| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have TWO different PFS 4-star GM’s arguing with me about an issue that seems clear by RAW and yet they insist that I am misinterpreting the rules. I have presented my arguments to the contrary but they just tell me that we’ll “agree to disagree” and they’re going to run it the way its “supposed to work” by their viewpoint.
The topic: detect magic vs. invisibility
I interpret the RAW to be the following:
Item #1) detect magic can sense the presence of the magic aura of the invisibility spell within its cone (round 1); determine the number of auras within the cone, if there were multiple auras present (round 2); determine the strength of the aura (faint aura, as invisibility is a 2nd level spell, according to the chart referenced in the spell), determine its school of magic with a successful Knowledge arcana check, and pinpoint which square the aura was in (round 3). The invisible creature or object would still have total concealment (50% miss chance vs. any attacks however)
Item #2) detect magic could sense this faint aura even in total darkness, with a blind spellcaster, or if the invisibility spell had total cover from the detect magic user, up to the limits of the spell (up to 1 foot of solid stone, 1 inch of metal, etc., according to the text of the spell)
Item #3) After determining the strength and location of the aura (3rd round); successfully identifying the school of magic with an Knowledge (arcana) check (and identifying it as illusion), the detect magic spellcaster could then also make a follow up Knowledge (arcana) check, and if successful, identify the illusion spell detected (with the faint aura [3rd level or less]) as the named "invisibility" spell.
I presented the RAW text on all of the following:
detect magic -
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/detectMagic.html#detect-magic
invisibility -
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/invisibility.html#invisibility
the “invisible” condition –
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html#invisibility
(namely at the bottom where it says invisibility doesn’t thwart divination spells)
mythic invisibility -
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/mythicAdventures/mythicSpells/invisibili ty.html#invisibility-mythic
(which specifically states that it thwarts detection by detect magic)
All of the above as evidence, but they have disregarded it saying that’s what the see invisibility spell was created for and a simple 0-level cantrip cannot trump a 2nd level spell (citing RAI for justification). They are stating they will not rule it as I have presented, and detect magic will not (or should not) detect a creature or object under the influence of the invisibility spell. I debated that it’s very situational, taking 3 rounds to do (unless you have arcane sight spell on, or the see magic arcane exploit). They have also said unless a Dev comments on it (or it gets added to the FAQ or errata), their ruling is final. I strongly believe their ruling is not correct by either RAW or RAI.
Can we get a Dev to comment on this topic - - please???
As a four star PFS GM let me tell you that the number of stars we have has very little to do with rules mastery or how good of a GM we are.
Part of the GM's that argued the point used their "stars" as evidence they (both of them) knew the rules better than I did; and I didn't know what I was talking about.
That said, while you will not be getting a dev ruling on something this trivial, you are correct in that Detect Magic can, under certain circumstances, be used to find invisible things. It just usually doesn't work too well beyond "He's somewhere in this 60' cone."
I totally agree, it's near useless in combat as it requires concentration and takes 3 rounds to work (with the cone and the target in the same relative area; which is unlikely unless it’s a immobile invisible object).
Now, with arcane sight or see magic arcane exploit, it's a lot more feasible to do. But they said I was wrong, and couldn't believe it when they argued the point.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to devalue Jeff Merola's comment above (because I agree with it), but I'm going offer a divergent substantive opinion.
What I see in the sentiment behind the OP is itself a problem. What do I see? The "RAW IS LAW!" stereotype.
The problem with that "RAW IS LAW!" view is the one expressing it sometimes:
1: Doesn't acknowledge that there are sometimes several ways to define "RAW".
2: Doesn't acknowledge the possibility that their cognitive understanding of the rules in question could be flawed.
Now, I'll stress that I'm not accusing the OP of EITHER of these failings. The problem is when you go down the "I'm right and you're wrong!" road you subject yourself to suspicion of failing one or both of those.
What the "RAW IS LAW!" stereotype virtually always is guilty of, however, is this:
Despite PFS being a single campaign with a single (but large and diasporic) leadership, it's still a roleplaying game. It's not what video gamers imagine when they hear "roleplaying game". The distinction is a discussion worthy of another thread (if not forum) but I'll stress for the purpose of this discussion is that roleplaying games, even PFS, are collaborative. You're never "right" when you insist "My way is the only right way!"
So, specifically with regards to the scenario of the OP, there is really one realistic outcome. Accept table variation. If the OP wants to allow Detect Magic to locate subjects of invisibility spells, great. Just don't insist that your understanding of RAW as superimposing another GM's understanding of RAI. Your table, your rules. His table, his rules. Accept it.
|
|
I certainly wouldn't allow detect magic to detect invisibility on a creature without that creature being exceptionally stupid; and any smart creature who is invisible would notice a magic user staring while concentrating in a 60' cone and move out of the cone or behind something solid if they were that worried about being "seen" with detect magic.
If a caster were using something along the lines of Arcane Sight or Greater Arcane Sight I might give them that they can see a "blurry blob of illusion magic" in the space with the invisible creature.
See invisibility bypasses concealment.
Detect magic does not, and takes three rounds of concentration, which is almost impossible to do in combat (and certainly inadvisable) to identify the right square.
Your GMs are wrong and are being unreasonable.
Good luck waiting for a Dev to comment.
I think you mean detect magic does bypass concealment, heck it can see thru solid objects (which would be total cover in fact). Detect magic states it's limits thou - - up to 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of metal, etc.
(yes I know there is a difference between concealment and cover)YIDM
Detect Magic vs invisibility is weak at best, because in order for you to find the invisible creature, it would have to stand still for 3+ rounds while you find it and then act on that information.
But yes, it does work.
I certainly wouldn't allow detect magic to detect invisibility on a creature without that creature being exceptionally stupid; and any smart creature who is invisible would notice a magic user staring while concentrating in a 60' cone and move out of the cone or behind something solid if they were that worried about being "seen" with detect magic.
If a caster were using something along the lines of Arcane Sight or Greater Arcane Sight I might give them that they can see a "blurry blob of illusion magic" in the space with the invisible creature.
Detect Magic vs invisibility is weak at best, because in order for you to find the invisible creature, it would have to stand still for 3+ rounds while you find it and then act on that information.
But yes, it does work.
I'm not evaluating it's tactical application, I'm saying it's how the spells detect magic and invisibility function per RAW and RAI. It's particularly more of use against immobile invisibility spell objects and the like.
YIDM
Let's put it this way:
We're making a spell that works like see invisibility, but it has a three-round casting time, a very low DC to identify, a 60 foot cone area, and the target retains full concealment, and the spell fails outright if the target leaves the declared area (or you redirect the cone). What level should that spell be?
I do have a house rule saying invisibility extends to the magic auras unless countered. But I rarely need to use it, because honestly detect magic is a waste of time in 95% of cases.
The paladin's instant detect evil is certainly more problematic.
Let's put it this way:
We're making a spell that works like see invisibility, but it has a three-round casting time, a very low DC to identify, a 60 foot cone area, and the target retains full concealment, and the spell fails outright if the target leaves the declared area (or you redirect the cone). What level should that spell be?
I know, which is why I can't believe they where arguing the point, or refused to accept the evidence of the RAW text I presented...not one, but both GM's.
Let's put it this way:
I do have a house rule saying invisibility extends to the magic auras unless countered. But I rarely need to use it, because honestly detect magic is a waste of time in 95% of cases.
You don't need a houserule, that's what the spell nondetection is for...or magic aura in the case of unattended objects.
YIDM
PS - oh yeah, and add on that our "proposed" lower level see invisibility--like spell requires concentration to keep working or is over.
It's a poor substitute for see invisibility. Your interpretation appears correct, but if the aura is moving then it will confound your attempts to maintain a fix on it, and you'll still be subject to miss chance in any case.
See invisibility bypasses concealment.
Detect magic does not, and takes three rounds of concentration, which is almost impossible to do in combat (and certainly inadvisable) to identify the right square.
Your GMs are wrong and are being unreasonable.
Good luck waiting for a Dev to comment.
I think you mean detect magic does bypass concealment, heck it can see thru solid objects (which would be total cover in fact). Detect magic states it's limits thou - - up to 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of metal, etc.
(yes I know there is a difference between concealment and cover)YIDM
You misunderstand. Even if you pinpoint a creature's square using detect magic, they still have 50% concealment from attacks you make. This is what Ozy is referring to.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Part of the GM's that argued the point used their "stars" as evidence they (both of them) knew the rules better than I did; and I didn't know what I was talking about.As a four star PFS GM let me tell you that the number of stars we have has very little to do with rules mastery or how good of a GM we are.
Trying to end an argument by citing one's GM stars (rather than actually engaging the topic at hand) is pretty inappropriate, and such behavior should probably be reported to your local VC (or to Mike Brock if the GMs in question are themselves VOs).
On the other side of the coin, if this topic was coming up in the middle of a game, then hopefully how you handled it was (unless serious consequences were on the line) to just accept the GM's ruling and move on, and this thread is just your post-game follow up. :)
As for the rules question at hand:
The fact that detect magic is explicitly capable of penetrating opaque barriers proves that it does not require seeing the subject.
Detect magic says you can identify the school of magic, and neither the spell description nor the rules for illusions (or for invisibility) provides any exception to that blanket rule.
Detect magic works how it says it works.
|
|
I know, which is why I can't believe they where arguing the point, or refused to accept the evidence of the RAW text I presented...not one, but both GM's.
I was not part of your discussion with those GMs so of course I have no way of knowing for sure.... But I can certainly imagine why they are refusing to see things your way. You may well be completely within the right, but the reality of things is that's essentially not the point. What I suspect, what it sounds like, is you're failing to not be a jerk about it to them.
Again, I'm not accusing and I wasn't there so I don't know and only have guesses. But, I do know that there's far more to convincing someone skeptical of your claims than "proving it to them". Once the window for reasonable discussion is closed, it's a psychological truism that they'll dig their heels in and no evidence will force them reevaluate your claim favorably.
The paladin's instant detect evil is certainly more problematic.
I actually used a paladin's detect evil ability to great use to find an enemy with total concealment attacking our party. I first used detect evil as a standard action to sense the cone area (and picked the correct area for my cone). I sensed the presence of evil within the cone, then spent a move action (per the paladin ability) to locate the square the evil creature was in...then proceeded to yell out a quick location "behind you, to the left" as a free action.
My party then made short work of the enemy after doing this for a few rounds.
YIDM
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
the detect magic spellcaster could then also make a follow up Knowledge (arcana) check, and if successful, identify the illusion spell detected (with the faint aura [3rd level or less]) as the named "invisibility" spell.
On this specific point, you could actually be wrong (it's unclear).
See, the ability to identify a specific ongoing spell is not part of detect magic, and so we can no longer rely on the fact that detect magic doesn't require seeing the subject. It's from the general Knowledge rules, and those seem to carry an assumption of seeing the thing that you're identifying. After all, can you make a Knowledge (planes) check to identify an imp if it's invisible? If not, then you (probably) can't make a Knowledge (arcana) check to recognize an active invisibility spell.
That said, if you did ever manage to (somehow) reach the point of confirming that there's an aura of illusion emanating from a point in space where you don't see anything, well, the list of possibilities is pretty short. ;)
I was not part of your discussion with those GMs so of course I have no way of knowing for sure.... But I can certainly imagine why they are refusing to see things your way. You may well be completely within the right, but the reality of things is that's essentially not the point. What I suspect, what it sounds like, is you're failing to not be a jerk about it to them.Again, I'm not accusing and I wasn't there so I don't know and only have guesses. But, I do know that there's far more to convincing someone skeptical of your claims than "proving it to them". Once the window for reasonable discussion is closed, it's a psychological truism that they'll dig their heels in and no evidence will force them to do otherwise.
I completely agree with everything you wrote there. I can definitely come off like a jerk when I feel I'm "right" and I believe someone isn't listening to sound reasoning. That is very likely the case here...I came off to strong, and they mentally shut down and said "cause we said so" (effectively).
YIDM
You misunderstand. Even if you pinpoint a creature's square using detect magic, they still have 50% concealment from attacks you make. This is what Ozy is referring to.
Ahhhhh...I understand his statement now. Sorry, lost that one in translation.
YES, the creature still has concealment, I said that in my original post. The spells aura can be detected regardless of concealment or cover (within the area and limits of the detect magic spell).YIDM
Would not work.
Paladin Ability: A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on
a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine
if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having
studied it for 3 rounds.As a move action concentrate on a single item or individual. The first part where you used a standard action of detect evil does not give you a single item. It only gives you wether there is the presence of evil in that 60' cone.
How so? I use a standard to cast detect evil spell-like ability, then as a move action, to "concentrate" on a single individual as if studied for 3 rounds. Or even, the following round, use a move action to "concentrate" on the individual whose evil presence I detected the round before...
(?)
What am I missing here?
YIDM
Part of the GM's that argued the point used their "stars" as evidence they (both of them) knew the rules better than I did; and I didn't know what I was talking about.As a four star PFS GM let me tell you that the number of stars we have has very little to do with rules mastery or how good of a GM we are.
Trying to end an argument by citing one's GM stars (rather than actually engaging the topic at hand) is pretty inappropriate, and such behavior should probably be reported to your local VC (or to Mike Brock if the GMs in question are themselves VOs).
They are both VO's and the VC has been included on the conversation and chain of e-mails as of late.
On the other side of the coin, if this topic was coming up in the middle of a game, then hopefully how you handled it was (unless serious consequences were on the line) to just accept the GM's ruling and move on, and this thread is just your post-game follow up. :)
No no no...it took place outside of the session, but got heated. It continued to a long chain of e-mails including all VO's and primary society GM's for our area (of which I am one of the GM's).
As for the rules question at hand:
The fact that detect magic is explicitly capable of penetrating opaque barriers proves that it does not require seeing the subject.
Detect magic says you can identify the school of magic, and neither the spell description nor the rules for illusions (or for invisibility) provides any exception to that blanket rule.
Detect magic works how it says it works.
Thanks...we'll see what good it does me.
Lol.YIDM
|
|
What am I missing here?
YIDM
Detect Evil (Sp): At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range.
(bolded for emphasis)
You can't use a positive return from a 60' cone of detect evil as a substitute for being able directly target a creature.
@ the OP.
1. Unless I misread something those high star GM's are incorrect. Invite them to the boards.
2. Asking for dev intervention is not liked by the devs, but if you hit the FAQ button they may answer it since this is a common topic.
PS: Did they give an actual reason as to why you were incorrect?
Would not work.
You can't use a positive return from a 60' cone of detect evil as a substitute for being able directly target a creature.
Where does it say I have to be able to target them (need line of sight) within the cone to "concentrate on a single individual"? (or did I miss a FAQ)
Detect evil doesn't require line of sight or line of effect (as a AoE cone that penetrates up to 1 foot of stone). I'm just choosing one individual to focus on...YIDM
Good to know!
the detect magic spellcaster could then also make a follow up Knowledge (arcana) check, and if successful, identify the illusion spell detected (with the faint aura [3rd level or less]) as the named "invisibility" spell.On this specific point, you could actually be wrong (it's unclear).
See, the ability to identify a specific ongoing spell is not part of detect magic, and so we can no longer rely on the fact that detect magic doesn't require seeing the subject. It's from the general Knowledge rules, and those seem to carry an assumption of seeing the thing that you're identifying. After all, can you make a Knowledge (planes) check to identify an imp if it's invisible? If not, then you (probably) can't make a Knowledge (arcana) check to recognize an active invisibility spell.
That said, if you did ever manage to (somehow) reach the point of confirming that there's an aura of illusion emanating from a point in space where you don't see anything, well, the list of possibilities is pretty short. ;)
Nothing in the knowledge skills suggests to me that you must see the thing. Be pretty tough for a Knowledge: History check.
More to the point, it makes sense that someone with good Knowledge (Planes) skill may be able to identify that Imp at a penalty assuming they know it is an evil outsider that is invisible, approximate size (based on where it could fit), and other information. They should at least be able to come up with a list of likely creatures it could be based on observed SLAs. It is also probably easier than identifying a computer problem over the phone -- at least your character isn't relying on a frustratingly incomplete and potentially inaccurate description.
@ the OP.
1. Unless I misread something those high star GM's are incorrect. Invite them to the boards.
2. Asking for dev intervention is not liked by the devs, but if you hit the FAQ button they may answer it since this is a common topic.
PS: Did they give an actual reason as to why you were incorrect?
You read correctly, both are 4-star GM's running Bonekeep in our next convention.
They have disregarded my evidence saying that’s what the see invisibility spell was created for and a simple 0-level cantrip cannot (and should not, even if it was worded that way) trump a 2nd level spell (citing RAI for justification; i.e. rules didn't intend for the detect magic spell to be able to see an invisibility spell-ed creature).They are stating they will not rule it as I have presented, and detect magic will not (or should not) detect a creature or object under the influence of the invisibility spell. I debated that it’s very situational (if not nearly unless), taking 3 rounds to do (unless you have arcane sight spell on, or the see magic arcane exploit). They have also said unless a Dev comments on it (or it gets added to the FAQ or errata), their ruling is final. I strongly believe their ruling is not correct by either RAW or RAI.
YIDM
It doesn't 'trump' the 2nd level spell because it takes 3 rounds of concentration and doesn't get rid of the 50% miss chance.
And please let's keep in mind just how ineffective this is because of the cone and the ability of the target to move.
Target does not even need to leave the area. SO MUCH DAMAGE can happen in three rounds, it's preposterous.
Detect Evil (Sp): At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds.
See previous threads debating whether the paladin can use Detect Evil as the spell but can in addition detect evil individuals as a move action, or can only detect evil individuals as a move action.
SO MUCH DAMAGE can happen in three rounds, it's preposterous.
With Detect Magic, can't you walk around dungeons concentrating constantly on the spell? And then you've permanently got the benefits of the third round information? (Not that this would make it as good as See Invisibility.)
Would not work.
You can't use a positive return from a 60' cone of detect evil as a substitute for being able directly target a creature.Where does it say I have to be able to target them within the cone to "concentrate on a single individual"? (or did I miss a FAQ)
Detect evil doesn't require line of sight or line of effect (as a AoE cone that penetrates up to 1 foot of stone). I'm just choosing one individual to focus on...YIDM
You have to at least get to round 3 or you don't see/notice each individual creature. If you don't see him as an individual creature all you know is that evil is in the area. You don't even know if there is a creature present, since auras linger the creature have already moved.
SO MUCH DAMAGE can happen in three rounds, it's preposterous.With Detect Magic, can't you walk around dungeons concentrating constantly on the spell? And then you've permanently got the benefits of the third round information? (Not that this would make it as good as See Invisibility.)
Not really, you'd have to go 3 rounds at at time, then move. Otherwise you'd miss stuff in the area you just walked past.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
That said, if you did ever manage to (somehow) reach the point of confirming that there's an aura of illusion emanating from a point in space where you don't see anything, well, the list of possibilities is pretty short. ;)
I suppose an illusionist worried about this tactic, for whatever reason, could cast silent image in the area and make nothing appear (or an illusion of empty air where there is actually ... empty air)just to fill squares with illusion magic for no reason. Or heck, scatter a bunch of magic auras around.
The real question I have for the OP is, other than the principle of the thing, does this actually matter? We all agree that it's a poor tactic and very difficult to pull off. If the trick is so weak does it truly matter that the GMs ruled it would not work?
Don't get me wrong, I agree that it should work. I'm just trying to figure out whether it's worth arguing about. Just carry around a bag of flour to scatter and you have a mundane anti-invisibility measure that's far more effective.
@ the OP.
1. Unless I misread something those high star GM's are incorrect. Invite them to the boards.
2. Asking for dev intervention is not liked by the devs, but if you hit the FAQ button they may answer it since this is a common topic.
PS: Did they give an actual reason as to why you were incorrect?
You read correctly, both are 4-star GM's running Bonekeep in our next convention.
They have disregarded my evidence saying that’s what the see invisibility spell was created for and a simple 0-level cantrip cannot (and should not, even if it was worded that way) trump a 2nd level spell (citing RAI for justification; i.e. rules didn't intend for the detect magic spell to be able to see an invisibility spell-ed creature).
They are stating they will not rule it as I have presented, and detect magic will not (or should not) detect a creature or object under the influence of the invisibility spell. I debated that it’s very situational (if not nearly unless), taking 3 rounds to do (unless you have arcane sight spell on, or the see magic arcane exploit). They have also said unless a Dev comments on it (or it gets added to the FAQ or errata), their ruling is final. I strongly believe their ruling is not correct by either RAW or RAI.YIDM
"Should" does not define rules and until they get to be PF devs they don't get to change them. The illusion school is shutdown by spellcraft(a skill) if the spell is cast in front of you, and it has no special protection against detect magic or any other detection spell. I would report them if that was the best answer they gave me.
The real question I have for the OP is, other than the principle of the thing, does this actually matter? We all agree that it's a poor tactic and very difficult to pull off. If the trick is so weak does it truly matter that the GMs ruled it would not work?Don't get me wrong, I agree that it should work. I'm just trying to figure out whether it's worth arguing about. Just carry around a bag of flour to scatter and you have a mundane anti-invisibility measure that's far more effective.
Yes, I have an arcanist with the see magic arcane exploit, and I've advised others to use arcane sight to do what detect magic can do (especially in home games where you can make it permanent)...and I thought I knew what I was talking about.
These two GM's whole-heartedly disagreed with me on this topic, when I suggested this tactic for someone who played in their game and they over heard me telling them. Then the out of game debate commenced.
"Should" does not define rules and until they get to be PF devs they don't get to change them. The illusion school is shutdown by spellcraft(a skill) if the spell is cast in front of you, and it has no special protection against detect magic or any other detection spell. I would report them if that was the best answer they gave me.
I'm attempting not be any more jerk-like than I'm already perceived as, being the resident "rules lawyer" of our PFS group in my area.
|
As I read it, a few things:
1) Detect magic will not allow you to see the invisible creature. It does not allow sight at all, and is more a sensory, like smell. You do not "see" the aura. After 3 rounds, you would know the location of the aura and the spell used. You would not be able to determine if it was fixed on a creature instead of an object.
2) Detect magic does target a cone. Should the invisible target leave the cone during your study of the area, you will have to detect it as per a lingering aura. Even then, you will only know where the lingering aura was, not where the aura currently is.
3) Detect magic will not allow one to negate the combat related aspects of invisibility. You can "detect" the aura, but you can't see the aura or the creature via this spell. A target that remains stationary and invisible for an entire 3 rounds would allow you to target it with area of effect weapons/spells, but your still fighting blind as you cannot see the target.
4) In regards to line of sight, most pre-generated paizo adventures list thickness/material of walls for this very reason. It isn't just for hardness, it applies to spells too, like detect magic. You do not need to see a target to use detect magic. I will also note that just because you can detect magic through a wall or something, does not mean that know what the creature/object is. You merely know the location of the aura and magic related properties of said aura.
EDIT: Another thing is that nothing in spell allows the PC to know if their detection is failing due to objects blocking the cone. They will not detect auras concealed my the listed thickness of materials, and they will not know that the auras are concealed.
5) I will also note that it is completely possible to create illusions or traps designed to interact with detect magic specifically. Merely knowing that there is an aura at a location does not mean that it is always a good idea to try to interact with it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm attempting not be any more jerk-like than I'm already perceived as, being the resident "rules lawyer" of our PFS group in my area.
"Should" does not define rules and until they get to be PF devs they don't get to change them. The illusion school is shutdown by spellcraft(a skill) if the spell is cast in front of you, and it has no special protection against detect magic or any other detection spell. I would report them if that was the best answer they gave me.
Jerkishness is about how you treat the people you're disagreeing with.
Are you interrupting games with minor issues?
Are you keeping a moderate tone of voice?
Is your face turning red?
Are you poking the table with the "down-point of declaration" when making your claims?
Are you making commentary on the strength of the other party's intellect or moral fiber?
Are you giving the other person time to speak, without interrupting them, and then paraphrasing their own stance back to them to ensure understanding, all before making a reply?
If you're handling all that properly—discussing the topic at an appropriate time and in a respectful manner—then you're not being a jerk. Some people will still treat you like you're being a jerk, just because you're contradicting them. But those people are toxic to a community, and anyone who values said community has a responsibility to protect it by reporting toxic individuals to leadership so they can either learn to behave differently or be removed from the community.
TLDR: If you value your community, first be sure you're handling disagreements with respect and maturity, then report anyone who won't return in kind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm attempting not be any more jerk-like than I'm already perceived as, being the resident "rules lawyer" of our PFS group in my area.
"Should" does not define rules and until they get to be PF devs they don't get to change them. The illusion school is shutdown by spellcraft(a skill) if the spell is cast in front of you, and it has no special protection against detect magic or any other detection spell. I would report them if that was the best answer they gave me.
That is not a bad thing as long as you don't "only try to acknowledge a rule when it benefits you".
If they want to play with house rules they should play at home.<---I don't expect for you to say that because I am sure it will not go over well. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they wanted Dev input and while James Jacobs is not "the rules guy" he has posted the same thing people are saying in this thread:
Additionally, here is a 2008 post from Jason Bulmahn (who is THE rules guy) specifically addressing Detect Magic's ability to detect Invisible creatures with a possible increase in the detection time to 1 minute.
That increase never occurred but it is clear from his post that Detect Magic was being used to detect the presence of invisible creatures back in 3.5 and that the Devs were considering ways to address that in Pathfinder. It looks like they did not change anything (probably figuring that 3 rounds to pinpoint an invisible creature is pretty significant as it is).
In short, yes, the magic aura from Invisibility is detectable just like any other magic aura.
This meshes with the rules since there is nothing in the rules saying anything to the contrary.
Jiggy is correct. I tend to try to handle things after the game if it can not be resolved quickly. Even if the ruling is incorrect I am not going to hold the GM up. Not that I have ever needed to, but it would also give me time to cite FAQ's and dev quotes.
Are you interrupting games with minor issues?
Are you keeping a moderate tone of voice?
Is your face turning red?
Are you poking the table with the "down-point of declaration" when making your claims?
Are you making commentary on the strength of the other party's intellect or moral fiber?
Are you giving the other person time to speak, without interrupting them, and then paraphrasing their own stance back to them to ensure understanding, all before making a reply?
No (but Yes on one occasion)
YesNo
No (but Yes on one occasion)
No
Sometimes (I do talk fast and interrupt from time to time)
I'm not perfect, but I do try and be respectful. As I am here on the forums...but do make it clear, that at times, I feel strongly on the matter.
YIDM
PS - I try not to interrupt the game unless the rules mistake is going to serious mess something up (like get a PC killed, blinded permanently, etc.; when it wouldn't otherwise)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say, it's nice to see quite a few people agreeing that this works to at least locate the area of a creature, if not see it's exact location. When I first started playing playing PFS I tried to do this same thing but was told that it didn't work. I asked for the rule why it didn't work and just got the "It just doesn't, it's a 0 level spell" explanation, but being new I just make a stink face reaction, then let it go, figuring most of these GMs have years more experience playing than I do. Also got a similar reaction to using powder to try and locate an invisible target, apparently a 1 CP item can't do what a 300 GP potion does.
Have to say I agree with others about the GM star not necessarily meaning better system mastery. Now that I've been playing PFS for a few seasons, I've seen some really questionable rules calls, and don't really feel bad about explaining a rule if I know it's being used wrong. I've yet to get enough gamesin for my first star, but have had to explain things to our VC and a couple 3 star GMs. Thankfully this doesn't happen too often though.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Also got a similar reaction to using powder to try and locate an invisible target, apparently a 1 CP item can't do what a 300 GP potion does.
Wow, that's even worse than denying the use of detect magic, considering the actual description of the 1cp powder item literally says that it reveals whether or not there's an invisible creature in the affected square.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@YIDM: you're sorta right, but I think you may have stated your opinion perhaps a bit too strongly, which has given your GMs the wrong impression. That being, that you're trying to get more out of Detect Magic than it does. So they react by cutting you off completely.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but your original post sounds a bit confrontational to me. I agree with you on most of the rule-facts, but it leaves a bit of a bad taste.
---
Rules lawyering is an under-appreciated art.
A lot of rules lawyers would probably fare pretty poorly in an actual courtroom because they argue obviously flawed interpretations, stuff that's transparently not the intent of the rules. Stuff that sounds far-fetched, ridiculous, unfair, and clearly meant to benefit the lawyer.
Quite a few rules lawyers are different from this however; they're fair-minded, but perhaps not always in the most gracious manner. If someone is using the rules incorrectly, they feel that it's unjust and must speak out against it. However, they don't only do this for important stuff, but also for small stuff that doesn't really matter. And so they constantly interrupt the game and it's annoying.
The sad thing is, they mean well. I'm one of them. I try to pick my battles; if something's not actually important, I'll just leave it be. Maybe I'll mention it after the game. Sometimes I'll make sure I have all the pages handy so I can show it. Nobody likes it when you say "I don't think that's how it works" and then spend ten minutes looking it up. If you have the page handy and say "actually it works like this here", it's not as bad. Still, pick your battles.
And yeah, some stuff is really finicky, but still a bit worth it. If you don't have See Invisibility, then it may be worth it to do this Detect Magic tactic. You're not to come up with it. There have been threads about it.
The problem is that these rules are really quite ungainly. They're spread out all over the CRB, take a lot of referencing back and forth to really understand. I wouldn't want to try to explain this to the GM in the middle of combat, it's just too tricky for that. It'll grind the game to a halt in a bad way.
---
In my area, everyone knows I'm a rules lawyer. I'm not the only one. But they also know I'm trying to be the "good" kind. I'll also mention stuff that's to my disadvantage. If it turns out I was wrong about something I'll tell people. And I try not to argue too much. I try to pick out what really matters and prepare my case so it can be quick and painless.
And people do appreciate that. If a GM wants to know a rule, they turn to me and ask me, because it's quicker than looking it up.
(Sometimes I do have a bad day and I'm needlessly argumentative. I'm trying to be the Better Me.)
---
So in your situation, what I might have done would be:
"Okay, I'm gonna use Detect Magic. On this first round, I can see if there's any magic in this area. It doesn't let me see where it is, just if there's any magic. Even if it's around an invisible thing."(...)
"Okay, now I'm concentrating for the third round on this area. I now get to see the location of every magic aura in it. That means that if there's an invisible creature, I'll know what square the aura of the invisibility spell is in. The creature's still invisible though, but now we have an idea where to go."
What I'm NOT doing, is flooding the GM with irrelevant rules trivia, like Detect Magic maybe working in darkness or while blind. I'd have to look that up separately and it's just not needed right now. I don't want to be in three separate rules discussions, I only want to talk about finding spell auras.
I'm stating clearly what the limits are. I don't want the GM to accidentally say "you see the creature standing there", because I'm not.
Now, even though people generally agree that I'm good with the rules, I might still get the "but it's a 0th level spell!" argument slung at me. I'll point out that See Invisibility really is better for various reasons, but that this is a poor man's solution.
And there's still a chance I won't get my way. Because this is just an awkward trick, even if it is fully legal. The RAW here is just complex and that might mean it won't work. If I can't convince the GM in one minute, I should just drop the issue for the duration of the session, so we can go on playing.
|
|
I really like the comment about giving the other person time to speak without interrupting AND then repeating it back before you reply to make sure that everyone is hearing the same thing.... Lots of people do not realize this!!! or do this.... Everyone is on same track- THEIR track- and seem to 'disregard' what point the other person is attempting to make: when you REPEAT it, you let them know that yes, you did hear them,.... 'but'....
Those 'rules' for a "discussion" should be printed up and passed out at every meet! :)