As in the title, do characters know the names of spells? This question has many facets- Spellcasters likely know the names of most spells, I would assume- It is their job to study them. But do they know ALL spells? What if it is a spell they have never seen, could they have heard of it? For example, let's say a wizard has never seen or read up on Searing Ray. Would he be able to ask for a scroll or wand of it by name, or would he have to beat around the bush and ask for a wand "that fires hot beams"?
Now, what about a dumb fighty type? One could assume that even an idiot could correctly identify the big ball of fire as a "fireball", but things get complex when it gets into the metaphysical spells, like ones that add luck bonuses or buffs like freedom of movement. To anyone not detecting magic, freedom of movement would just look like someone extremely agile or lucky. So could a dumb beefer really be expected to be able to know the spell to ask for it by name?
Then again, in a society in which magic is known, it might be relatively common knowledge. Could it be like cars? Mages would be mechanics, in this analagy, knowing how to fix and build cars. Someone like me would be a fighter type, since my knowledge is "VAN TRUCK OR CAR", and of course, there are enthusiasts who know the parts and makes of cars, but don't have hands on experience building them, so maybe knowledge arcana.
Knowledge Arcana might fit this bill, really, but this isn't exactly a "secrets of magic" or a "reactionary" type deal, which is what arcana seems to be. This isn't so much "Identify a spell as it is/after it has been cast" but "how many names and spell descriptions could a given character be expected to know as common knowledge in the first place".
Identifying a spell as its being cast is spellcraft, its used to figur out if you recognize the spell. Without spellcraft You basically have no idea about any magic spells or their names.
But i suggest reading knowledge arcana and spellcraft for what they cover.
spells generally involve spellcraft.
Knowledge Arcana just covers things magical (such as creatures, dragons, or magical entities and whatnot.)
And I'd say yes, they would know the spell.
Wizards an such for sure, Bards and Sorcerers I am not certain of.
Like having (extraordinarily complex) recipes, the means of casting a spell might vary slightly from caster to caster, from culture to culture. In the end though, no matter how you season your steak, it's still steak.
Laymen can't figure out what's going on at all, but a master of magic can see past the small variations/nuances/seasoning of magic involved and recognize the core spell as "a steak."
This, I think, is why you need to roll Spellcraft to identify spells even though you may have identified them before.
One must also account for language. One man's fireball is another man's zarantifeela. In the end, it's still just a fireball.
I imagine most spells have numerous names, most of which spellcasters will already be familiar with.
Wizards an such for sure, Bards and Sorcerers I am not certain of.
Less to do with class choice and more to do with their knowledge of spells (Spellcraft/Knowledge: Arcana modifiers).
Like having (extraordinarily complex) recipes, the means of casting a spell might vary slightly from caster to caster, from culture to culture. In the end though, no matter how you season your steak, it's still steak.
Laymen can't figure out what's going on at all, but a master of magic can see past the small variations/nuances/seasoning of magic involved and recognize the core spell as "a steak."
This, I think, is why you need to roll Spellcraft to identify spells even though you may have identified them before.
One must also account for language. One man's fireball is another man's zarantifeela. In the end, it's still just a fireball.
I imagine most spells have numerous names, most of which spellcasters will already be familiar with.
many would disagree with you if its about food and drinks, as example the Hungarian palacsinta/French crépe/ XYZ pancake debates if they are the same or not, and if they are the same which is the original, and if not which was first, in addition the Austrians try to make palatschinken the original of the Hungarian palacsinta (heck, Romanian and Austrian edit fights over this page in Wikipedia is constant, while the actual name of the article is wrong to begin with)
I can easily see how spells with similar/same effect could in fantasy setting have multitudes of names, and how magic schools and academies, even whole nations would argue over which is the true/real/original one
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To compare, first we have Spellcraft!
Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question.
Spellcraft allows you to:
Identify a spell as it is being cast
Now Knowledge: Arcana!
You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions.
Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
Knowledge: Arcana allows you to:
Identify auras while using detect magic
Identify a spell effect that is in place
Identify materials manufactured by magic
Identify a spell that just targeted you
Identify the spells cast using a specific material component
So, the way I see it, the identification of a spell as it is being cast is more about the "technical art of casting a spell". Whether it is the signs/crackles of magical energies in the air or the casting components, Spellcraft is more about the "craft".
Knowing about a spell in general, that's Knowledge: Arcana as far as I can see the interpretation of it. Let the skill points dictate what the character's know. A fighter isn't proficient in Knowledge: Arcana so it will make sense that he's a bit lost on what that spell you always cast on him is unless you directly tell him what it's called.
What RD is saying is regardless of those Debates Fireball is still Fireball no matter who cast it in what language with what hand motions and no matter who or where they think invented the spell.
mmmm a steak spell, with metamagicked bbq sauce
mmmm a steak spell, with metamagicked bbq sauce
create food/feast/etc spells
What RD is saying is regardless of those Debates Fireball is still Fireball no matter who cast it in what language with what hand motions and no matter who or where they think invented the spell.
that may be so, but "Do characters know spell names?" is a question that may not be easy to reply upon if the caster uses innate power instead of learning, or the setting allows a spell to be called by 2 or more names :)
Agree with Ryu. It depends on which question you are asking. In the case of a wizard (or anyone) reading a scroll, they would know what spell name is on the scroll. If you are asking does a Chellaxian Sorcerer call their spell the same as a Varisian sorcerer then I would say that is RP material. e Wizards study to gain their magic so it makes sense that their spells might all be named the same, but a Sorcerer learns theirs as more of a gut feeling, so it would make sense they call the same spells by different names. But again, that's all roleplay. A knowledge arcana check would basically impart the book definition of a spell to a wizard but it would probably impart a less formal name to a sorcerer.
But where does that leave you when you want to ask for a scroll?
"Hey do you have anything that can me faster?"
"Sure, let me get my scroll of Zortlsquix."
Hands over Haste scroll.
"Hey do you have anything that can me faster?"
"Sure, let me get my scroll of Zortlsquix."
Hands over Haste scroll.
This assumes everyone knows the definition of "Zortlsquix"...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This assumes everyone knows the definition of "Zortlsquix"..."Hey do you have anything that can me faster?"
"Sure, let me get my scroll of Zortlsquix."
Hands over Haste scroll.
Heh, that's the point I'm making...someone asks to be faster and gets handed a Haste scroll, but the person handing it over happens to call it a different name. If the handee made a knowledge arcana check they might know it as squifflepauz.
Yeah that makes sense. Good enough for me. If you look at an Ed Greenwood novel I don't think he ever uses any generic spell names from rule books. Doesn't seem to be a problem for people living in his worlds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You mean the vocal component doesn't consist of shouting the spell's name!?
"Lightning Bolt!"
"Lightning Bolt!"
"Lightning Bolt!"
"Lightning Bolt!"
"Cheeze-it!"
Again, though, the real question is only being lightly brushed on, like a gentle summer breeze caresses a baby's cheek. I'm looking for interpretations that slam into the question like a wrecking ball smashing into a baby's cheek.
It's all well and good that arcana can tell you what spell HAS been cast in an area or what spell an opponent IS casting in the heat of battle, but it doesn't say anything about the simple knowledge of spell names or functions, in general, without having observed them taking place or being cast. While it seems fairly common sense that this would fall under Knowledge Arcana, I haven't found any DC's for knowing of a spell's existence. Also, how would such a thing be handled? Would someone have to roll each time they attempt to name a new spell, to see if they know it exists? Wouldn't that lead to some awkwardness if it failed? "I came for a ring of-" *rolls* "damn. A ring of being able to walk better."
Someone above mentioned "I want to go faster" and being handed a haste scroll. That's more to the point I was getting at- does a wizard, sorcerer or especially fighter who has never cast or seen haste know what to call it when asking around in the local magic-mart? If not, it would do two things, one good and one bad.
The bad aspect is that it would require a large effort on the GM's part to parse the requests of the players as they have to try to explain spell mechanics that may or may not even exist. It would also require the players to have faith that the GM wouldn't pull a jerk move and give them something similar but bad, like as often happens with wishes.
The good aspect is like the last half of the bad aspect- It would encourage more engaging RP when shopping for magical items, haggling, bargaining, and taking the salesman at faith. It would allow a DM to make honest salespeople and dishonest "secondhand car" type salesmen who would essentially offer snake oil, or lie about their spells. It would force the players who don't have high knowledge arcana to simply trust (or distrust) magical item vendors, which would add layers of RP opportunity. Of course, for it to be good or bad in this regard depends on the GM in question and how prone he is to spamming jerk moves.
It's all well and good that arcana can tell you what spell HAS been cast in an area or what spell an opponent IS casting in the heat of battle, but it doesn't say anything about the simple knowledge of spell names or functions, in general, without having observed them taking place or being cast.
That really depends on how the DM runs his game, but here's my take on it:
Magic may be taught in colleges, but it's not like modern science which is internationalised and standardised. Rival colleges probably have different names for the same spells, usually emphasising how much better the college is than it's rivals. So asking if a wizard knows what a spell's name is can be quite complex - he knows what his college may call it, but anyone else's? He can recognize the principals but that won't tell him what other wizards would call it.
I don't think a wizard will necessarily know all the spells of their own college, they will instead understand the fundamental principals behind them and be able to work out the rest on their own, of recognize them when they see them.
The way I look at it, Knowledge (arcana) is knowledge of magic and how it influences the world; it's knowledge of magical beasts, dragons, ancient civilisations. Spellcraft is knowledge of how to work magic, how to specifically invoke and control magical forces. It's like the difference between physics and engineering; physics is knowledge of how the universe works while engineering is knowing how to make it work for you; being skilled at one implies some knowledge of the other, but they are fundamentally different skills. Some engineers know very little physics, and some physicists couldn't bolt together a mechano set.
Knowledge of what a spell can do and of it's name is Spellcraft. Just as a physicist understands complex math, but may be clueless as to the practical properties of building materials, on the fly it takes an engineer to tell you how a building is held up or to throw together an engine hoist out of paper-clips and rubber bands.
I am empathised with te lack of roleplay on this part as a GM. The downfall howerver is that is a player want to buy his belt of +4 str, dex and and, you actually can't screw him over for roleplay, way to expensive. You can make it a mini adventure to actually find one. High magical items are not bought on every street of the corner. You can make sure that the party can do some missions for a wizard guild, churg, etc for buyin gitems.
Especially for wizards, I would assume that they are all familiar with the spell's "common name," you know, the name at the top of the spell description in the book.... For simplicity's sake, I would probably do the same for sorcerers and bards unless there was a specific RP reason not to.
As for rings of being able to walk better, this is probably how most non-magic types would ask if they didn't consult the party wizard/magus/guy with lots of ranks in spellcraft before going to "Rings R Us" and placing their special order.
Swindling the unknowledgeable? Why would anybody ever do that? Really, though, there's very little to stop the local ring forger from "misunderstanding" your order and giving you something other than what you wanted. That's all the GM's call; if he wants magic item purchasing to be a big, immersive RP experience than sure, why not? If he wants you to get back to saving the town/country/world/universe/whatever than it's probably going to be as simple a process as changing the wealth on your character sheet and adding the purchased ring.
To sum up this whole post: GM fiat. All of it.
I go back and forth on the issue... Sometimes I like to think of 'magical language' as something like Latin... Some long dead language that all wizards (like scientists and doctor's) use to collaborate knowledge...
I used to have my spell books all translated into elvish for a bit more 'flavor'....
But frankly, a LOT of that is just too much trouble. If someone spent half their lives studying magic and wants to get a scroll of fireball... having to 'explain' it to the shop keeper is just annoyance for annoyance sake.
@ Phantom: I prefer Draconic as the "language of magic." Elvish works, though, since they are both long-time users of magic.
If a wizard can know that the knife on the end of a stick is called a ranseur, while the other knife on the end of a stick is called glaive, then a fighter can recognize that the big exploding ball of fire is called a 'fireball.'
Maybe it's not called fireball. What if wizards are those annoying douche-bags who always stop and say, "Actually, the spell's name is Glignur's explosive thrown pea, the uneducated just call it fireball."
I go back and forth on the issue... Sometimes I like to think of 'magical language' as something like Latin... Some long dead language that all wizards (like scientists and doctor's) use to collaborate knowledge...
I used to have my spell books all translated into elvish for a bit more 'flavor'....
But frankly, a LOT of that is just too much trouble. If someone spent half their lives studying magic and wants to get a scroll of fireball... having to 'explain' it to the shop keeper is just annoyance for annoyance sake.
Well in most settings I have played all arcane magic was based on and written in Draconic(the first non deities with magic). Thats how we explain the fact all regions use the same names for spells... because they all use the same base language to "build" spells.
I don't understand why so many people would use Spellcraft. Spellcraft only identifies spells as they are being cast. It's the "crafting" of spells.
Knowledge: Arcana lets you identify a spell that you just saw after it was cast. It's not about the casting itself, it's knowledge about the spell and it's effects.
It's all well and good that arcana can tell you what spell HAS been cast in an area or what spell an opponent IS casting in the heat of battle, but it doesn't say anything about the simple knowledge of spell names or functions, in general, without having observed them taking place or being cast
The rules don't give you a DC because the Knowledge skill itself has a large amount of GM interpretation. However, it is still the skill to use based upon this premise:
You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions.
The questions would be relative to the existence and nature of spells. I've never seen a reason to treat Knowledge as a reactive skill either. There was once a debate on these forums in which it was mentioned that you cannot answer a question that isn't being asked. I would rule that your character can inwardly ask himself any question he wants when it comes to "Do I know this?". It satisfies the intent of knowledge as a concept.
Also, how would such a thing be handled? Would someone have to roll each time they attempt to name a new spell, to see if they know it exists? Wouldn't that lead to some awkwardness if it failed? "I came for a ring of-" *rolls* "damn. A ring of being able to walk better."
This is how we've handled it at our tables. You'd be surprised how rarely it needs to come up. It's not like every spell ends up in conversation often.
Also, if you are unaware of the spell for the ring, you may be generally unaware of the ring's existence as well, extenuating circumstances precluded.
As to the discussion about common names, I would say that the spell names in the books would be the common term. In language, there can certainly be ambiguity, but in a world where magic is a field of study there would be at least rudimentary standardization.
It's like pancakes. Some people call them crepes and think there's no difference. However, if you walk up to the same person and say that you would like a plate of pancakes (a Scroll of Haste), they will still know what you're talking about despite the word crepes.
There may well be a "Agarath's Peppered Explosion" term, but if you say Fireball they should still know what you're talking about. I would actually enjoy some fluff in which "Agarath's Peppered Explosion" is a variant Fireball that is simply cast at a higher level for the scroll.
I assume that my non-casting characters know enough about the spells their allies cast regularly to recommend casting them at opportune times.
Maybe it's not called fireball. What if wizards are those annoying douche-bags who always stop and say, "Actually, the spell's name is Glignur's explosive thrown pea, the uneducated just call it fireball."
Then thats what the local Fighters Guild will start calling it, and they will carry that wizards head around in a box afterwards so they can continually thank him for explaining it to them in "such simple small words".
One other note- If a check is required to know a spell exists, how do we determine the value of the check? My first instict was something simple and related to spellcraft, in that the DC would be 10 or 5 plus spell level. I used 10 initially because it is much simpler than immediately knowing which spell is being cast as it is being cast or has been cast, it's the simple understanding that the spell exists somewhere. Like the difference between knowing that deer exist and what deer tracks look like.
Also, it seems flawed for another reason. Realistically, rare things are more famous. Like with vehicles. People who are inept at cars (like myself) can tell you what a rolls royce is, I know what a firebird is, I know what a corvette is. You don't see them often, but that they are rare is what makes them more common knowledge. I don't know the more common brands. I can't tell you the difference between toyota, dodge and honda and especially any of their specific models. So if cars were spells, I would know of some of the 7th 8th and 9th level spells, but not cantrips or the low to mid level spells. And I think this follows for a fantasy setting. People know fireballs. They know a storm of vengence. They know a wish, a meteor storm. They are the spells of legend. They probably don't know Endure Elements or Flare Burst, because while they may see them around, they're not worth memorizing.
Which brings up that issue- If it requires a check to determine if you know a spell, what is the standard value? Is it DC 20 minus spell level to account for the inversely proportionate values of rarity to common knowledge? Is it DC 5 or 10 plus spell level to scale like other spell-based skill checks? Would it have to be based entirely on the DM's subjective interpretation of how known a spell is, and his or her interpretation of the above inversely proportionate factor?
Since all of them are high level, though, it is likely that those casting them are of some fame. Refuge would likely be unknown, but Imprison could certainly be one if a famous caster sealed away some great foe with it, or astral projected to do whatever. Essentially, the famous are under more scrutiny than the typical hedge wizard brewing his potions or talking to his rat or casting his canflips or whathaveyou. It depends on how the DM handles it, at the moment, but I wouldn't mind some standardization for the act of simply knowing a spell exists.
There really could be some neat RP angles to this though. For instance your party could consist of villagers from a rural farming town when a witch rolls through and blights the land ruining the crops. The quest then has your party journeying to somewhere more civilized to bring back someone who can figure out what is killing the crops.
My game is fairly magic rich, with traveling Wizards and Sorcerers have a 'dueling circuit', so urban residents have a chance to see sport level competitions. The DC to recognize a spell based on what the caster is doing is a multiple of the spell's level, based on circumstances. A Wizard is considered to have been exposed to a wide variety of spells during their training, while Sorcerers lack that exposure. A farmer who's never left his village might have a multiple of as high as 6 or 7.
As for spell names, a lot of my spells have integral metamagics 'built-in', and are referred to by differing names in differing places. Most recent example would be a silent/still magic missile spell a Wizard level-gained with the Guild Name of Horcuut's Heavenly Revenge. He later found in treasure a different version called Everroot's (an assassin Wizard) Touch. I use spell points, and the spell point costs were different. both were in Draconic. He is currently (if he ever gets back in town) searching for a version in a Demonic language. And 'yes', he casts in about 5 languages.
Depending on your intent with it- the magic mart thing is actually far easier to deal with. Mart or a large market that just has 1-3 magic scrolls or whatever.
The Character (not the player) goes in and basically says "I want to buy, wutcha got?" and the vendor(s) probably check to make sure he can actually pay for it (remember, even cheap scrolls are "expensive") then tells 'em what he has, and how many.
The two of them can then parse out the finer differences between Fizbans Finer Flambeau d'Spherical Ball of Fire and Franks Firecircle. i.e. the 3rd level spell called Fireball.
Of course, fireball may not be what the Wizard is looking for, he's looking for time stop. This is where the DM says "you don't find a scroll of time stop" (or Fizban's Fancy Waterclock Obfuscator).
Sure yuo can Rp it all out- that could evne be fun sometimes for the DM to come up with a dozen (or half dozen, or two, or whatever) odd spell names for the PC to have to go "investigate" and figure out what they really are. At the end of the day though someone selling scrolls probably knows enough to know abouut scrolls to know 1) what they do 2) what level/circle/sphere/ring/plateau/whatever that it is. These two things allow him and the wizard to come to a consensus on exactly what it is being sold.
Now- as to whether or not a wizard "knows" a spell exists.
Thats harder to say and largely depends on why you want to know.
Are you sayinga wizard has to know a spell exists before he can take it for his 2 level up spells?
For this I say- no. These are spells the wizard is assumed to be *researching* between levels- making them things the wizard of course doesn't already have. You can ask the player to come up with an IC reason for it but really its as simple as "well, I don't have any damage spells and was pondering finding one that did either lignting or fire but in the end chose one that makes a sphere of fire. after researching it awhile it turned out to be aruond 3rd level and exactly what i was looking for. " or something. Which actually works as a perfectly valid rationalizaion for *any* spell gained in such fashion.
"How did you know it existed?" "I didn't. I researched it and created it myself."
The only other thing I could think of would be knowing if a spell existed for the purposes of looking for it to make an item with it.
Like needing fire shield to make item X or something. And for that, IC, I would assume said knowledge would come as part of figuring out said item needed that spell in the first place. keeping in mind- the wizard doesn't know it needs fire shield. he just knows it needs a spel lthat has that general effect. He could then go to the market (or consult other wizards and buy the spell from them) to find something that wuold work.
Why don't the rules cover it?
Well- largely for the same reason they don't cover more realistic damages or combat sequences or any other myriad of overly complicated- they add little to the game except to consume time while actually detracting from the flow of the game by making things needlessly more difficult from a "writing a rule book" stand point.
That being said- it would be interesting once or twice to have this happen in the game world. I think though that it would become over-done very quickly and lead to a "can we please just call them by the names in the book so we can get on with adventuring and do away with 2 hours of pointless yap just to buy a scroll?". of course- your milage may vary on that. Its just my point of view afterall and hardly indicative of any sort of majority or minority view excepting my own.
-S
Hey, a ball of fire. We'll call that fireball.
It's not a matter of common nicknames, it's a matter of verisimilitude. Let's say I'm rolling a half-orc barbarian with an int dump stat. Does he know of Freedom of Movement or Bear's Ferocity or Enlarge Person to ask for it by name? If not, why? If so, how? If he could but may not , what kind of check would it need and how high?