* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Use of NWProfs in Combat Started at 05-26-04 05:51 PM by Dugald the Lexicographer Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=247143 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Dugald the Lexicographer Date : 05-26-04 05:51 PM Thread Title : Use of NWProfs in Combat Does using a proficiency cost you an action during combat? I'm playing in a 2E campaign. One player claims he can use a proficiency like Spellcraft, which requires a prof check, and still have an action during a combat round. That seems like taking two actions to me, but use of a NWP isn't explicitly listed among the "things you can do in a combat round" in the Combat & Tactics book. Anyone have reference to support one way or the other? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-26-04 06:05 PM I'll check, but I think this is a part of the rules where they expect the DM to use common sense. Something like Spellcraft would not take an action, but something like Fishing, of course would be useless. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Tas Date : 05-26-04 06:10 PM Just my tuppence worth.... NWPs vary inthe amount of time they take. Some, like spellcraft are variable, depending on the spell being cast. If someone is casting a combat-type spell (say Magic Missile for example) then the NWP check should be instantaneous. Kinda like a 'you know it or you dont' thing. Essentially, such checks should be instantaneous (or possibly modify the initiative roll by +1 or 2 if you feel like the time taken merits it). If a spellcaraft roll takes an action, then it becomes a fairly pointless roll. I always thought that the point of that particualr NWP was 'whats he casting, and can I counter it this round?', and not 'whats he killed x with?' At the end of the day some are obviously gonna take little or no time, some will take longer. It's the DMs call. I would be inclined to give players the benefit of the doubt, if doing so would help the plot and story. Cheers Tas -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Wyrmbane Date : 05-26-04 09:31 PM Most of the NWP's are simply to see if you can do something or not, or apply some bonus or not. Things like that take about as much time do as it takes you to roll the dice in reality. A few might take a little longer, so might modify your initiative a little. Some were not meant to be used in combat, but can, and are really an action. Things should be pretty obvious, common sense should be the rule. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Dugald the Lexicographer Date : 05-27-04 01:23 AM Thanks for the input all. I'll get to the point of my question: Spellcraft. As written, the NWP isn't really much use. My group has been discussing how we might rework it to make it more applicable in play (which appears common, by the comment from Tas). Here's my current draft: Groups: Wizard, Priest Attribute: IQ - 2 Cost: 1 slot A character with this proficiency gains no spell use abilities, but does possess significant knowledge about spellcasting. Observing or overhearing a spell being cast, or getting a good look at the spell components, lets the character make a proficiency check to identify the enchantment. Characters with this proficiency can also make checks to determine if an item or construct is enchanted. If the character uses this proficiency during combat, a successful check gives the character the option to attempt to avoid the affect of the spell, conferring a +2 bonus to any potential saving throw. Like spellcasting, this would be a half-move action, with the move portion happening after the opponent's spell is resolved. Proficiency checks are modified by the level of the spell being observed. Wizards using this proficiency gain +2 to checks made if the spell being studied is one from their own specialty or school. The player with the mage in our group is arguing that Spellcraft should give the character the bonus to his save, but not be his only action in the round. That's what we're trying to balance. My argument is: the determination of what spell is being cast may be brief, but the user still has to take action in order to use the knowledge to improve his save, by dodging out of the way of a bolt of lightning, or ducking under his cloak to avoid a fireball, or steeling himself to resist a charm spell. I thought to use precedents to prove my point, but couldn't really find any other NWPs that are used similarly to this scenario, and not many of them give specific direction for time requirements. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : vader42xx Date : 05-27-04 02:42 AM I personally think spellcraft works just fine as is and is written quite clearly. But, before I get into that, let me agree with what's already been said. It's up to the DM but several proficiencies shouldn't take any time in my opinion. So some can be used without an action and some can't. As for spellcraft specifically I'd leave it as is. It doesn't allow you to counter spells in any way (not even a save bonus) because it takes so long to observe the spell (that's listed in the description) but it does allow you to identify magical constructs that would otherwise surprise you and it allows you to identify any spell cast that the wizard would know. This can be quite an advantage. Remember, wizards do a lot more than cast fireball and lightning bolt. If a wizard casts some terrible curse on one of your PCs how are they going to remove it? Do they have to use dispel magic, will that even work? Just because your veteran players know what the spell is and exactly how to get rid of it does not mean your PCs do...so they need to ask a wizard who has spellcraft. :) Besides the things that are specifically stated, spellcraft may have other uses that are left up to your DM. You could recognize other obviously magical items (not unidentified weapons but things like portals, etc). Your write up of spellcraft causes some minor to large issues to my eyes. First off, it brings up the "saving throw debate" that you're currently having (while the original one takes care of that in the write up). It also makes detect magic about 90% (or more) worthless as you allow a spellcaster to identify a magic item already. So if you're looking to make a more powerful (and/or high magic) world your write up isn't bad but if you're going for the "average" magic level of most D&D worlds then you'll find your wizards becoming too powerful and a bit annoying. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Dugald the Lexicographer Date : 05-27-04 09:24 AM Some good points Vader, thanks for the input. BTW, the "identify magic items" part isn't any different from the NWP's original description. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : vader42xx Date : 05-27-04 03:25 PM Quite welcome, just sharing my thoughts. :) And actually your write up is quite different from the way I read it. In the PHB it says "magical or magically endowed constructs..." and that's something very different. That means they could identify living statues, golems, and maybe even gargoyles. You could expand that a bit if you wished (like maybe obviously magic vehicles, like flying ships, etc). But that doesn't mean "magic items." If it were "magic items" then that simple proficiency would be able to identify any item created by magic and the detect magic spell would be useless in most cases. That's why they were careful to use the word "construct" instead of "item" so confusion could be limited. As written in the PHB it seems clear to me that they did not intend spellcraft to be used to identify magic items. That is for detect magic and other similar spells, not for a simple proficiency. But that's just my take on it. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Dugald the Lexicographer Date : 05-27-04 05:40 PM Good point Vader, and you're probably right. I think I made an assumption that the wording was unintentionally unclear. Just to argue the point ('cause I can't stay away from any debate!), Detect Magic still has value, in that it identifies the school of enchantment, and can gague the relative strength of the magic. If Spellcraft allowed a character to ascertain whether or not an item was enchanted, there would still be valuable information a Detect Magic could provide. Also, Detect Magic can be "swept" across a space, possibly highlighting otherwise unremarkable or hidden items which a Spellcraft user might not think to inspect closely enough to utilize their proficiency. Devil's advocacy aside, I think I'll modify my description to follow the original NWP's wording more closely. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : vader42xx Date : 05-28-04 02:28 AM Thank you...and I knew somebody would come up with that argument. lol ;) And that's why I said that detect magic would be mostly worthless or almost useless. It still has benefits of course but the biggest reason the spell was designed would be removed from it. Take, for example, a trader trying to pawn off a worthless sword on the party as a wondrous magic item. Now if the wizard had detect magic memorized he could tell right away, but if he doesn't have that spell for the day (or wants to save it for the dungeon they are on the way to, etc) then what do they do? If spellcraft allows magic item identification this becomes unimportant. The spell loses a lot of its worth that way. After all, be honest, when a player casts detect magic are they most often looking for school of magic or just WHAT is magical? ;) So while I do agree that it wouldn't make the spell totally worthless it does detract from it so much as to take away a lot of the fun and value of that spell. So I personally just use spellcraft as is. Seems plenty valuable to me. But, no matter what you do with it, make it fit your particular campaign and you're doing a good thing for your games, flat out. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:20 AM.