So for instance, I don’t want arcana checks to just be a substitute for identify or detect magic. I am going to have some items in a museum be locked behind a display, just dangling some bait to try and get them to steal something, lol (TFW it’s actually the DM sending everything off the rails and not the murder hobos). But if they inspect the locked display or check it for traps (it’s gonna be trapped) could I use a successful arcana check to tell them something like: “you know that magical locks exist, whether this is one, you are not sure” or what would you do in a situation like that?
I think “you know magical locks exist, but whether or not this is one is something you’d need Detect Magic for” is 100% appropriate.
I also let my players roll Arcana after Detect Magic to learn more than the spell itself normally provides.
It’s also my general math/physics skill, since those would be absolutely essential to theoretical understanding of magic and the planes. This leads to the incredible situation in my game where the only PC who knows calculus is the druid.
I allow nature checks to recall information about natural creatures like beasts, and about stuff like monstrosities I require a higher DC. But for those same monstrosities an Arcana check might grant more info at a lower DC because some of them are inherently magical creatures. I require Arcana or Religion for stuff like Aberrations since they are objectively magical.
For me I use Arcana checks in two ways (although I am a newer DM so keep that in mind). As everyone has said utilizing it for the basic understanding of magic and trying to determine how something works-although not as powerful as a detect magic or identify spell. Like the previous posts have said I use it more to hone in then just a replacement for detect magic.
The main times I use it, however, is when a player is casting a spell to do something that is outside of the writing of the spell or cantrip but makes logical sense that in a world of magic should be doable. I'm not talking about basic stuff (like using a fireboat to set a tent on fire even though it is not a creature, that would still be a basic attack role most often) but creative uses of their spells that do seem feasible and you're not sure of another way to decide if it is. In those situations Arcana checks are the ability to understand their own magic enough to be able to slightly manipulate it.
could I use a successful arcana check to tell them something like: “you know that magical locks exist, whether this is one, you are not sure” or what would you do in a situation like that?
The knowledge that magical locks exists I wouldn't require a roll for. At leasdt if you are proficient with arcana you should "know" that. I would probably even let anyone with arcana to "identify" it as magical. Something like: "You notice fine arcane runes inlaid in silver, this lock has had some magic wrought into it. However it looks old..."
If the player then studies the lock and runes, I might allow him to roll. A successful roll could either reveal something about the magic: "there seems to be some powerful lightning magic wrought into this lock" or something about the origin: "you remember seeing a drawing of a lock like that. It's said they were made by a mad wizard 100 years ago. He created seven of them. The only way to unlock it is to use one of your own teeth. It's said the wizard died toothless."
Yes, I like to preview magic effects and traps using Arcana checks. In the same way rogues tend to get testy about traps being sprung that they had no way to check for and disable, because that’s what they’re in the party to do, wizards and sorcerers like to feel useful to the party by scouting ahead for magic that may affect the party. So in the case of your arcane lock example, as they walk up to the gate I might ask for an arcana check. Depending on the result, I might say “You don’t know what you’re looking at, but you’re sure a detect magic spell would light up looking at the stuff beyond that gate.” Or on a higher roll might say “Your familiarity with the arcane has given you a sixth sense, and that sense started tingling as you near this gate. You lean into that sense and notice subtle ripples in the air around the lock and gate that tells you this area is sealed off by magic.”
"This might be a magic lock," I think is fairly... I mean, realising that magical locks exist is something every adventurer should know and you can say that about literally every lock in existence. The lock on your room at the inn might be magical, but you won't know for certain unless you cast detect magic. If you are going down this route, I'd suggest a little more strongly than that: This lock has all the hallmark traits of a magical lock. There is a certain design trait that is common to all magic locks, and this one fits that pattern. However, it might just be crafted to appear like one.
Personally, anything you can put your hands on, I'd let someone tell it's magic with arcana. Detect magic lets you detect magic through object up to 30 ft. It is also a level 1 spell that doesn't need a skill check to succeed. It's universally better than an arcana check.
I usually go with the idea that magical items usually have something visibly magical about them... either there's a run carved into it or it's made of a particularly unusual material. Like a staff of defense is made out of glass, but the players might see it do something you would normally think would shatter an object like that. So an arcana check might reveal something like that, but not the specifics of what the item actually does.
The exception I would make would be for common magic items. Something like a potion of healing can be readily identified with an arcana check. Or if you find a simple +1 weapon I'd say it could be discerned with an arcana check as well. I'd say if it's a famous or named item I might allow an arcana check to lead to a history check to learn what the weapon was known for.
I allow nature checks to recall information about natural creatures like beasts, and about stuff like monstrosities I require a higher DC. But for those same monstrosities an Arcana check might grant more info at a lower DC because some of them are inherently magical creatures. I require Arcana or Religion for stuff like Aberrations since they are objectively magical.
Pretty much this.
I don't know if I've had more than maybe one Arcana check so far but this is how I would use them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So for instance, I don’t want arcana checks to just be a substitute for identify or detect magic. I am going to have some items in a museum be locked behind a display, just dangling some bait to try and get them to steal something, lol (TFW it’s actually the DM sending everything off the rails and not the murder hobos). But if they inspect the locked display or check it for traps (it’s gonna be trapped) could I use a successful arcana check to tell them something like: “you know that magical locks exist, whether this is one, you are not sure” or what would you do in a situation like that?
I think “you know magical locks exist, but whether or not this is one is something you’d need Detect Magic for” is 100% appropriate.
I also let my players roll Arcana after Detect Magic to learn more than the spell itself normally provides.
It’s also my general math/physics skill, since those would be absolutely essential to theoretical understanding of magic and the planes. This leads to the incredible situation in my game where the only PC who knows calculus is the druid.
Nice, thanks. I don’t know why I didn’t just think to say as part of the check, you know about a spell that could detect if it is magical.
lol those silly druids and their calculus.
I allow nature checks to recall information about natural creatures like beasts, and about stuff like monstrosities I require a higher DC. But for those same monstrosities an Arcana check might grant more info at a lower DC because some of them are inherently magical creatures. I require Arcana or Religion for stuff like Aberrations since they are objectively magical.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
For me I use Arcana checks in two ways (although I am a newer DM so keep that in mind). As everyone has said utilizing it for the basic understanding of magic and trying to determine how something works-although not as powerful as a detect magic or identify spell. Like the previous posts have said I use it more to hone in then just a replacement for detect magic.
The main times I use it, however, is when a player is casting a spell to do something that is outside of the writing of the spell or cantrip but makes logical sense that in a world of magic should be doable. I'm not talking about basic stuff (like using a fireboat to set a tent on fire even though it is not a creature, that would still be a basic attack role most often) but creative uses of their spells that do seem feasible and you're not sure of another way to decide if it is. In those situations Arcana checks are the ability to understand their own magic enough to be able to slightly manipulate it.
I hope this helps some!
The knowledge that magical locks exists I wouldn't require a roll for. At leasdt if you are proficient with arcana you should "know" that. I would probably even let anyone with arcana to "identify" it as magical. Something like: "You notice fine arcane runes inlaid in silver, this lock has had some magic wrought into it. However it looks old..."
If the player then studies the lock and runes, I might allow him to roll. A successful roll could either reveal something about the magic: "there seems to be some powerful lightning magic wrought into this lock" or something about the origin: "you remember seeing a drawing of a lock like that. It's said they were made by a mad wizard 100 years ago. He created seven of them. The only way to unlock it is to use one of your own teeth. It's said the wizard died toothless."
Ludo ergo sum!
Yes, I like to preview magic effects and traps using Arcana checks. In the same way rogues tend to get testy about traps being sprung that they had no way to check for and disable, because that’s what they’re in the party to do, wizards and sorcerers like to feel useful to the party by scouting ahead for magic that may affect the party. So in the case of your arcane lock example, as they walk up to the gate I might ask for an arcana check. Depending on the result, I might say “You don’t know what you’re looking at, but you’re sure a detect magic spell would light up looking at the stuff beyond that gate.” Or on a higher roll might say “Your familiarity with the arcane has given you a sixth sense, and that sense started tingling as you near this gate. You lean into that sense and notice subtle ripples in the air around the lock and gate that tells you this area is sealed off by magic.”
"This might be a magic lock," I think is fairly... I mean, realising that magical locks exist is something every adventurer should know and you can say that about literally every lock in existence. The lock on your room at the inn might be magical, but you won't know for certain unless you cast detect magic. If you are going down this route, I'd suggest a little more strongly than that: This lock has all the hallmark traits of a magical lock. There is a certain design trait that is common to all magic locks, and this one fits that pattern. However, it might just be crafted to appear like one.
Personally, anything you can put your hands on, I'd let someone tell it's magic with arcana. Detect magic lets you detect magic through object up to 30 ft. It is also a level 1 spell that doesn't need a skill check to succeed. It's universally better than an arcana check.
You all definitely make some good points. Maybe I’ll just make it a pretty high DC especially if the character isn’t a magic user them self.
I usually go with the idea that magical items usually have something visibly magical about them... either there's a run carved into it or it's made of a particularly unusual material. Like a staff of defense is made out of glass, but the players might see it do something you would normally think would shatter an object like that. So an arcana check might reveal something like that, but not the specifics of what the item actually does.
The exception I would make would be for common magic items. Something like a potion of healing can be readily identified with an arcana check. Or if you find a simple +1 weapon I'd say it could be discerned with an arcana check as well. I'd say if it's a famous or named item I might allow an arcana check to lead to a history check to learn what the weapon was known for.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Pretty much this.
I don't know if I've had more than maybe one Arcana check so far but this is how I would use them.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.