”To do so, a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it’s being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast.”
My question is where is the line actually drawn? I have a hard time believing that a single arcana check gives you every minute detail of a spell’s description. But it also feels like it should give more than just a name of the spell in question. Or maybe that’s just all it gives. The word identify in this case seems like it could have at least 2 or 3 distinctly different ways of being read and applied. The RAW of this seems quite difficult to discern here.
If you successfully identify a spell cast, you essentially know what it is and what it does. The rule doesn't limit what you know of it so its safe to assume you know all about it there is to know.
The rule as written is pretty generous, and it's generally on the DM's shoulders to decide just how much the player learns from identifying a spell. I think it's fairly common for a DM to limit detailed information only to a successful spell identification for a spell that is in the caster's class spell list. So a Wizard who successfully identifies a Cleric-only spell might know the name and a general idea of how it works, but wouldn't be given the full rundown on exactly how the spell works.
The rule as written is pretty generous, and it's generally on the DM's shoulders to decide just how much the player learns from identifying a spell. I think it's fairly common for a DM to limit detailed information only to a successful spell identification for a spell that is in the caster's class spell list. So a Wizard who successfully identifies a Cleric-only spell might know the name and a general idea of how it works, but wouldn't be given the full rundown on exactly how the spell works.
That’s what I thought as well, it seems VERY open. I think I’ll give vague descriptions from now on when I use this.
The rule as written is pretty generous, and it's generally on the DM's shoulders to decide just how much the player learns from identifying a spell. I think it's fairly common for a DM to limit detailed information only to a successful spell identification for a spell that is in the caster's class spell list. So a Wizard who successfully identifies a Cleric-only spell might know the name and a general idea of how it works, but wouldn't be given the full rundown on exactly how the spell works.
That’s what I thought as well, it seems VERY open. I think I’ll give vague descriptions from now on when I use this.
The only issue is that some players know the handbook better than others, so they may know details just innately, more than other people at the table. This might just end up with one of your players going “oh *that* spell, I know exactly what it does”…
The way I see it, anything in a player source book (PHB, XGTE, TCOE, etc) is generally public knowledge. Games should be played with the understanding that players have likely read, or at least skimmed, these books when making their own characters. So if a player identifies a spell, I'm just going to give them the details of the spell. I won't penalize players for not having memorized information they already have access to and have read through before.
Meanwhile, information from modules or DM source books, such as the Monster Manual or the DMG, is generally not considered public information. While some players might be familiar with information in some of them, games are generally played with the understanding that players aren't aware of every little detail in these books. So adventure specific spells, monster stat blocks, and magic items are a bit more mysterious. Identifying them with a check might give somewhat vague or incomplete information, depending on the roll.
The rule as written is pretty generous, and it's generally on the DM's shoulders to decide just how much the player learns from identifying a spell. I think it's fairly common for a DM to limit detailed information only to a successful spell identification for a spell that is in the caster's class spell list. So a Wizard who successfully identifies a Cleric-only spell might know the name and a general idea of how it works, but wouldn't be given the full rundown on exactly how the spell works.
That’s what I thought as well, it seems VERY open. I think I’ll give vague descriptions from now on when I use this.
The only issue is that some players know the handbook better than others, so they may know details just innately, more than other people at the table. This might just end up with one of your players going “oh *that* spell, I know exactly what it does”…
This is also a problem though I like to think they’d avoid metagaming
The way I see it, anything in a player source book (PHB, XGTE, TCOE, etc) is generally public knowledge. Games should be played with the understanding that players have likely read, or at least skimmed, these books when making their own characters. So if a player identifies a spell, I'm just going to give them the details of the spell. I won't penalize players for not having memorized information they already have access to and have read through before.
Meanwhile, information from modules or DM source books, such as the Monster Manual or the DMG, is generally not considered public information. While some players might be familiar with information in some of them, games are generally played with the understanding that players aren't aware of every little detail in these books. So adventure specific spells, monster stat blocks, and magic items are a bit more mysterious. Identifying them with a check might give somewhat vague or incomplete information, depending on the roll.
That’s a bit ridiculous to believe a wizard would perfectly recall every cleric spell. Or that a Druid would know all the details about every artificer spell. If you’ve ever heard of anything in passing then someone asks about that specific thing your response isn’t automatically recalling every detail about it perfectly. Your knowledge is very fuzzy if you even have any. A good example I’d use is seeing a particular math operation you’ve never studied before in passing on a chalkboard and what the name of it is. You might glance at it for a minute and try to figure it out but if someone were to ask you at a later time in a stressful situation to recall it perfectly on the spot I highly doubt most people could do it. There’s limits to what I’ll suspend my disbelief with when it comes to how mechanics work and this is a place I don’t think I’ll jump further out into the deep for. You can’t just perfectly recall info about things you’ve never used, studied, or encountered; PCs aren’t living computers. Especially if those things are ones you’ll never be able to use in the examples I started with.
The way I see it, anything in a player source book (PHB, XGTE, TCOE, etc) is generally public knowledge. Games should be played with the understanding that players have likely read, or at least skimmed, these books when making their own characters. So if a player identifies a spell, I'm just going to give them the details of the spell. I won't penalize players for not having memorized information they already have access to and have read through before.
Meanwhile, information from modules or DM source books, such as the Monster Manual or the DMG, is generally not considered public information. While some players might be familiar with information in some of them, games are generally played with the understanding that players aren't aware of every little detail in these books. So adventure specific spells, monster stat blocks, and magic items are a bit more mysterious. Identifying them with a check might give somewhat vague or incomplete information, depending on the roll.
That’s a bit ridiculous to believe a wizard would perfectly recall every cleric spell. Or that a Druid would know all the details about every artificer spell. If you’ve ever heard of anything in passing then someone asks about that specific thing your response isn’t automatically recalling every detail about it perfectly. Your knowledge is very fuzzy if you even have any. A good example I’d use is seeing a particular math operation you’ve never studied before in passing on a chalkboard and what the name of it is. You might glance at it for a minute and try to figure it out but if someone were to ask you at a later time in a stressful situation to recall it perfectly on the spot I highly doubt most people could do it. There’s limits to what I’ll suspend my disbelief with when it comes to how mechanics work and this is a place I don’t think I’ll jump further out into the deep for. You can’t just perfectly recall info about things you’ve never used, studied, or encountered; PCs aren’t living computers. Especially if those things are ones you’ll never be able to use in the examples I started with.
That's what the initial skill check is for - to determine whether or not the character can identify the spell. It even includes advantage on spells in your own spell list, to simulate the fact that wizards will have an easier time identifying other wizard spells compared to a cleric spell. Low level wizards will completely fail to identify about 50% of low level cleric or druid spells. High level wizards can identify lower level spells a bit easier, but will still struggle a bit with high level spells from other class lists.
Assuming a successful check, my point stands: "I won't penalize players for not having memorized information they already have access to and have read through before." I'm not handing out partial information that allows players who have studied up on PHB player options to deduce the spell, while leaving other players in the dark. I don't want to gamify that meta-knowledge. If you pass the check, you recognize the spell and know what it does. If you fail the check, you don't recognize the spell and haven't a clue.
The way I see it, anything in a player source book (PHB, XGTE, TCOE, etc) is generally public knowledge. Games should be played with the understanding that players have likely read, or at least skimmed, these books when making their own characters. So if a player identifies a spell, I'm just going to give them the details of the spell. I won't penalize players for not having memorized information they already have access to and have read through before.
Meanwhile, information from modules or DM source books, such as the Monster Manual or the DMG, is generally not considered public information. While some players might be familiar with information in some of them, games are generally played with the understanding that players aren't aware of every little detail in these books. So adventure specific spells, monster stat blocks, and magic items are a bit more mysterious. Identifying them with a check might give somewhat vague or incomplete information, depending on the roll.
That’s a bit ridiculous to believe a wizard would perfectly recall every cleric spell. Or that a Druid would know all the details about every artificer spell. If you’ve ever heard of anything in passing then someone asks about that specific thing your response isn’t automatically recalling every detail about it perfectly. Your knowledge is very fuzzy if you even have any. A good example I’d use is seeing a particular math operation you’ve never studied before in passing on a chalkboard and what the name of it is. You might glance at it for a minute and try to figure it out but if someone were to ask you at a later time in a stressful situation to recall it perfectly on the spot I highly doubt most people could do it. There’s limits to what I’ll suspend my disbelief with when it comes to how mechanics work and this is a place I don’t think I’ll jump further out into the deep for. You can’t just perfectly recall info about things you’ve never used, studied, or encountered; PCs aren’t living computers. Especially if those things are ones you’ll never be able to use in the examples I started with.
That's what the initial skill check is for - to determine whether or not the character can identify the spell. It even includes advantage on spells in your own spell list, to simulate the fact that wizards will have an easier time identifying other wizard spells compared to a cleric spell. Low level wizards will completely fail to identify about 50% of low level cleric or druid spells. High level wizards can identify lower level spells a bit easier, but will still struggle a bit with high level spells from other class lists.
Assuming a successful check, my point stands: "I won't penalize players for not having memorized information they already have access to and have read through before." I'm not handing out partial information that allows players who have studied up on PHB player options to deduce the spell, while leaving other players in the dark. I don't want to gamify that meta-knowledge. If you pass the check, you recognize the spell and know what it does. If you fail the check, you don't recognize the spell and haven't a clue.
So then you must be amazing at recalling every bit of information that you’ve ever encountered in your life then. And at doing it in combat scenarios where stress is high and you use a single reaction that amounts to less than a second of recalling that info in this situation. Right?
To be realistic it depends on what the character has experienced. If the party cleric casts spiritual weapon in most combats and an enemy cleric casts it the wizard will know it can move 20ft and how much damage it can do. If he only read about it in a book years ago height remember less.
In reality a lot of it depends on how immersive you want to be and how smooth you want the mechanics to work. Determining how much each character knows can be quite clunky and time consumming.
In pretty much every game I have played nearly all the time them will say the evil cleric casts spirit guardians, effectively meaning the players can determine what spell without using an action or reaction. This makes counterspell far more powerful but does save a lot of time and RAW where a character can identify a spell while they can not then counterintelligence it as they have used their reaction they can tell a friend what spell it is and they do have time to cast counterspell does not really make sense.
The way I see it, anything in a player source book (PHB, XGTE, TCOE, etc) is generally public knowledge. Games should be played with the understanding that players have likely read, or at least skimmed, these books when making their own characters. So if a player identifies a spell, I'm just going to give them the details of the spell. I won't penalize players for not having memorized information they already have access to and have read through before.
Meanwhile, information from modules or DM source books, such as the Monster Manual or the DMG, is generally not considered public information. While some players might be familiar with information in some of them, games are generally played with the understanding that players aren't aware of every little detail in these books. So adventure specific spells, monster stat blocks, and magic items are a bit more mysterious. Identifying them with a check might give somewhat vague or incomplete information, depending on the roll.
That’s a bit ridiculous to believe a wizard would perfectly recall every cleric spell. Or that a Druid would know all the details about every artificer spell. If you’ve ever heard of anything in passing then someone asks about that specific thing your response isn’t automatically recalling every detail about it perfectly. Your knowledge is very fuzzy if you even have any. A good example I’d use is seeing a particular math operation you’ve never studied before in passing on a chalkboard and what the name of it is. You might glance at it for a minute and try to figure it out but if someone were to ask you at a later time in a stressful situation to recall it perfectly on the spot I highly doubt most people could do it. There’s limits to what I’ll suspend my disbelief with when it comes to how mechanics work and this is a place I don’t think I’ll jump further out into the deep for. You can’t just perfectly recall info about things you’ve never used, studied, or encountered; PCs aren’t living computers. Especially if those things are ones you’ll never be able to use in the examples I started with.
That's what the initial skill check is for - to determine whether or not the character can identify the spell. It even includes advantage on spells in your own spell list, to simulate the fact that wizards will have an easier time identifying other wizard spells compared to a cleric spell. Low level wizards will completely fail to identify about 50% of low level cleric or druid spells. High level wizards can identify lower level spells a bit easier, but will still struggle a bit with high level spells from other class lists.
Assuming a successful check, my point stands: "I won't penalize players for not having memorized information they already have access to and have read through before." I'm not handing out partial information that allows players who have studied up on PHB player options to deduce the spell, while leaving other players in the dark. I don't want to gamify that meta-knowledge. If you pass the check, you recognize the spell and know what it does. If you fail the check, you don't recognize the spell and haven't a clue.
So then you must be amazing at recalling every bit of information that you’ve ever encountered in your life then. And at doing it in combat scenarios where stress is high and you use a single reaction that amounts to less than a second of recalling that info in this situation. Right?
If they consistently roll high on their intelligence check, sure. /end sarcasm.
seriously though, I think the point they are making is that is the whole point of a skill check. To see, in that ONE instance, if they do happen to recall that information. Depending on the DC they just very well might. Or they might not.
The way I see it, anything in a player source book (PHB, XGTE, TCOE, etc) is generally public knowledge. Games should be played with the understanding that players have likely read, or at least skimmed, these books when making their own characters. So if a player identifies a spell, I'm just going to give them the details of the spell. I won't penalize players for not having memorized information they already have access to and have read through before.
Meanwhile, information from modules or DM source books, such as the Monster Manual or the DMG, is generally not considered public information. While some players might be familiar with information in some of them, games are generally played with the understanding that players aren't aware of every little detail in these books. So adventure specific spells, monster stat blocks, and magic items are a bit more mysterious. Identifying them with a check might give somewhat vague or incomplete information, depending on the roll.
That’s a bit ridiculous to believe a wizard would perfectly recall every cleric spell. Or that a Druid would know all the details about every artificer spell. If you’ve ever heard of anything in passing then someone asks about that specific thing your response isn’t automatically recalling every detail about it perfectly. Your knowledge is very fuzzy if you even have any. A good example I’d use is seeing a particular math operation you’ve never studied before in passing on a chalkboard and what the name of it is. You might glance at it for a minute and try to figure it out but if someone were to ask you at a later time in a stressful situation to recall it perfectly on the spot I highly doubt most people could do it. There’s limits to what I’ll suspend my disbelief with when it comes to how mechanics work and this is a place I don’t think I’ll jump further out into the deep for. You can’t just perfectly recall info about things you’ve never used, studied, or encountered; PCs aren’t living computers. Especially if those things are ones you’ll never be able to use in the examples I started with.
That's what the initial skill check is for - to determine whether or not the character can identify the spell. It even includes advantage on spells in your own spell list, to simulate the fact that wizards will have an easier time identifying other wizard spells compared to a cleric spell. Low level wizards will completely fail to identify about 50% of low level cleric or druid spells. High level wizards can identify lower level spells a bit easier, but will still struggle a bit with high level spells from other class lists.
Assuming a successful check, my point stands: "I won't penalize players for not having memorized information they already have access to and have read through before." I'm not handing out partial information that allows players who have studied up on PHB player options to deduce the spell, while leaving other players in the dark. I don't want to gamify that meta-knowledge. If you pass the check, you recognize the spell and know what it does. If you fail the check, you don't recognize the spell and haven't a clue.
So then you must be amazing at recalling every bit of information that you’ve ever encountered in your life then. And at doing it in combat scenarios where stress is high and you use a single reaction that amounts to less than a second of recalling that info in this situation. Right?
If they consistently roll high on their intelligence check, sure. /end sarcasm.
seriously though, I think the point they are making is that is the whole point of a skill check. To see, in that ONE instance, if they do happen to recall that information. Depending on the DC they just very well might. Or they might not.
A successful skill check from a wizard to know about cleric exclusive spells and they can just spit info out on them perfectly makes no sense. A Druid being able to perfectly recall sorcerer exclusive spells makes no sense. And so on. I think it breaks suspension of disbelief in game when you just roll a die and know everything there is to know about a spell you should never know or would never cast in the first place.
I don’t totally disagree with you. Just that is how the rule is written. The DC isn’t exceptionally high (15+spell level) and if you are of the same class you have advantage, which makes sense to me. I could see homebrewing it with higher DC for another class. Especially if it’s arcane caster versus divine spell or something like that.
I think it breaks suspension of disbelief in game when you just roll a die and know everything there is to know about a spell you should never know or would never cast in the first place.
Arcana reflects the knowledge of magic in general, not just your own spell list. On top of that, adventurers have a general idea of some of the most common spells they could face in combat. Magic missile and Cure Wounds are pretty iconic spells that I imagine many adventurers are aware of and have an understanding of. Again, a very intelligent wizard who has spent years studying magic and is proficient in all types of magical knowledge (which includes divine casting) has about a 50% of identifying a 1st level cleric spell.
Frankly, that feels pretty reasonable to me, and I think to many people. Heck, D&D is just a hobby of mine. I doubt I've spent more than an hour a week for a few years reading up on spells, and I could pretty easily give you the nitty gritty details of about 80% of 1st level spells. So a wizard's ability to only identify about ~60% of all 1st spells doesn't really feel that strange.
This can be a world specific issue, as well. If magic in your world is incredibly esoteric and mysterious, then by all means bump up the DC or to have a skill check with multiple levels of success. Or restrict the reaction it to characters with proficiency in Arcana, which will prevent the random druid or fighter from being able to perfectly recognize spells despite having very little formal study of magic. Do what makes sense for your world. But maybe also consider that for a lot of people, the standard rules really aren't unreasonable or ridiculous.
Shoot I now realize I have been DMing Counterspell wrong, since I usually allow the player an Arcana check when a spell is being cast to see if they know what it is prior to deciding if they want to Counterspell.
Identifying A Spell
Sometimes a character wants to identify a spell that someone else is casting or that was already cast. To do so, a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it's being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast.
If the character perceived the casting, the spell's effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell's level. If the spell is cast as a class spell and the character is a member of that class, the check is made with advantage. For example, if the spellcaster casts a spell as a cleric, another cleric has advantage on the check to identify the spell. Some spells aren't associated with any class when they're cast, such as when a monster uses its Innate Spellcasting trait.
This Intelligence (Arcana) check represents the fact that identifying a spell requires a quick mind and familiarity with the theory and practice of casting. This is true even for a character whose spellcasting ability is Wisdom or Charisma. Being able to cast spells doesn't by itself make you adept at deducing exactly what others are doing when they cast their spells
-Xanathar's Guide to Everything (pg 85)
I did not know it took your reaction to identify the spell. Of course, the BBEG is doing to have the same problem with Counterspelling the PC's spells now too.
Shoot I now realize I have been DMing Counterspell wrong, since I usually allow the player an Arcana check when a spell is being cast to see if they know what it is prior to deciding if they want to Counterspell.
Identifying A Spell
Sometimes a character wants to identify a spell that someone else is casting or that was already cast. To do so, a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it's being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast.
If the character perceived the casting, the spell's effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell's level. If the spell is cast as a class spell and the character is a member of that class, the check is made with advantage. For example, if the spellcaster casts a spell as a cleric, another cleric has advantage on the check to identify the spell. Some spells aren't associated with any class when they're cast, such as when a monster uses its Innate Spellcasting trait.
This Intelligence (Arcana) check represents the fact that identifying a spell requires a quick mind and familiarity with the theory and practice of casting. This is true even for a character whose spellcasting ability is Wisdom or Charisma. Being able to cast spells doesn't by itself make you adept at deducing exactly what others are doing when they cast their spells
-Xanathar's Guide to Everything (pg 85)
I did not know it took your reaction to identify the spell. Of course, the BBEG is doing to have the same problem with Counterspelling the PC's spells now too.
You can rule it however you want, as DM. And if you want to follow this rule you can still allow counterspell to be used blind, which is how we do it at our table. Same with dispel magic. We say we are using the spell, DM gives DC, we roll as necessary. No arcane check used.
I don’t totally disagree with you. Just that is how the rule is written. The DC isn’t exceptionally high (15+spell level) and if you are of the same class you have advantage, which makes sense to me. I could see homebrewing it with higher DC for another class. Especially if it’s arcane caster versus divine spell or something like that.
I wouldn't say that the RAW gives you everything. Like I said the term "identify" is very unclear here.
I think it breaks suspension of disbelief in game when you just roll a die and know everything there is to know about a spell you should never know or would never cast in the first place.
Arcana reflects the knowledge of magic in general, not just your own spell list. On top of that, adventurers have a general idea of some of the most common spells they could face in combat. Magic missile and Cure Wounds are pretty iconic spells that I imagine many adventurers are aware of and have an understanding of. Again, a very intelligent wizard who has spent years studying magic and is proficient in all types of magical knowledge (which includes divine casting) has about a 50% of identifying a 1st level cleric spell.
Frankly, that feels pretty reasonable to me, and I think to many people. Heck, D&D is just a hobby of mine. I doubt I've spent more than an hour a week for a few years reading up on spells, and I could pretty easily give you the nitty gritty details of about 80% of 1st level spells. So a wizard's ability to only identify about ~60% of all 1st spells doesn't really feel that strange.
This can be a world specific issue, as well. If magic in your world is incredibly esoteric and mysterious, then by all means bump up the DC or to have a skill check with multiple levels of success. Or restrict the reaction it to characters with proficiency in Arcana, which will prevent the random druid or fighter from being able to perfectly recognize spells despite having very little formal study of magic. Do what makes sense for your world. But maybe also consider that for a lot of people, the standard rules really aren't unreasonable or ridiculous.
Arcane magic and divine magic are very different things. But I guess we just have to agree to disagree because it looks like we're at an impasse on how we think about these things
Arcane magic and divine magic are very different things. But I guess we just have to agree to disagree because it looks like we're at an impasse on how we think about these things
Arcane magic and divine magic are hangovers from previous editions of D&D. They don't exist in 5th edition, there is just magic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So the rules for identifying a spell state
”To do so, a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it’s being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast.”
My question is where is the line actually drawn? I have a hard time believing that a single arcana check gives you every minute detail of a spell’s description. But it also feels like it should give more than just a name of the spell in question. Or maybe that’s just all it gives. The word identify in this case seems like it could have at least 2 or 3 distinctly different ways of being read and applied. The RAW of this seems quite difficult to discern here.
If you successfully identify a spell cast, you essentially know what it is and what it does. The rule doesn't limit what you know of it so its safe to assume you know all about it there is to know.
The rule as written is pretty generous, and it's generally on the DM's shoulders to decide just how much the player learns from identifying a spell. I think it's fairly common for a DM to limit detailed information only to a successful spell identification for a spell that is in the caster's class spell list. So a Wizard who successfully identifies a Cleric-only spell might know the name and a general idea of how it works, but wouldn't be given the full rundown on exactly how the spell works.
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
That’s what I thought as well, it seems VERY open. I think I’ll give vague descriptions from now on when I use this.
The only issue is that some players know the handbook better than others, so they may know details just innately, more than other people at the table. This might just end up with one of your players going “oh *that* spell, I know exactly what it does”…
The way I see it, anything in a player source book (PHB, XGTE, TCOE, etc) is generally public knowledge. Games should be played with the understanding that players have likely read, or at least skimmed, these books when making their own characters. So if a player identifies a spell, I'm just going to give them the details of the spell. I won't penalize players for not having memorized information they already have access to and have read through before.
Meanwhile, information from modules or DM source books, such as the Monster Manual or the DMG, is generally not considered public information. While some players might be familiar with information in some of them, games are generally played with the understanding that players aren't aware of every little detail in these books. So adventure specific spells, monster stat blocks, and magic items are a bit more mysterious. Identifying them with a check might give somewhat vague or incomplete information, depending on the roll.
This is also a problem though I like to think they’d avoid metagaming
That’s a bit ridiculous to believe a wizard would perfectly recall every cleric spell. Or that a Druid would know all the details about every artificer spell. If you’ve ever heard of anything in passing then someone asks about that specific thing your response isn’t automatically recalling every detail about it perfectly. Your knowledge is very fuzzy if you even have any. A good example I’d use is seeing a particular math operation you’ve never studied before in passing on a chalkboard and what the name of it is. You might glance at it for a minute and try to figure it out but if someone were to ask you at a later time in a stressful situation to recall it perfectly on the spot I highly doubt most people could do it. There’s limits to what I’ll suspend my disbelief with when it comes to how mechanics work and this is a place I don’t think I’ll jump further out into the deep for. You can’t just perfectly recall info about things you’ve never used, studied, or encountered; PCs aren’t living computers. Especially if those things are ones you’ll never be able to use in the examples I started with.
That's what the initial skill check is for - to determine whether or not the character can identify the spell. It even includes advantage on spells in your own spell list, to simulate the fact that wizards will have an easier time identifying other wizard spells compared to a cleric spell. Low level wizards will completely fail to identify about 50% of low level cleric or druid spells. High level wizards can identify lower level spells a bit easier, but will still struggle a bit with high level spells from other class lists.
Assuming a successful check, my point stands: "I won't penalize players for not having memorized information they already have access to and have read through before." I'm not handing out partial information that allows players who have studied up on PHB player options to deduce the spell, while leaving other players in the dark. I don't want to gamify that meta-knowledge. If you pass the check, you recognize the spell and know what it does. If you fail the check, you don't recognize the spell and haven't a clue.
So then you must be amazing at recalling every bit of information that you’ve ever encountered in your life then. And at doing it in combat scenarios where stress is high and you use a single reaction that amounts to less than a second of recalling that info in this situation. Right?
To be realistic it depends on what the character has experienced. If the party cleric casts spiritual weapon in most combats and an enemy cleric casts it the wizard will know it can move 20ft and how much damage it can do. If he only read about it in a book years ago height remember less.
In reality a lot of it depends on how immersive you want to be and how smooth you want the mechanics to work. Determining how much each character knows can be quite clunky and time consumming.
In pretty much every game I have played nearly all the time them will say the evil cleric casts spirit guardians, effectively meaning the players can determine what spell without using an action or reaction. This makes counterspell far more powerful but does save a lot of time and RAW where a character can identify a spell while they can not then counterintelligence it as they have used their reaction they can tell a friend what spell it is and they do have time to cast counterspell does not really make sense.
If they consistently roll high on their intelligence check, sure. /end sarcasm.
seriously though, I think the point they are making is that is the whole point of a skill check. To see, in that ONE instance, if they do happen to recall that information. Depending on the DC they just very well might. Or they might not.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
A successful skill check from a wizard to know about cleric exclusive spells and they can just spit info out on them perfectly makes no sense. A Druid being able to perfectly recall sorcerer exclusive spells makes no sense. And so on. I think it breaks suspension of disbelief in game when you just roll a die and know everything there is to know about a spell you should never know or would never cast in the first place.
I don’t totally disagree with you. Just that is how the rule is written. The DC isn’t exceptionally high (15+spell level) and if you are of the same class you have advantage, which makes sense to me. I could see homebrewing it with higher DC for another class. Especially if it’s arcane caster versus divine spell or something like that.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Arcana reflects the knowledge of magic in general, not just your own spell list. On top of that, adventurers have a general idea of some of the most common spells they could face in combat. Magic missile and Cure Wounds are pretty iconic spells that I imagine many adventurers are aware of and have an understanding of. Again, a very intelligent wizard who has spent years studying magic and is proficient in all types of magical knowledge (which includes divine casting) has about a 50% of identifying a 1st level cleric spell.
Frankly, that feels pretty reasonable to me, and I think to many people. Heck, D&D is just a hobby of mine. I doubt I've spent more than an hour a week for a few years reading up on spells, and I could pretty easily give you the nitty gritty details of about 80% of 1st level spells. So a wizard's ability to only identify about ~60% of all 1st spells doesn't really feel that strange.
This can be a world specific issue, as well. If magic in your world is incredibly esoteric and mysterious, then by all means bump up the DC or to have a skill check with multiple levels of success. Or restrict the reaction it to characters with proficiency in Arcana, which will prevent the random druid or fighter from being able to perfectly recognize spells despite having very little formal study of magic. Do what makes sense for your world. But maybe also consider that for a lot of people, the standard rules really aren't unreasonable or ridiculous.
Shoot I now realize I have been DMing Counterspell wrong, since I usually allow the player an Arcana check when a spell is being cast to see if they know what it is prior to deciding if they want to Counterspell.
Identifying A Spell
Sometimes a character wants to identify a spell that someone else is casting or that was already cast. To do so, a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it's being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast.
If the character perceived the casting, the spell's effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell's level. If the spell is cast as a class spell and the character is a member of that class, the check is made with advantage. For example, if the spellcaster casts a spell as a cleric, another cleric has advantage on the check to identify the spell. Some spells aren't associated with any class when they're cast, such as when a monster uses its Innate Spellcasting trait.
This Intelligence (Arcana) check represents the fact that identifying a spell requires a quick mind and familiarity with the theory and practice of casting. This is true even for a character whose spellcasting ability is Wisdom or Charisma. Being able to cast spells doesn't by itself make you adept at deducing exactly what others are doing when they cast their spells
-Xanathar's Guide to Everything (pg 85)
I did not know it took your reaction to identify the spell. Of course, the BBEG is doing to have the same problem with Counterspelling the PC's spells now too.
You can rule it however you want, as DM. And if you want to follow this rule you can still allow counterspell to be used blind, which is how we do it at our table. Same with dispel magic. We say we are using the spell, DM gives DC, we roll as necessary. No arcane check used.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I wouldn't say that the RAW gives you everything. Like I said the term "identify" is very unclear here.
Arcane magic and divine magic are very different things. But I guess we just have to agree to disagree because it looks like we're at an impasse on how we think about these things
Arcane magic and divine magic are hangovers from previous editions of D&D. They don't exist in 5th edition, there is just magic.