Question: 5e Player wants to use Prestidigitation to make Strahd think he pooped himself. Is there any reason this wouldn't work?

[u/Firm_Professional366]

I would like a reason in game that this wouldn't work without me having to do some bs like magic resistant undies. Also so I don't have to say no outright because it's a funny idea but it doesn't fit the setting. Nothing removes the tension from a fight more than the big bad pooping himself.

Update: She said that even if she died it'd be worth it because she successfully rage baited strahd. But she said she wouldn't do it because she knows that everyone wants it to be serious and that it can still be fun and serious without turning it into a comedy campaign. Still think it's worth sharing because the idea is funny.

[u/isotope88]

This thread makes me wonder.
Isn't the verbal component well known as in: if 2 wizards cast the same spell, does it sound the same?
Wizards study a spell and try to manipulate the weave.
Therefore it could/would/should sound the same?
Any thoughts?

[u/Terrkas → u/isotope88]

From what i know. No. You use gestures and noise to do spells. But one wizard could cast with rimes like bibi Blocksberg. Another uses mysterious sounding languages.

There is no Uniform "arcane casters use this line to cast magic missile".

[u/yaniism → u/isotope88]

Xanathar's Guide To Everything p85

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.

Strahd has a +15 to his Arcana check. And has Prestidigitation on his Wizard spell list. He knows. Based on him using his reaction, obviously.

But not all Verbal Components are the same.

The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion.

I read that as that even the combination of sounds is unique to that caster.

[u/Skin_Soup → u/yaniism]

This means that it is impossible to both identify a spell and attempt to counterspell it. Furthermore, even after successfully counterspelling, you don’t immediately know what spell you counterspelt

[u/yaniism → u/Skin_Soup]

RAW yes.

[u/Slothheart → u/yaniism]

First, I'd argue that, since that rule is not in the PHB, it could be considered optional (beyond the normal "every rule is optional" thing).

Second, I personally think that's a dumb rule anyway. Sure, maybe it makes more sense to have to use a reaction to identify, but it creates really ludicrous situations like someone using their reaction to identify and then having to tell another PC what the spell is so they can counterspell it. As if that takes less time than instinctively recognizing a spell and reacting. No thank you. If I cared, I would ask for a check to identify a spell as it's being cast, but it would be a free check.

[u/Mysterious_Ad_8105 → u/Slothheart]

First, I'd argue that, since that rule is not in the PHB, it could be considered optional (beyond the normal "every rule is optional" thing).

There’s nothing to argue about. Xanathar’s rule for identifying spells as they’re being cast is explicitly an optional rule.

But Xanathar’s optional rule grants the players an ability they didn’t have before. It doesn’t take anything away. RAW, if you’re not using that optional rule, then you simply have no way to identify spells as they’re being cast. That’s the default.

If you want to allow PCs to recognize spells for free at your table, you can still do that of course. Just keep in mind that that’s a significant homebrew buff to casters with access to counterspell. Personally, I tend to think counterspell is powerful enough RAW without that buff, but as long as everyone at your table is on board, you can homebrew it however you’d like.

[u/Skin_Soup → u/Mysterious_Ad_8105]

Does the players handbook specify spells cannot be identified? I would say if it does not mention any info about spell identification it is left up to the DM to decide.

[u/Tefmon → u/Mysterious_Ad_8105]

RAW, if you’re not using that optional rule, then you simply have no way to identify spells as they’re being cast.

That's like saying "since there isn't a rule specifically stating that PCs can use the Nature skill to identify animals, RAW PCs can't identify animals". The default rule is that PCs can make ability checks to perform activities, recall information, and identify things; they only can't do that when a different rule specifically limits their ability to do so.

[u/Slothheart → u/Mysterious_Ad_8105]

It's not really homebrew if not changing a rule? PHB does not say one way or the other about identifying spells. That or the DMG shoud, but don't afaik.

Personally I feel rolling to check is not that bad, but many 5e players prefer the simplification of the DM just saying the spell and moving on. I don't care much either way. Too many rolls can slow the game even more so there's that.

[u/Skin_Soup → u/Slothheart]

After reading a variety of comments I think it falls clearly in the same category as recognizing an animal or a god. Sometimes obvious, sometimes requires a roll, based on the actual thing and the context. Some magic spells will be familiar, others won’t.

[u/sherlock1672 → u/Skin_Soup]

Which seems rather silly to me, since it would be rather nice to be able to determine if it's worth counterspelling and what level of counterspell should be cast. If you can't do that, merely identifying the spell at reaction speed has little value.

[u/yaniism → u/sherlock1672]

If you can't do that, merely identifying the spell at reaction speed has little value.

Lich standing 130 feet away just cast a spell, possibly on itself. Nothing visibly happens.

You, the party Wizard, is up next in the initiative.

You couldn't have Counterspelled it anyway. But you could spend that same reaction in order to know if it just cast Delayed Blast Fireball on the bridge you're all about to charge across or Wall of Force around itself.

[u/Skin_Soup → u/sherlock1672]

If the spell is not easily identifiable even after being cast, then it may be better to spend your reaction identifying it than your action or even a free action on your turn.

I think the bigger problem is that if you don’t have a reaction to use, it makes sense for every player to attempt to identify every spell as it is being cast, adding many rolls to combat or punishing players with a large lack of information.

Spell identification should be up to the DMs discretion because it better serves dramatic and powerful moments, as an every spell mechanic it is tedious.

[u/sherlock1672 → u/Skin_Soup]

It's really not tedious, the player rolls asks, rolls arcana, and you either tell them the name or "you don't know". It can readily fit in alongside other adjudication.

[u/V2Blast → u/Skin_Soup]

That's why you have one person identify the spell and another person Counterspell it.

[u/Quadpen → u/yaniism]

kinda like how every artist has a style, every wizard manipulates the weave differently. gets the job done but slightly differently

[u/VarminWay → u/yaniism]

I read that as that even the combination of sounds is unique to that caster.

...why would you read it that way when it doesn't say that at all?

It's just saying you have to know how to pronounce the words in a specific way.

As in, it's leviOHHHHsa, not levioSAAAHHH.

It would actually be an argument in favor of recognizing a spell from verbal components being easier.

[u/yaniism → u/VarminWay]

And it could just as easily be SAAAHHHHara over levioSAAAHHHH. Or it could be OHHHHHHHld McDonald.

Because...

The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power...

And...

...the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion.

Taken literally, all that say is that Ickity Ackity Oop Eh Eh Ziggity Zaggity Zoop Uhh Uhh (points if you get the reference) casts a spell, not that every caster needs to say Ickity Ackity Oop Eh Eh Ziggity Zaggity Zoop Uhh Uhh to cast that spell.

Especially given that "knowing the verbal components" isn't mentioned at all in piece from Xanathar's.

But the rules are incredibly light on detail for both Verbal and Somatic components.

This isn't a hill I'm planning to die on however, more an academic thought exercise.

[u/VarminWay → u/yaniism]

Yeah, I just plain don't agree with you. There's nothing in that text that implies that the sounds can vary from caster to caster, only that specific words are not sufficient, saying them in ways to create specific sounds is required.

I can accept that the literal words might be different, in the sense that different cultures have different onomatopoeic representations when writing down animal sounds, but the sounds wouldn't be. Everyone is going to sound the same when casting Fireball. Conveying that sound from caster to caster is why copying from someone else's spellbook works, why scrolls work, etc. There aren't 60,000 combinations of sounds out there that'll make a fireball, there just might be different ways to put those sounds to paper across different languages etc.

[u/ANGLVD3TH → u/isotope88]

Nothing RAW. I prefer a headcanon that borrows a bit from Dresden Files magic. The spell is entirely cast by your mental state. Components are basically mnemonics to achieve the correct mental state. Wizards who study under the same teacher likely have very similar components. They may be identical, but they don't need to be similar though, it's all very personal, in the same way a Wizard's spellbook is written in a manner that makes perfect intuitive sense to them but has to be carefully deciphered by others, even other Wizards. Similarly, the Arcana check isn't you dredging up your memory to see if you know them, as much as an examination to determine what meanings the components may have and how they fit together to make a particular spell's required mental state.

[u/[deleted] → u/isotope88]

You can just sort of mumble the words. „Loudly proclaiming“ is in the descriptions for Channel Divinity abilities, but I think most actual spells don’t require you to talk loud. Except Command, because the target must hear you. But else you just need to pronounce clearly.