Do magic-using PCs have an encyclopedic knowlege of all spells?

[Callum]

My players recently encountered a good-aligned creature that was behaving oddly - acting threateningly when they approached and not speaking to them - but they couldn't detect any magic effects on it. They realised that they wouldn't be able to detect a spell with an instantaneous duration, and the player of the witch PC asked if they knew of any specific spells that could create this observed behaviour, by virtue of her very high Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft skills. Is this a reasonable request? What might they know?

[*Thelith]

I'd say yes...
But only if it's on their spell list and only if they are high enough level to cast it.

Otherwise research would be required..(as in somewhere with a library or a higher level caster, etc)

But that's just me..

[Valandil Ancalime]

"Identify a spell effect that is in place" is a 20+spell level Know(arcana) check. The question is, is an instantaneous spell a "spell effect that is in place"?

[Gilfalas]

Valandil Ancalime wrote:

"Identify a spell effect that is in place" is a 20+spell level Know(arcana) check. The question is, is an instantaneous spell a "spell effect that is in place"?

I would say no. You MIGHT be able to reason out the after affects of such spells (like scorch marks in the area from a fireball or that fact that a previously wounded creature was no longer wounded mere minutes later) but the nature of instantaneous magic effects is they happen and are instantly done.

There is no spell in place. The spell has happened and ended. There are only the after effects the spell caused.

Active spells like Invisibility Purge, Protection spells, or some of the wall spells would be applicable examples of spells for this function of Knowledge Arcana.

[Mysterious Stranger]

While the spell may no longer be in place a character with a high knowledge arcana and spell craft should probably be able to figure out if the NPC has been affected by magic. It will be more difficult than if they were under an ongoing active spell. Raising the DC by about 10 seems reasonable to me.

This is the equivalent of a doctor figuring out a someone had a disease by looking for scars or other signs the disease left.

[avr]

This is the sort of situation where the GM can get vague if they feel like it. Not 'look up this spell', more along the lines of 'Definitely some sort of influence, yes, you read something about necromantic forces altering personality once and this might be related.'

i.e. no I wouldn't give the exact spell short of the use of greater detect magic (or similar) in this situation.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

I'd allow it. If you can identify spells being cast or spells in place, you obviously know about those spells and what they do in the first place, and you can make educated guesses about which spells might be causing certain effects even if you can't directly observe the magic. You might want to increase the DC a bit, especially if it isn't a common spell.

[Azothath]

there are three parts to your post.

1) do spellcasters have encyclopedic knowledge of all spells?
Somewhat.
A spellcaster has a working knowledge (presumably by Class and via Spellcraft) for item usage for all spells on their spell list but still have to 'learn'/select spells to cast them. Then they have Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcana. Those give a percentage of knowledge that scales with level, Intelligence, and some traits/feats/items.

2) is there a method to detect if a creature has been charmed/enchanted/etc.
Yes, both mundane and magical.

Sense Motive skill. DC ranges from 25 to 15. THEN a Knw:Arcana{identify spell effect that is in place} roll should be made to see what spells it could be based on the observed behavior and possibly a few tests to confirm the suspicion. Like Diplomacy it should take some time via chatting and verbal repartee.
The creature may just be convinced through normal Diplomacy and that should come out in the investigation process of Sense Motive (assuming a neutral or better attitude).

Magically you have options. Probably the simplest is to assume an issue and try Protection from Evil with consent from the target. Detect Magic does detect spells cast in the area based on level (lingering auras) so it's not always 'only ongoing' spells.

3) If there's reasonable cause, sure, casters can make assumptions and posit what might be going on. That's called guessing. You can be as vague as enchantment/charm school to a list of say 3+ spells. Ask the PC to write down the behaviors, make a still check, then match the behaviors to the spells trying to ignore the plot details as a GM.

Like any good storyteller don't be a font of free exacting truthful information. What if one ugly sister in Cinderella said, "Ohh I read my tea leaves this morning -- it doesn't matter as on page 53 Cinderella marries the Prince!" You give PCs info to guide them, to help them make decisions (particularly when stuck) and then based on that and the idea it is a game - to have them act. Sometimes you have to say wrong things to spur the players to action... so choose your sock puppets well.

[Mark Hoover 330]

I'd like to point out that Spellcraft doesn't differentiate between spells known to the caster, spells of their discipline (Arcane vs Divine/Profane, etc), or spells that appear on their spell list. The bits about identifying spell effects or spells in place and such are broadly about ANY spell.

If a PC is a Wizard 6 with Spellcraft +15 and a foe casts Magic Missile, it's a DC 16 to ID the spell as it's being cast. If a foe casts Inflict Light Wounds as a Clerical spell, it's a DC 16 to ID the spell being cast. Period.

Personally in the OP's situation I would've started with a Sense Motive. Is the NPC acting squirrely b/c they are under duress? Could be they're avoiding the PCs or acting threateningly b/c a foe has the NPC's family kidnapped and they're following instructions by the kidnapper.

I'd either set the Sense Motive against the DC of the spell on the NPC or maybe some other DC, but something to make it a challenge to just AUTOMATICALLY assume that there's a spell ensorcelling the victim. If the Sense Motive succeeds, then I'd progress to a Spellcraft for the PC to ID a spell using the DC 20 + Spell Level, perhaps with a -2 Circumstance penalty because it's an Instantaneous spell with a subtle but lingering effect.

I mean, think of ALL the reasons an NPC might be acting oddly towards a PC in a fantasy RPG:

1. they are a villain using a mundane or magical disguise

2. the NPC is under pressure or duress

3. they have been coerced by a spell

4. they are being paid to be rude to the PCs

5. the NPC is, in fact, a doppelganger or intelligent mimic or something

6. they are under a Curse effect

7. the NPC has a transmissible disease of a mundane or magical nature that they don't want to infect others with, but they're ashamed to admit weakness

8. the NPC has recently become an undead with a compulsion like eating rotten flesh or drinking blood, and they're having difficulty suppressing their urges

9. they just sincerely don't like the PCs right now

10. the NPC has been tasked by a higher power to lead the PCs to some conclusion, mission or revelation and chose negative manipulation to complete this task

So just instantly letting the Wizard PC assume that it's a spell, roll a Spellcraft and know immediately what's going on might be anti climactic.

[Ryze Kuja]

No, magic-using PC's do not have an encyclopedic knowledge of all spells, but once you have a high enough Knowledge (Arcana) skill bonus + Int to never fail one of the following checks, then yes, that particular PC could be considered as having encyclopedic knowledge. That could happen as early as lvl 10-12ish with feats, or about level 14-16ish with no investment whatsoever.

Knowledge Skill

Table: Knowledge Skill DC’s Task Knowledge Skill DC
Identify auras while using detect magic Arcana 15 + spell level
Identify a spell effect that is in place Arcana 20 + spell level
Identify materials manufactured by magic Arcana 20 + spell level
Identify a spell that just targeted you Arcana 25 + spell level
Identify the spells cast using a specific material component Arcana 20

[Jhaeman]

The situation I sometimes get at GM is a player saying “I’ve got a +5 billion to Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana). Does my PC know of a spell or magic item that can do X?”. Chances are, the character very well *would* have encyclopaedic knowledge of whether something exists—but poor GM Jhaeman doesn’t! There’s just so much stuff out there, and I don’t really have time to do the player’s research for them.

[Azothath]

Jhaeman wrote:

The situation I sometimes get at GM is a player saying “I’ve got a +5 billion to Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana). Does my PC know of a spell or magic item that can do X?”. Chances are, the character very well *would* have encyclopaedic knowledge of whether something exists—but poor GM Jhaeman doesn’t! There’s just so much stuff out there, and I don’t really have time to do the player’s research for them.

There are different kinds of GMs, one is the Game Manager.

[Pizza Lord]

Most of the time, when players ask this, it isn't them asking about some specific, obviously-can-only-be-done-by-one-type-of-spell/weapon/creature. They usually ask it when only knowing the most basic of clues.

Usually they'll see a burned up body and say "Spellcraft to tell me what spell can do this!"
And that's when you have to say, "There's lots of spells that could do that."

Now, if they had made Search checks and noted areas of soot or scorching in a 20-foot radius, and had also noted whether or not it was circuler (like the floor and ceiling were scorched, indicating it wasn't just a fan of flames), then they can start narrowing it down.

This isn't the same as a situation where the corpse is burnt but it's covered in blue ooze and the hands have turned into snakes. If there was only one spell that might do that, then yes (if they make the check).

It's not reasonable for you to lay out all the possibility, especially if the possible outcomes or answers are more than 3 at most. Sometimes the purpose of a mystery or a puzzle is for it to be worked through and it is pretty well-known knowledge that allowing a single roll to derail an adventure is not a good thing.

It's no different than the player's hearing about some farmer that was slashed up by some monster and they ask for a Knowledge check to know every creature that might have done it but there's no reasonable evidence t look at other than some witness or other person just saying it looked like claw marks. It might have been multiple parallel knife cuts or it must have been some fighting claws or it might have been a bear or a tiger or a summoned demon or a cat that had been enlarged to giant size. The PCs should at least have to see the wounds themselves (again, without there being some obvious to one creature detail in the witness account) and make a Heal check or some other check to note anything about the wounds and then try to narrow it down. There definitely has to be something unique enough to narrow a choice down to maybe 3 or so possibilities before a GM should have to say something other than, "There's too many possibilities, you need more to go on" (or at least until a player actually states that they think it might be something specific and then asks about specifics of that spell or creature).

So, while it's reasonable to assume PCs with knowledges have knowledge, it's also not reasonable for them to assume that just because they know what a zebra is in (or out) of character that because someone mentions they saw hoofprints that the PC should be able to just get a list of every creature in existence that might have hooves, whether the creature that left the hoof prints was a horse, mule, zebra, or donkey... and then, what if the creature that left the hoofprints was a demon? That's not a knowledge (Nature) check, that might be a Knowledge (Planes). but you can't just start giving away all the mystery and clues and start them thinking that it might have actually been a horse-footed demon without them at least broaching the possibility amongst themselves in-character or noting other details (like sulphurous burns or scorch marks). And even then... maybe it was a Nightmare... not a bipedal demon with hooves. Or maybe it was a spell-casting centaur...

Expecting the GM to give you every possible outcome without you putting in enough work is not reasonable.

[Claxon]

Definitely no, else you wouldn't need to make checks to identify spells.

The weird part here is an instantaneous spell with what appears to be a permanent magical effect (which happens, but isn't very common).

[TxSam88]

Claxon wrote:

Definitely no, else you wouldn't need to make checks to identify spells.

The weird part here is an instantaneous spell with what appears to be a permanent magical effect (which happens, but isn't very common).

The Insanity spell is a good example. I would rule that even though it's an instantaneous spell that detect magic would show the creature to be under the affects of a spell, and that a Spellcraft check could reveal what it is.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Just because the effect is mental instead of physical does not mean it is an ongoing magical effect. If I can use magic to do permanent physical damage to a creature, there is no reason I cannot do permanent mental damage instead. Why is making someone insane any different than giving them leprosy?

[Claxon]

TxSam88 wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Definitely no, else you wouldn't need to make checks to identify spells.

The weird part here is an instantaneous spell with what appears to be a permanent magical effect (which happens, but isn't very common).

The Insanity spell is a good example. I would rule that even though it's an instantaneous spell that detect magic would show the creature to be under the affects of a spell, and that a Spellcraft check could reveal what it is.

Honestly, I think that's the best way to handle it. Then it fits in line with everything that already exists. It just basically means that you can't use dispel magic to try to get rid of the effect. But being able to (with a standard DC for magical effects in place) determine what caused the current state of the individual (assuming the state was caused by magic).

A GM might still say in the event of common effects (like burns) that there is no way to identify what particular magic did this. Or may require detect magic to determine if the effect was magic or mundane that caused the burns, and that could be subject to rules on lingering magic auras.

[Ryze Kuja]

"Identify a spell effect that is in place Arcana 20 + spell level."

Identifying an Insanity spell is a continuous Confusion effect, and to identify it is Knowledge Arcana DC27. Detect Magic won't work on it unless the "Aura" of magic is still lingering. Whether it is lingering or not is entirely up to the GM.

Detect Magic wrote:

Lingering Aura: A magical aura lingers after its original source dissipates (in the case of a spell) or is destroyed (in the case of a magic item). If detect magic is cast and directed at such a location, the spell indicates an aura strength of dim (even weaker than a faint aura). How long the aura lingers at this dim level depends on its original power:

Original Strength Duration of Lingering Aura
Faint 1d6 rounds
Moderate 1d6 minutes
Strong 1d6x10 minutes
Overwhelming 1d6 days

But if it IS still lingering, and you do successfully use Detect Magic on it, you can make a Spellcraft check.

[VoodistMonk]

I do not think they do. No.

Nor do I think that the given situation should be assumed magic in its origins... a person acting strange and you assume magic? Can you tell the difference between someone blinded by a spell or blinded from birth?

I do not think someone given a permenant condition from an instantaneous spell just glows with the spell's magical tag the redt of their life. Spell is over, condition remains, there is no magic to detect. None. It's gone. It's over in an instant. The condition is not magical, but it is permenant.

It's just funny how the party always seems to assume it is something that they might be able to milk for XP... some people might just be strange... Oh Frank? That's just Frank, he wasn't Feeblemind'ed by a Witch you can kill and loot... he's just been stupid forever.

[Frank the Feebleminded]

VoodistMonk wrote:

I do not think they do. No.

Nor do I think that the given situation should be assumed magic in its origins... a person acting strange and you assume magic? Can you tell the difference between someone blinded by a spell or blinded from birth?

I do not think someone given a permenant condition from an instantaneous spell just glows with the spell's magical tag the redt of their life. Spell is over, condition remains, there is no magic to detect. None. It's gone. It's over in an instant. The condition is not magical, but it is permenant.

It's just funny how the party always seems to assume it is something that they might be able to milk for XP... some people might just be strange... Oh Frank? That's just Frank, he wasn't Feeblemind'ed by a Witch you can kill and loot... he's just been stupid forever.

"Hey buddy, screw you!"

[Chell Raighn]

avr wrote:

This is the sort of situation where the GM can get vague if they feel like it. Not 'look up this spell', more along the lines of 'Definitely some sort of influence, yes, you read something about necromantic forces altering personality once and this might be related.'

i.e. no I wouldn't give the exact spell short of the use of greater detect magic (or similar) in this situation.

This… very much this… but with one slight alteration… if it is a spell that the character making the check is intimately familiar with (either because they frequently use it themselves or have a history of it being used against them) then they should by all rights be able to correctly identify it instead of just getting a vague idea, though you can still be somewhat vague and questioning with how you give the information… such as telling them the effects feel familiar or you have seen this effect many times infact you have caused this before.

[VoodistMonk]

Thank you for that... it made me laugh until I stopped.

[Mark Hoover 330]

So... a villain casts Chill Touch with CL 3 and slaps a subordinate, then holds the rest of the charges until they run into the party. The GM describes to the foe's hands glowing with blue energy, that's the ONLY clue they give.

This is an Instantaneous spell with an obvious, ongoing effect. However it doesn't explicitly say this is a "spell effect in place." Going by what Pizza Lord suggested upthread there's only one clue (blue energy hands) so they would not allow the players to just know what spell this is. However, the PC fighter of the party with a low Will save is a Damphir and counts as Undead, so if they fail a Will save they're running away Panicked for multiple rounds.

Kind of seems like something the party wizard might want to ID and warn their friend about. Unfortunately, this isn't a spell as it's being cast, a spell being cast on you, or isn't necessarily a "spell effect in place" unless the GM decides it is. Should the GM in this case just disallow any identification of the spell based on these disqualifiers, or do the players get a roll to ID?

[VoodistMonk]

Good example. I don't really have an answer for that. On one hand, blue energy hands is way more of an ongoing effect than blindness or insanity. You have blue energy hands until you have spent all the magical energy of the spell... or however you want to look at it.

Something like blindness or insanity just kills optical nerve cells or whatever receptors in your brain that lead to cognitive thinking. Poof, gone. There is no lingering magical energy giving you blue energy eyes or blue energy brain... or does it? I'm no expert.

[Azothath]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

So... a villain casts Chill Touch with CL 3 and slaps a subordinate, then holds the rest of the charges until they run into the party. The GM describes to the foe's hands glowing with blue energy, that's the ONLY clue they give.

This is an Instantaneous spell with an obvious, ongoing effect. However it doesn't explicitly say this is a "spell effect in place." Going by what Pizza Lord suggested upthread there's only one clue (blue energy hands) so they would not allow the players to just know what spell this is. ...

Creatures without Knw:Arcana are clueless other than spell manifestations and 'looks like a spell'. It's a BIG area of metagaming in active play. Yes, it's a game and this is an area where player chitchat can become noisome.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

...seems like something the party wizard might want to ID and warn their friend about. Unfortunately, this isn't a spell as it's being cast, a spell being cast on you, or isn't necessarily a "spell effect in place" unless the GM decides it is. Should the GM in this case just disallow any identification of the spell based on these disqualifiers, or do the players get a roll to ID?

yes. The game requires a GM to interpret the rules and generally keep things fair and balanced along with the cooperation of the Players. RAW is a work of Art and not a science, math, or logic textbook. While it's possible to run strict RAW there WILL be situations where there is no answer and thus that situation is ignored and it becomes rather silly.