Hey guys, I'm a young DM and a situation came up where in retrospect I'm not sure if I decided correctly. One of my players wanted to do an arcana check on a potentially magical item after our druid failed on theirs. He is a rogue without any magical properties though so I told him if he has no clue or education about magic in general then he probably wouldn't be able to identify magic properties about an object.

How do you guys handle this sort of thing? Did I decide coherently to the game's rules or is there something I overlooked?

Thanks in advance!

Generally it requires the Identify spell, or contemplating the item during a short rest, in order to determine the properties of a magic item.

A simple Arcana check wouldn't normally give that sort of detail.

On the other hand, as a DM I have frequently only allowed a few characters to make a particular roll rather than all of them - sometimes based on their background or main skill set.

Quote from Bennacious_FlimFlam >>

Hey guys, I'm a young DM and a situation came up where in retrospect I'm not sure if I decided correctly. One of my players wanted to do an arcana check on a potentially magical item after our druid failed on theirs. He is a rogue without any magical properties though so I told him if he has no clue or education about magic in general then he probably wouldn't be able to identify magic properties about an object.

How do you guys handle this sort of thing? Did I decide coherently to the game's rules or is there something I overlooked?

Thanks in advance!

 I think you did pretty well in your ruling. If there had been some history in the rogue's past where they used to traffic in magic items or something, then I'd say even if they're not a magic character you could give them a roll, but if the character has virtually no magical understanding then I think it's perfectly fine to tell them simply "no".

I agree with Matt Coville in his Skill Dogpiling video; sometimes letting everyone roll for anything can devalue skills and make people feel less invested in the role. If making an arcane check is just a matter of chance that the -1Int barbarian could do it, then the wizard who wanted to play the cool deductive genius is probably going to feel that they're not living up to their character concept. That isn't so say "only magic users can do arcana", but simply that you should let your characters roll for skills that they would plausibly have. Maybe the illiterate fighter isn't proficient in History at all, but they're dad is from this area and they've heard lots of things: cool, give that fighter a History roll to see if they remember hearing where the dragon's hoard was buried. Find a glowy gem that's mysterious and arcane that the druid can't quite place? Well, that same fighter probably isn't your guy/gal for that. 

(Incidentally, this is my 1000th post!)

I don't allow multiple characters to try the same thing. They can "help" and give someone advantage. But if the roll fails, then the party cannot succeed at it, at least not until some new variable comes into it (e.g., they leveled up, or they got advice from someone else, or something along those lines). 

I personally don't say no, but I give disadvantage to the roll if there's no reason for the person to know.

For some checks I only allow a roll if the character is proficient, or say a second proficient pc can help.

Players expect a natural 20 to always be a success so allowing a roll to do something which is virtually impossible for them does not make sense. The theory I go with is if I think the character given their skills and proficiencies has  2.5% to 7.5% chance of success the dc should require a natural 20, if it would be less than 2.5% I do not allow the roll. The same thing applies even if characters are proficient.  If a level 5 bard goes to the king and tries to persuade him to abdicate the throne to him I do not allow a persuasion roll, or at least make it very clear it will not work and if they roll high the king laughs off the request and a low roll results in the king regarding him as a lunatic or a threat and takes appropriate action.

There are many times when I don't allow a roll unless the PC is proficient. In this case, the Rogue has no training so would not get a roll. How would he have more knowledge of a magical object than a person who has studied magic?

Straight Arcana roll to analyze something without proficiency? No, that doesn't work for me. As other have mentioned, it just turns into everyone rolling the dice hoping that at least one of them rolls high. I require proficiency for rolls like that, and also require proficiency in a skill you are helping with if you want to Help.

However, I do try to allow partial information from any sources that seem appropriate for the character. For example, if the item was a Cloak of the Manta Ray, a character with the Sailor background or someone doing a trained Nature check might recognize the creature this item is patterned after, and infer that it probably grants traits that the creature has.

Quote from Jegpeg >>

Players expect a natural 20 to always be a success so allowing a roll to do something which is virtually impossible for them does not make sense.

 It's an unfortunate side-effect of earlier versions of D&D, and a certain web series, that players think that a natural 20 is always a success.

And that nat 1 is always a failure... When in fact at high levels with +10 or something, a nat 1 can beat a DC 10 if not slightly higher. You just need enough bonuses on it.

What would you all allow a non-proficient Arcana check to accomplish? Or a proficient check from a non-spellcaster?

I don't allow arcana rolls to identify magic items. Nor do I allow "sleeping with the item under your pillow" (i.e., rest while holding it) to do it. You need to cast the Identify spell in my world to know everything about an item. Some items can be partially or mostly ID'ed by using them "blind" and seeing what happens (dagger +1 bonus becomes evident the first time you swing it in actual combat, etc.)

Quote from BioWizard >>

I don't allow arcana rolls to identify magic items. Nor do I allow "sleeping with the item under your pillow" (i.e., rest while holding it) to do it. You need to cast the Identify spell in my world to know everything about an item. Some items can be partially or mostly ID'ed by using them "blind" and seeing what happens (dagger +1 bonus becomes evident the first time you swing it in actual combat, etc.)

 This is the ruling the DM who runs our group uses as well.  I have adopted it too, although I see a handful of ideas here I like a fair bit.  Recognizing the pattern of an animal perhaps, or a symbol etched on it for someone whose background made sense that they could recognize it.  Still no details on properties, but a better understanding of what it might be called...ish.  I have already informed the players for an upcoming homebrew campaign I am going to offer them that a Barbarian doing an Arcana check could determine "It gots majicks!" on a magical item.  On the same roll, a Wizard in the group might note that there is a symbol or rune on the cloak that is part of some protective and warding spells.  Until they Identify it will a spell, they won't be able to fully know what it is.  Everything they get will be an item they can pick in inventory, so once they Identify it, all will be clear, but otherwise, a vague idea at best and no clue at worst.

Quote from BioWizard >>

I don't allow arcana rolls to identify magic items. Nor do I allow "sleeping with the item under your pillow" (i.e., rest while holding it) to do it. You need to cast the Identify spell in my world to know everything about an item. Some items can be partially or mostly ID'ed by using them "blind" and seeing what happens (dagger +1 bonus becomes evident the first time you swing it in actual combat, etc.)

Ok, but what would you allow 1) a non-proficient Arcana check or 2) a proficient check by a non-spellcaster accomplish?

Quote from Kotath >>

 

If the rogue is proficient, they are proficient. They could even have expertise in Arcana. How could that be without them having any actual knowledge?

 

 I was under the impression that the rogue did not have the arcana skill. RAW every PC can roll for every skill, but I (and some others) don't allow rolls for some skills if you don't have proficiency. In my game, if the rogue was not proficient in arcana, he would get no roll. If he had it, he could roll.

Why? Because proficiency indicates extra schooling in that skill. Some, like athletics or deception anybody can roll and those proficient are just better at it. Others like animal handling or medicine would require somebody who has been trained. 

Ok, but what would you allow 1) a non-proficient Arcana check or 2) a proficient check by a non-spellcaster accomplish?

I'll cover 2 first - they get everything a spellcaster would. This is a skill check, not a class check. If you're proficient, you're proficient.

Non-proficient? That would need some context.

Proficient guy in the party rolled a 1? Tough luck. Talk me into how a skill you are proficient in might relate based on my description (or I might offer a skill you could try) and you get partial info. I might lower the DC or be a bit more generous if you're somehow connected to magic through your class/subclass or background like a Wild Magic barbarian or something, but you'd need to earn it with some roleplay.

No one in the party is proficient? Well, you can't win 'em all. Sometimes the party fails and the story moves on. Weaknesses/flaws can be more interesting than strengths and should get a chance to affect the story. If you didn't being thieves tools, you're going to have to break down the door and risk the chance of detection. If you didn't bring arcana knowledge, you're going to have to just put your hand into that shimmering field to see what it does.

Hmm, ok. Oh and I guess since I didn't cover it, what about someone who's half proficient from Jack of all Trades?

IMO Bards, by lore are knowledgeable in pretty much anything, to an extent.  That's what the skill intends, I believe, that a Bard knows a little bit about pretty much everything, but some things he's really good at.  To me, as a DM, it would depend on exactly what was being checked and what proficiency might apply, also considering the character's background, as that may give an edge (or hinderance) to the check.  The Bard, to me, is a unique character to DM for, as they are kinda as stated on the box, Jack of all Trades.  They tend to lean into a select few specialties, but have a taste of almost everything.

Ok, but what would you allow 1) a non-proficient Arcana check or 2) a proficient check by a non-spellcaster accomplish?

To know about magical based stuff...

... The non-mortal planes of existence

... "magical beasts and where to find them"

... as a reaction to identify the casting of arcane spells (potentially in prep for a counterspell)

... etc.

Quote from Falwith >>

IMO Bards, by lore are knowledgeable in pretty much anything, to an extent.  That's what the skill intends, I believe, that a Bard knows a little bit about pretty much everything, but some things he's really good at.  To me, as a DM, it would depend on exactly what was being checked and what proficiency might apply, also considering the character's background, as that may give an edge (or hinderance) to the check.  The Bard, to me, is a unique character to DM for, as they are kinda as stated on the box, Jack of all Trades.  They tend to lean into a select few specialties, but have a taste of almost everything.

 Yeah, that's pretty much my take. I will let bards take a stab at pretty much anything. A well-rolled Arcana with half proficiency would probably something like the bard coincidentally knows a song or poem or story or something that covered the exact thing in question. But I if they roll poorly I'll present the same thing, just riddled with misinformation or exaggeration.