeling]

Well, it can be quite hard to DM a solid campaign, setting limits on what pc's can do can make for a more realistic, enjoyable campaign in the long run.

A dm is trying to find a balance, as much for his own enjoyment as for the players, don't forget the DM is a player in this game too ^^

[seekerofshadowlight]

Remco Sommeling wrote:

Well, it can be quite hard to DM a solid campaign, setting limits on what pc's can do can make for a more realistic, enjoyable campaign in the long run.

A dm is trying to find a balance, as much for his own enjoyment as for the players, don't forget the DM is a player in this game too ^^

Yeah the balance is not always easy to find, but nice when you do

[kyrt-ryder]

Remco Sommeling wrote:

Well, it can be quite hard to DM a solid campaign, setting limits on what pc's can do can make for a more realistic, enjoyable campaign in the long run.

A dm is trying to find a balance, as much for his own enjoyment as for the players, don't forget the DM is a player in this game too ^^

True :) But that seems like the kind of limit one should put upfront in the game. "Knowledge is scarce, there are going to be many things you can't roll knowledge checks for because the information just isn't available in the game" or something like that.

I've been known to walk out of tables where the GM came up with stuff that was too far 'out there' on the spot unless that kind of ruling pattern was forewarned.

[seekerofshadowlight]

Yeah, stuff like "very few people know much about magic" would seem like something that would be at lest forewarned about a bit. If your running your own game world it's best to let players know up front rules and theme, as well as the mood your trying to aim at

[Remco Sommeling]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Remco Sommeling wrote:

Well, it can be quite hard to DM a solid campaign, setting limits on what pc's can do can make for a more realistic, enjoyable campaign in the long run.

A dm is trying to find a balance, as much for his own enjoyment as for the players, don't forget the DM is a player in this game too ^^

True :) But that seems like the kind of limit one should put upfront in the game. "Knowledge is scarce, there are going to be many things you can't roll knowledge checks for because the information just isn't available in the game" or something like that.

I've been known to walk out of tables where the GM came up with stuff that was too far 'out there' on the spot unless that kind of ruling pattern was forewarned.

In my campaigns it is not really an issue we have been playing together for a long time (over 15 years) since 2nd edition AD&D.

We keep much of the style of play decidedly 2nd edition, which means magic isn't as common as it is in 3rd edition, it's a bit more special and mysterious force.

In any campaign with some roleplaying aspect it is important to keep the mystery to some extend though, just making a good skill roll should not be the end of it all, restricting the knowledge players get
leaves more oppurtunity for roleplay, though a knowledge check is a good way to get research started, it shouldnt necesarily make it obsolete.

[A Man In Black]

Remco Sommeling wrote:

We keep much of the style of play decidedly 2nd edition

Which is fine and all, but bear in mind that this is a rules question about 3e.

[kyrt-ryder]

Remco Sommeling wrote:

In my campaigns it is not really an issue we have been playing together for a long time (over 15 years) since 2nd edition AD&D.

We keep much of the style of play decidedly 2nd edition, which means magic isn't as common as it is in 3rd edition, it's a bit more special and mysterious force.

In any campaign with some roleplaying aspect it is important to keep the mystery to some extend though, just making a good skill roll should not be the end of it all, restricting the knowledge players get
leaves more oppurtunity for roleplay, though a knowledge check is a good way to get research started, it shouldnt necesarily make it obsolete.

Like Seeker was saying, that's a setting thing. I tend to prefer to allow my players total freedom, to allow their characters the opportunity to be an active part in the world.

That means they could have come across the information. Say, for example, set a check 5 lower than you think it should be.

If they make it by less than 5, all they know are rumors and gossip.

If they make it by more than 5, they know some detail, and where to get more information.

If they make it by 10 or more, they know just about everything they need to on the subject of that particular spell, and all that remains is tracking down the caster.

Also, remember that there is a lot to roleplay in the game, you don't need to drag the party through every little aspect.

I tend to have tons of roleplay in my games, but in terms of something like this, its just seeing what they have learned in the past. Use what they know to drive the next part of the RP :)

[Remco Sommeling]

I do not consider it a rules question perse really, style of play isn't the same as changing the rules, besides I do not know a single group of D&D players that sticks to the rules RAW.

Adjusting the game to your personal tastes and that of your players is a large part of D&D and certainly DM'ing in my opinion.

[Snorter]

A background where 'all the high-level NPCs were wiped out in a cataclysm or war' (such as IIRC is the case in Eberron) would affect what was common knowledge, as would a setting where all arcane casters were hunted down as devil-worshippers by an over-zealous Inquisition.

Both of which are the sort of thing a DM should bring up during PC creation, especially the latter.

[A Man In Black]

Snorter wrote:

A background where 'all the high-level NPCs were wiped out in a cataclysm or war' (such as IIRC is the case in Eberron) would affect what was common knowledge, as would a setting where all arcane casters were hunted down as devil-worshippers by an over-zealous Inquisition.

Eberron is kind of the reverse because high-level characters were running around less than a human adult lifetime ago, tossing off high-level effects in showy ways. But that's neither here nor there.

[Saradoc]

Vulcan Stormwrath wrote:

Troy Loney wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

Spellcraft is the relevant skill of identifying and knowing about spells.

Yes,I understand that, but don't you have to see the spell being cast to identify it via its Somatic and Verbal components? Are you saying if you roll high on spell craft you would know of every spell a Druid, Cleric and Bard can cast without seeing the somatic or verbal components?

How would the Wizard know of Druid Spells such as Reincarnation? It seems like the players were using players knowledge about a spell their characters would know nothing about.

Look at it this way, a wizard with an Int 0f 20 has read over 10,000 books and possesses perfect recall.

Yeah, but a wizard isn't going to waste time learning about divine spells when his studies are in the arcane. I typically separate out arcane and divine like item usage - if it's a wand of cure light wounds, a wizard can't use it because it's not on his spell list. In the moment, I would have probably given the wizard a DC 25 spellcraft to know the answer. My gut is saying that you should keep arcane and divine knowledges separate - and only use spellcraft the way it was designed, to identify spells as they are being cast, or identify magic that exists and is detectable...

[Remco Sommeling]

Saradoc wrote:

Vulcan Stormwrath wrote:

Troy Loney wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

Spellcraft is the relevant skill of identifying and knowing about spells.

Yes,I understand that, but don't you have to see the spell being cast to identify it via its Somatic and Verbal components? Are you saying if you roll high on spell craft you would know of every spell a Druid, Cleric and Bard can cast without seeing the somatic or verbal components?

How would the Wizard know of Druid Spells such as Reincarnation? It seems like the players were using players knowledge about a spell their characters would know nothing about.

Look at it this way, a wizard with an Int 0f 20 has read over 10,000 books and possesses perfect recall.

Yeah, but a wizard isn't going to waste time learning about divine spells when his studies are in the arcane. I typically separate out arcane and divine like item usage - if it's a wand of cure light wounds, a wizard can't use it because it's not on his spell list. In the moment, I would have probably given the wizard a DC 25 spellcraft to know the answer. My gut is saying that you should keep arcane and divine knowledges separate - and only use spellcraft the way it was designed, to identify spells as they are being cast, or identify magic that exists and is detectable...

you do not have to be either an arcane or divine caster at all to learn spellcraft though. What would you tell an expert with a similar check ?

[kyrt-ryder]

Saradoc wrote:

Yeah, but a wizard isn't going to waste time learning about divine spells when his studies are in the arcane. I typically separate out arcane and divine like item usage - if it's a wand of cure light wounds, a wizard can't use it because it's not on his spell list. In the moment, I would have probably given the wizard a DC 25 spellcraft to know the answer. My gut is saying that you should keep arcane and divine knowledges separate - and only use spellcraft the way it was designed, to identify spells as they are being cast, or identify magic that exists and is detectable...

I beg to differ. A wizard is a person, a scholar, an adventurer.

He's going to be studying whatever can help him and his cause and his pursuit of his goals.

That very well (and infact, quite likely in some cases) could include studying divine subjects.

Heck, look at us. Tell me, when you go to wikipedia, how much stuff do you read and learn that you didn't intend to? The same exact thing happens at libraries, to a lesser degree. Especially when your just chilling the whole day burning time reading and learning.

[Saradoc]

Remco Sommeling wrote:

Saradoc wrote:

Vulcan Stormwrath wrote:

Troy Loney wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

Spellcraft is the relevant skill of identifying and knowing about spells.

Yes,I understand that, but don't you have to see the spell being cast to identify it via its Somatic and Verbal components? Are you saying if you roll high on spell craft you would know of every spell a Druid, Cleric and Bard can cast without seeing the somatic or verbal components?

How would the Wizard know of Druid Spells such as Reincarnation? It seems like the players were using players knowledge about a spell their characters would know nothing about.

Look at it this way, a wizard with an Int 0f 20 has read over 10,000 books and possesses perfect recall.

Yeah, but a wizard isn't going to waste time learning about divine spells when his studies are in the arcane. I typically separate out arcane and divine like item usage - if it's a wand of cure light wounds, a wizard can't use it because it's not on his spell list. In the moment, I would have probably given the wizard a DC 25 spellcraft to know the answer. My gut is saying that you should keep arcane and divine knowledges separate - and only use spellcraft the way it was designed, to identify spells as they are being cast, or identify magic that exists and is detectable...

you do not have to be either an arcane or divine caster at all to learn spellcraft though. What would you tell an expert with a similar check ?

I understand that...but spellcraft is for identifying magic that is perceivable - I think the poster is talking about whether a wizard would know about Druid spells in general (no magic is in effect at the time of his "knowledge" check, which it actually might be rather than a spellcraft check because of the time and place of the check). And what do you mean by "expert"?

[Saradoc]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Saradoc wrote:

Yeah, but a wizard isn't going to waste time learning about divine spells when his studies are in the arcane. I typically separate out arcane and divine like item usage - if it's a wand of cure light wounds, a wizard can't use it because it's not on his spell list. In the moment, I would have probably given the wizard a DC 25 spellcraft to know the answer. My gut is saying that you should keep arcane and divine knowledges separate - and only use spellcraft the way it was designed, to identify spells as they are being cast, or identify magic that exists and is detectable...

I beg to differ. A wizard is a person, a scholar, an adventurer.

He's going to be studying whatever can help him and his cause and his pursuit of his goals.

That very well (and infact, quite likely in some cases) could include studying divine subjects.

Heck, look at us. Tell me, when you go to wikipedia, how much stuff do you read and learn that you didn't intend to? The same exact thing happens at libraries, to a lesser degree. Especially when your just chilling the whole day burning time reading and learning.

Again, you are going into "reality" - the game is built on the abstract...

[kyrt-ryder]

Saradoc wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Saradoc wrote:

Yeah, but a wizard isn't going to waste time learning about divine spells when his studies are in the arcane. I typically separate out arcane and divine like item usage - if it's a wand of cure light wounds, a wizard can't use it because it's not on his spell list. In the moment, I would have probably given the wizard a DC 25 spellcraft to know the answer. My gut is saying that you should keep arcane and divine knowledges separate - and only use spellcraft the way it was designed, to identify spells as they are being cast, or identify magic that exists and is detectable...

I beg to differ. A wizard is a person, a scholar, an adventurer.

He's going to be studying whatever can help him and his cause and his pursuit of his goals.

That very well (and infact, quite likely in some cases) could include studying divine subjects.

Heck, look at us. Tell me, when you go to wikipedia, how much stuff do you read and learn that you didn't intend to? The same exact thing happens at libraries, to a lesser degree. Especially when your just chilling the whole day burning time reading and learning.

Again, you are going into "reality" - the game is built on the abstract...

and in the abstract the pc's wouldn't be learning whenever they could? Remember their lives could depend on it. (Anybody with 1 rank in a relevant knowledge is able to make a check for any obscurity level of information, and depending on his int bonus and other present modifiers just might happen to know some pretty obscure stuff)

The game actually already accounts for the whole 'haven't studied the subject' tangent, and that would be the fact that knowledge are trained skills, you can only get basic information (DC 10) without a rank.

[Saradoc]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Saradoc wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Saradoc wrote:

Yeah, but a wizard isn't going to waste time learning about divine spells when his studies are in the arcane. I typically separate out arcane and divine like item usage - if it's a wand of cure light wounds, a wizard can't use it because it's not on his spell list. In the moment, I would have probably given the wizard a DC 25 spellcraft to know the answer. My gut is saying that you should keep arcane and divine knowledges separate - and only use spellcraft the way it was designed, to identify spells as they are being cast, or identify magic that exists and is detectable...

I beg to differ. A wizard is a person, a scholar, an adventurer.

He's going to be studying whatever can help him and his cause and his pursuit of his goals.

That very well (and infact, quite likely in some cases) could include studying divine subjects.

Heck, look at us. Tell me, when you go to wikipedia, how much stuff do you read and learn that you didn't intend to? The same exact thing happens at libraries, to a lesser degree. Especially when your just chilling the whole day burning time reading and learning.

Again, you are going into "reality" - the game is built on the abstract...

and in the abstract the pc's wouldn't be learning whenever they could? Remember their lives could depend on it. (Anybody with 1 rank in a relevant knowledge is able to make a check for any obscurity level of information, and depending on his int bonus and other present modifiers just might happen to know some pretty obscure stuff)

The game actually already accounts for the whole 'haven't studied the subject' tangent, and that would be the fact that knowledge are trained skills, you can only get basic information (DC 10) without a rank.

See post above. I am just saying this is how I would have called it at the moment:

Yeah, but a wizard isn't going to waste time learning about divine spells when his studies are in the arcane. I typically separate out arcane and divine like item usage - if it's a wand of cure light wounds, a wizard can't use it because it's not on his spell list. In the moment, I would have probably given the wizard a DC 25 spellcraft to know the answer. My gut is saying that you should keep arcane and divine knowledges separate - and only use spellcraft the way it was designed, to identify spells as they are being cast, or identify magic that exists and is detectable...

[Remco Sommeling]

by expert I mean the non-magic using NPC class really, but I could substitute fighter with ranks in spellcraft for it just as well.

say a fighter with a grudge vs magic-users, he learns their ways and ways to counter them. he will not be able to cast it, but what does he actually know about such things ?

[kyrt-ryder]

Saradoc, I read your post, and I see your position, I just don't agree with it.

Remco, the Fighter with the ranks knows whatever he's studied. Remember, this is knowledge, lore, information, data.

You don't have to know how to program HTML to understand what a published website says, you just have to understand English or whatever language it presents it's information in.

Same exact thing with the Fighter or Expert or whatever. If he invests a rank into the skill (representing his study in the field, his understanding of the spoken language), he can make the checks and may indeed have uncoverred such knowledge in his studies.

EDIT: To expand on what I've been discussing with Saradoc, just because wizardry and arcana are the focus of a wizard's studies does not mean he isn't going to be learning everything else he needs.

Do Dentists ONLY study teeth and jaws? Or do they make sure to learn a basic understanding of anatomy and medicine in the process?

If you put the rank into the skill, that means you've studied it, taken a course, read an encylopedia (or 'wiki') on the subject, and have a chance of knowing anything about it. Your knowledge check randomly reveals what you know, if anything. If we didn't have those checks, players and DM's would need to go over every single book and every single person a PC ever talks to and record every piece of information ever.

And I don't know about you, but I'm interested in playing D&D, not in scribing tomes of information gathered for later use that likely won't ever come because I'm too busy scribing.

[Saradoc]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Saradoc, I read your post, and I see your position, I just don't agree with it.

ohhhhhh reaaaallllyyyy? Your loss then. ;-)

[kyrt-ryder]

Saradoc wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Saradoc, I read your post, and I see your position, I just don't agree with it.

ohhhhhh reaaaallllyyyy? Your loss then. ;-)

lol, could be. I edited more into my last post, I'd appreciate a read and respond :)

[Saradoc]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

EDIT: To expand on what I've been discussing with Saradoc, just because wizardry and arcana are the focus of a wizard's studies does not mean he isn't going to be learning everything else he needs.

This is sort of where I differ with Kyrt...you say: "just because wizardry and arcana are the focus of a wizard's studies" - in your own admission it's their focus - in the reality of my campaign, my players' wizards are taking up all their time with the complexity and research and spell component retrieval and the hours spent learning arcane lore - a druid's spell list is not even a thought for them. Where do you draw the line then with how much a Wizard would know outside his or her field of knowledge? How much did that dentist really study outside of the jaw? Where did the college he attended draw the line? My point is, I think the wizard would look over at the dead player and say, "Mmmmmm, I am sure there is some sort of resurrection spell that one of those religious clerics could call upon from, meh, some sort of divine source...but I can't help you there young master..."

So, in general, the wizard would know it exists but not understand how it works or what the spell is actually defined as...because he doesn't care - it's not within in his area of expertise.

[Frostflame]

Well you as dm has to rule what a pc knows and what he doesnt. A bit hard on the player when he already has knowledge. It depends on the level of the wizard and if he has witnessed such a spell before. A first level wizard would probably who knows only a handful of spells would not know of a specific spell called reincarnation. You as Dm would have to set A DC and have the player roll the appropiate Knowledge Arcana check, to determine whether or not the player has come across such a spell in his studies. Tales abound by the masses of what magic is and isnt most of it is patently false draw upon this.

[A Man In Black]

Saradoc wrote:

Where do you draw the line then with how much a Wizard would know outside his or her field of knowledge?

Perhaps his Spellcraft modifier?

[Saradoc]

A Man In Black wrote:

Saradoc wrote:

Where do you draw the line then with how much a Wizard would know outside his or her field of knowledge?

Perhaps his Spellcraft modifier?

See my comments above. Honestly, I don't think it applies technically - spellcraft is intended for spells as they are being cast, or for magic that is in place and detectable. But as I said above, AMIB, I would have used a SC check in the game moment, and applied a DC 20-25 or so, so high because it's not in his mindset to know such spells.

[A Man In Black]

Saradoc wrote:

See my comments above. Honestly, I don't think it applies technically - spellcraft is intended for spells as they are being cast, or for magic that is in place and detectable. But as I said above, AMIB, I would have used a SC check in the game moment, and applied a DC 20-25 or so, so high because it's not in his mindset to know such spells.

You infer that Spellcraft is somehow limited to knowing about your own class's spells, despite the fact that the written DCs say nothing about what class the spell is from.

This is going to lead to me ranting about why it is that people feel the need to write new limitations into skills, I know it.

[kyrt-ryder]

A Man In Black wrote:

Saradoc wrote:

Where do you draw the line then with how much a Wizard would know outside his or her field of knowledge?

Perhaps his Spellcraft modifier?

Or perhaps his Knowledge Nature Modifier if you want to use specifics?

Remember, 1 rank, by the rules, allows you to have potentially uncovered any obscurity level of knowledge during your studies.

Joe Dirt Commoner 1, on the street, could know this detail if he'd spent enough time in a library to gain the requisite skill rank. (I'd estimate 6 hours reading the material, but eh, that's a personal call)

[Saradoc]

A Man In Black wrote:

Saradoc wrote:

See my comments above. Honestly, I don't think it applies technically - spellcraft is intended for spells as they are being cast, or for magic that is in place and detectable. But as I said above, AMIB, I would have used a SC check in the game moment, and applied a DC 20-25 or so, so high because it's not in his mindset to know such spells.

You infer that Spellcraft is somehow limited to knowing about your own class's spells, despite the fact that the written DCs say nothing about what class the spell is from.

This is going to lead to me ranting about why it is that people feel the need to write new limitations into skills, I know it.

Well, if you know that...then you still have the power to make the right choice and not say anything, lol.

[Saradoc]

A Man In Black wrote:

You infer that Spellcraft is somehow limited to knowing about your own class's spells, despite the fact that the written DCs say nothing about what class the spell is from.

I am not inferring that at all - you are inferring that. I am saying read the rules on spellcraft.

[kyrt-ryder]

A Man In Black wrote:

Saradoc wrote:

See my comments above. Honestly, I don't think it applies technically - spellcraft is intended for spells as they are being cast, or for magic that is in place and detectable. But as I said above, AMIB, I would have used a SC check in the game moment, and applied a DC 20-25 or so, so high because it's not in his mindset to know such spells.

You infer that Spellcraft is somehow limited to knowing about your own class's spells, despite the fact that the written DCs say nothing about what class the spell is from.

This is going to lead to me ranting about why it is that people feel the need to write new limitations into skills, I know it.

You bring up a good point MiB. By the rules, a spellcraft check lets you identify a spell cast. I could be wrong here, but as far as I know, 'identifying' is the equivalent of the PC reading the spell right out of the PH, they know how long it lasts at minimum (CL * modifier of lowest caster level, it's a mechanical number but it translates into a game concept of 'the shortest time the spell ever lasts), can guage how damaging it is at minimum, how far at minimum it can fire, and what kinds of special effects it has.

To be able to determine all that, the character with a high spellcraft would have to have high spell knowledge.

(of course I could be misunderstanding that application of the spellcraft skill)

[Zurai]

Dunno about anyone else, but I never interpreted "identify a spell as it's being cast" as "That character is casting fireball" (although I'll usually just say that for expedience's sake.

Identification of a spell doesn't necessarily involve its name, the classes who can cast it, or anything else other than its parameters. Fireball, for example, can be identified as "a fire evocation spell that will cause a 20 foot radius explosive detonation at long range". And this isn't necessarily because of some encyclopedic study of spells, either; I usually rule that it's the way the spell "look" as it's being cast. For example, the bit of bat guano for explosiveness, the way the somatic components are made, and the words used in the verbal components all lead the Spellcraft-using character to realize that the the spell has the traits I listed above.

[Gorbacz]

In my understanding, a person that takes ranks in Spellcraft has undergone "Basic Spellcasting" course. That included identifying spells, and that also includes identifying spells of other classes than your own.

If the spell is really obscure (eg. from non-core sources) I might up the DC or call for Knowledge (aracna) check ("This is some ancient spell used by long-lost cabal of Drow wizards...").

[kyrt-ryder]

Gorbacz wrote:

In my understanding, a person that takes ranks in Spellcraft has undergone "Basic Spellcasting" course. That included identifying spells, and that also includes identifying spells of other classes than your own.

If the spell is really obscure (eg. from non-core sources) I might up the DC or call for Knowledge (aracna) check ("This is some ancient spell used by long-lost cabal of Drow wizards...").

was that intentional? lol