Pertinent Text is in the Spoiler.
You detect magical auras. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
1st Round: Presence or absence of magical auras.
2nd Round: Number of different magical auras and the power of the most potent aura.
3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura: DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + 1/2 caster level for a nonspell effect.) If the aura emanates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).
You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells as they are being cast.
Check: Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question. This skill is also used to identify the properties of magic items in your possession through the use of spells such as detect magic and identify. The DC of this check varies depending upon the task at hand…
Determine Properties of Magic Item: Attempting to ascertain the properties of a magic item takes 3 rounds per item to be identified and you must be able to thoroughly examine the object.
Essentially my problem with this is/always has been (side-note I am not trying to say this is unique to Pathfinder. I’m pretty sure this has been around since the invention of the +1 sword) that it is all but impossible to describe the magical/spellcraftian examination of a magical item without pointedly and purposefully breaking the fourth wall.
Sure the GM can say: “As your spell takes effect you definitely sense the presence of magic in the treasure pile.”
2nd Round: “Continuing to concentrate on the treasure pile reveals a few different auras; the most powerful of which resonates a moderate level of magical power.”
3rd Round: “As you continue to concentrate your magical detection you isolate two faint magical auras, one on a ring, and one on a dagger. The more moderately powerful aura, though, is centered on a longsword.”
Then we’re either rolling some Knowledge (Arcana) checks to determine specific magic schools, or rolling Spellcraft to get at exactly what the magic item’s properties are; this is where that fourth wall comes down. Perhaps the GM says, “Your knowledge of spellcraft reveals that this magical longsword was imbued with the magic of the Shield spell by an adept caster.” Excellent, but that doesn’t tell the player that it is a +1 Defending longsword. It just tells them that it is a magical longsword that somehow uses the spell Shield. What if the sword has a command word that actually casts the spell Shield? Even if the GM adds an addendum onto the description and says, “it’s clear to you that the sword could enhance the wielder’s ability to defend themselves in combat, if they chose.” it doesn’t fix (what I perceive as) the problem.
Which is that the, trying to be immersive, GM is forced into trying to come up with in game language to say “+1 Defending longsword,” or “+2 Flaming Burst greatsword.” When time is a hot commodity, and players want to get onto the next encounter (or on with the story), it all but forces the GM to just flat out say what the item is in mechanical terms if the caster makes their Spellcraft check. The only other option, and, honestly, one that I have long considered doing, is to come up with patented, in game language to describe every possible magical effect. To be sure, some of them are easy. Holy, is pretty easy, “It’s a Holy sword, Batman.” Some of them though, like Defending for example, require a really specific and sometimes corny description to get across what they actually do.
In the end, I guess what I’m looking for here is A) How many, if any, of you also struggle with this on an immersion level? B) Does it really matter if you just drop the metagame mechanical bomb of magical item properties on successful Spellcraft checks? C) How do other GMs handle this particular area of their games?
|
Like you said, time is of the essence, my players just want to move on to the next encounter or plot point. When they make their spellcraft checks to identify magical properties, i just tell them "+1 Defending longsword" or whatever it is. they are happy with that, it's how they prefer it, and i don't mind doing it for them myself.
You have to break immersion anyway when asking them to roll the dice, or they tell you "I'm casting X. Do I sense anything?" And you are going to have to just come out an tell them exactly what it is anyway, unless you want to be the one keeping track of adding the appropriate modifiers and abilities to their attacks for them.
Sure, you could take the time to find a good in-game description of an item, but you are going to have to give them an out-of-game description as well. You're going to have to break immersion. So just tell them what it is, and if they want to describe it in-game, let the players come up with a suitable description.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ryan Costello Jr from the 3.5 Private Sanctuary Podcast recently wrote a couple of short articles for Kobold Quarterly that might be of interest to this topic.
"A +2 what, sir?" Part I
"A +2 what, sir?" Part II
Basically the point would be that instead of giving vague descriptions you could say something like, "You study the blade for a moment and while the weaving of magic is tricky you realize that the crafter used the Assigliato method to craft this blade with both the Carving and Defending enchantments."
Since wizards are already used to standardizing spell names and such, it is no stretch at all (in my mind) that they would likely have done so with weapon and armor enchants as well.
Get rid of the +2 by naming it something you could see them naming it, and I think you are all set.
NOTE: Sorcerers have been botching things up for a while and don't feel the need to conform with standard nomenclature of spellcasting or enchanting. This is why they are nothing better than common, street, hedge-wizards! I say!
Ryan Costello Jr from the 3.5 Private Sanctuary Podcast recently wrote a couple of short articles for Kobold Quarterly that might be of interest to this topic.
"A +2 what, sir?" Part I
"A +2 what, sir?" Part IIBasically the point would be that instead of giving vague descriptions you could say something like, "You study the blade for a moment and while the weaving of magic is tricky you realize that the crafter used the Assigliato method to craft this blade with both the Carving and Defending enchantments."
Since wizards are already used to standardizing spell names and such, it is no stretch at all (in my mind) that they would likely have done so with weapon and armor enchants as well.
Get rid of the +2 by naming it something you could see them naming it, and I think you are all set.
NOTE: Sorcerers have been botching things up for a while and don't feel the need to conform with standard nomenclature of spellcasting or enchanting. This is why they are nothing better than common, street, hedge-wizards! I say!
Sean, thank you very much for the links to these articles. This really addresses exactly what I wanted, and I'll more than likely be implementing this into my games (with player consent of course).