|
Try this one on; if a person cast invisibility on himself; it includes his gear; does this mean that if he drops something it becomes visible? Can he see himself or his items? ok; so he has a bag of marbles; and he casts invisibility on the marbles; then roll spreads or however get these marbles all over the place near your gaurd with detect magic; so now he detects magic everywhere; but not what; this lasts for hours; how alert is this guy gonna be after that anyhow; so he knows magic is out there and has a general idea, by your guys ruling, of where, so now the marbles are acting much like Nystul magic aura is is just radiating magic, but doing nothing; though I suppose a marble or two or several could trip a guard if he goes looking for them. So by your ruling all you have done to the game is to have the caster use more spells to foil something that shouldnt have been foiled in the first place. So with your ruling a caster has to have a few other spells for misdirection just to get off the primary spell; is this the intent you are really looking for in your games? The spell already has enough weaknesses as tremer sense avoids it; unless the person has something like pass without trace; he will still leave footprints; they still make noise unless more things are used to counter that; they still have odor so things with tracking scent can find them. It really just seems to me that you guys havent given this much thought considering the game as a whole and are really rending this spell quite useless.
Wow ... you ok?
"Items dropped or put down from an invisible creature become visible." Straight from the spell description.
I like the marbles thing. That could be a lot of fun -- in many aspects.
I really think that you are thinking about this WAY too hard. I have never run a campaign where the guards had detect magic up all the time (or at all). How many times have you actually had guards that were wizards? Maybe a cleric, I guess, but it seems a waste to keep casting it all the time throughout the night in the off chance that an invisible creature just might come out of the shadows.
Even when one of my characters was playing a higher level wizard and had made detect magic permanent, I told him that while he always had it, he actually had to turn it on and think about it because I wasn't going to tell him every person on the street that had a magic item or that had a magical effect up.
As far as an impact -- the 50% miss chance is huge, but that is even assuming that the location of the invisible person is known. Most guards don't have tremorsense or scent. Blind-fight is, again, only effective if you know where the target is.
Invisibility is pretty powerful -- as it should be. Even with the Detect Magic spell.
So, with your specific example -- If the invisible person was sneaking into a place and If they had wizard (or equivalent) guards with detect magic capabilities and If the sneaking person failed the move silently roll Then the person might want to roll invisible marbles around (not sure if this would constitute an "attack") just to confuse the wizard -- but at this point the sneaking person's cover is blown anyway. All that happened is that it is now more difficult to determine where the person is -- assuming that he doesn't move. (And if he doesn't move, he will most likely be caught at this point.) Any other guards can't see the invisible person -- they aren't glowing for all to see. And (ironically) the best that the wizard can do is cast an area of effect spell (probably doing damage to the establishment as well) or can make a ranged attack with a 50% miss chance -- but then loses their concentration with the detect magic.
Detect Magic does not counter invisibility.
|
I realize that sebastian is trying to rally up the arguments against him here, but I think one of the reasons I have a differing opinion on the matter is that I think a lower level spell should be able to beat a higher level spell if a character thought enough in advance to have it prepared, whether through thinking that it may be useful the next day so adding it to your spell list, or having a sorc burn a spell selection on it, or even simply buying a scroll or potion.
Naturally this sort of argument extends beyond just detect magic, and I know that the protection from evil argument has been turned aside because it states clearly in the spell description that it works in that fashion, but on the same front the example of light and darkness, darkness specifically states that it overcomes light. However there are other examples of spells that overcome higher level spells, break enchantment is a good example at beating flesh to stone, and of course the various dispels can fizzle spells that are above themselves.
But more importantly then giving examples back and forth about this(because I know there are a number of examples for the other side as well), I think the tone of your game and the mentality of your players comes into play. What I mean by this is whether you want your players to learn that they benefit by preparing for upcoming dangers or would you prefer that they become accustomed to having a single path to victory.
It seems to me that in the examples given, both with regards to invisibility and explosive runes, that it is a tactic little different then having the parties rogue move at half-speed to keep his eye open for traps. The wizard is going to see some things the rogue is not, like lingering auras, and the rogue is going to see mundane traps and things that do not fall into the wizards cone of detection.
At lower levels, the loss of even a 0 level spell can have its effect on the casters pool(that could have been a daze!) and will only last a short time. At higher levels I have found that dungeons tend to be magicked enough that much of them glow anyway, whether from desecration, or being magically hardened stone, or simply with the power of the complex.
If a mage wants to announce that the party is spending 3 rounds to analyze every five foot section to determine if there is an illusion there then I'm sure it will get the same eyeroll as the rogue that takes 20 on every search check. More power to him for the instances it pays off, but it only gives the enemy more time to prepare and increases the likelyhood of them running into a monster wandering the halls.
On a side note because I got off topic in my rant here, its easy to prepare an offensive spell, but is unlikely that the person who stumbles into it will have a spell prepared that is effective against it. If a player has one, or at least comes up with a good use of a similar spell to at least lessen the effect, then I'm all for it.
The RAW is a good starting point but even they admit they could not account for all players could come up with. I think encouraging ingenuity in players is for the betterment of the game, just don't let such allowances be abused. Remember, if this becomes a regular tactic for the players then others will hear about it and enemies will either learn to avoid it(non-detection, magical aura, ect) or may use it back on the team.
-Tarlane
For those of you that cringe at the idea of letting a 0 lvl spell aid in foiling so many others, perhaps this might help. Consider all the other ways the spells in question are foiled much more reliably.
Invisibility- Throwing liquid, smoke, or any other mundane substance capable of creating a beacon to the location of an invisible creature, listen checks, mud, rain, the scent, tremorsense and blindsense/sight abilities.
Any figment- throwing a rock at it,
Any caster using detect magic to thwart these has obviously been tipped off that something is up since the chances are slim he was just randomly scanning. So, if this is the case then he has much more effective and creative options at his disposal than a cantrip. Foiling any figment is only a matter of time unless the party has no reason to scrutinize the effect in question, in which case they are even less likely to try detect magic in leu of simply chucking something at it. Besides when do players every rely on one source of detection anyway?
Wizard PC: "I cast detect magic and concentrate on the ceiling suspecting it is an illusion"
DM: "You detect no magical aura"
Wizard PC: "They might have used a permanent non-detection spell. Who's carrying the 10ft pole?"
If the baddies are preparing high level magic traps then a permanent nystuls magic aura or nondetection spell should be simple to procure. However you could just rule that such a counter measure is already figured into the price of the spell or trap. But before you do, consider the opportnities presented by the vague information available from detect magic. If the party knows detect magic can reveal traps, imagine the uses of a nystuls magic aura placing a strong evocation aura on a door, and the party terrified to open it as the rogues take 20 search attempt failed to find anything even with the bard inspiring confidance and the wizard bestowing fox's cunning and heroism.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Thread Ressurection!!!
I'm a little bit miffed at my DM over a call he made last week. I believe I mentioned previously in this thread about my warlock who was detected under invisibility by a paladin running detect evil. At the time, I had no issue with this fact, thinking that it was how he decided to vote on this matter. That was fine.
Last week, however, when confronted by a creature using invisibility, he ruled that I could not detect invisibility by using detect magic because "a zero-level spell should not be able to pierce invisibility." He was being hypocritical in my opinion, and I called him on it. When I cited his detect evil trick from the previous adventure, he defended his arguement with "invisibility itself is invisible and cannot be detected but detect evil is looking PAST the invisibility and seeing the evil thing that it is trying to hide."
I agreed to disagree and went on with the game, but this call has irked me since then and I wanted to see how other people feel about this call and the explanation. Anyone else think that this was a pretty bogus call based on the DM's previous call or do some of you see his side of the arguement and agree that detect evil can go where detect magic cannot? Your opinions are appreciated. I promise not to flame anyone, no matter which side they choose.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I agreed to disagree and went on with the game, but this call has irked me since then and I wanted to see how other people feel about this call and the explanation. Anyone else think that this was a pretty bogus call based on the DM's previous call or do some of you see his side of the arguement and agree that detect evil can go where detect magic cannot? Your opinions are appreciated. I promise not to flame anyone, no matter which side they choose.
Grumble...grumble...start a new thread!!! People aren't going to read your post, they're going to read a post or two on the first page and respond as if there is an active conversation going which they are joining in on.
Now that my grumbling is out of the way...
Tell your DM that if a 0 level spell shouldn't puncture a 2nd level spell then neither should a 1st level spell. Then point him to this thread and see if it won't change his mind re: detect magic and invisibility. His argument is really just window dressing on the fact that he did not want you to be able to detect his bad guy using detect magic. I think the difficulty you're going to encounter is not so much in proving your DM wrong, but in doing so diplomatically. See if you can get him to give you a written house rule on which detection spells bust invisibility and which ones don't. That way you can avoid the issue in the future as well.
Thread Ressurection!!!
Last week, however, when confronted by a creature using invisibility, he ruled that I could not detect invisibility by using detect magic because "a zero-level spell should not be able to pierce invisibility." He was being hypocritical in my opinion, and I called him on it. When I cited his detect evil trick from the previous adventure, he defended his arguement with "invisibility itself is invisible and cannot be detected but detect evil is looking PAST the invisibility and seeing the evil thing that it is trying to hide."
Ouch! Does the DM have a grudge against the warlock for some reason? Seriously, I think you were right to question that and it doesn't really sound fair... I used to have a DM that pulled that kind of stunt about once every two sessions or so, and eventually everyone got tired of it and we only game with him about once every two months now...
If anything, I could see your example working the OTHER way - invisibility hides the "person" so Detect Evil shouldn't work, but Detect Magic is looking for magic, not a person...But, that's just what I think... *casting Protection from Fire*
There, I read through the entire thread ^_^
My view on the main invisibility thing: anything that gets my players really creative, goes. So yes, Detect Magic would detect just about everything; because it forces players to think about what to do next.. only the wizard/sorceror knows what's going on, now he has to relay that information to the others, who will have to deal with it...
Néver éver underestimate the power of a Nystul's Magic Aura that creates a faint illusion on a wall. Kept my players busy for nearly an hour, trying to figure out what the hell it was.
As for your DM stating that detect evil would detect an evil invisible thingy, whilst detect magic would not... I disagree.
Invisbility was designed to foil sight, not magic. Detect magic was specifacally designed to detect magical things; just like detect evil was designed specifacally to detect evil things.
So, if detect evil sees through invisibility, because it detects evil, whether visible or not, detect evil should detect aura's, whether visible or not.
Or, so I think about it.
Hello,
there is one sentence in the original DMG 3.5 anf Paizo Beta Rules that helps definitly:
"Invisibility does not thwart detect spells." DMG p. 296/PPHB p. 396
IMO you can use Detect Magic to recognize and pinpoint a stationary or slow moving invisible object/creature.
The rule that it takes 3 rounds to ONLY pinpoint the Invisibilty spell derives from the description of the Detect Magic spell.
Following the assumptions from above you will moan even more about Arcane Sight which is the upgrade of Detect magic at Spell Level 3 though even you if pinpoint the invisble creature by these spells the miss chance by concealment still applies.
Oh, thank you, thank you Taig. If only I'd been around back then. The real question is:
Daigle, you're a pillar.
I mean, you could be half-mantis, half-caryatid column, right? (OK, Telamon.)
Director of Narrative
|
Thanks for starting this one up, oh so long ago.
When I saw it pop up, I thought, "Hey, that looks familiar." Then I was lost for a second how it popped up again. I took actually looking at the thread to realize that I was originally responsible.
Daigle, you're a pillar.
Sheee-it. I wish I posted as much as I did back then. You guys keep this place fun. I've been a slacker.
Oh, thank you, thank you Taig. If only I'd been around back then. The real question is:
** spoiler omitted **
Aaaaaaaaaahahahaha!!
OOOOOOOHOHOHOHO!!!!
(oops....I hershey squirted, Johnny.)
1. That's not how the rules are written, that's how the rules have been interpreted by a relatively offical source. There is no specific textual explanation in the core rules of how Detect Magic and Invisibility interact. There is an argument that just as you can't see the color of an invisible object, you can't see the aura of an invisible object. You may believe it is pretty clear if you want, but if it were so clear, why is there a multi-page explanation of the interaction on the Wizards website?
*ahem*
It is how the rules are written. As Saern pointed out, the description of invisibility specifically states that detect spells foil the illusion. There is no interpretion process involved. You are wrong Sebastian. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
(damn one hour limit on editing a post).
[taunting tone]Sebastian was wrong! Sebastian was wrong![/taunting tone]
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
[taunting tone]Sebastian was wrong! Sebastian was wrong![/taunting tone]
I think that was some type of bug in the boards that Gary subsequently fixed. My understanding is that the bug traveled back through time, changed my original post to be incorrect, and then made it look like a post from someone else, thus prompting my response.
There's really no other logical explanation.
|
|
[taunting tone]Sebastian was wrong! Sebastian was wrong![/taunting tone]I think that was some type of bug in the boards that Gary subsequently fixed. My understanding is that the bug traveled back through time, changed my original post to be incorrect, and then made it look like a post from someone else, thus prompting my response.
There's really no other logical explanation.
Holy thread resurrection, Batman!
Should I also start digging up every thread that Sebastian posted on EVER and make sure he wasn't ever wrong just to point out his mistakes -- many that they might be?
Actually, that could be kind of fun.
[taunting tone]Sebastian was wrong! Sebastian was wrong![/taunting tone]I think that was some type of bug in the boards that Gary subsequently fixed. My understanding is that the bug traveled back through time, changed my original post to be incorrect, and then made it look like a post from someone else, thus prompting my response.
There's really no other logical explanation.
Holy thread resurrection, Batman!
Should I also start digging up every thread that Sebastian posted on EVER and make sure he wasn't ever wrong just to point out his mistakes -- many that they might be?
Actually, that could be kind of fun.
Yes.
Could you get back to the pie discussion?
Banana Creme... MmmmMMmmm!
Usually I just go with Detect magic. Something there I can't see? Then next round it's see invisibility, invisibility purge, or glitterdust.
Didn't have to waste a second level spell off the bat and had some advance warning... works best in pathfinder where you can actually use your 0th level spells, instead of always being limited to 4~6 of the easiest spells to cast per day when you have 9~10 of your higher level spells each...
Usually I just go with Detect magic. Something there I can't see? Then next round it's see invisibility, invisibility purge, or glitterdust.
Didn't have to waste a second level spell off the bat and had some advance warning... works best in pathfinder where you can actually use your 0th level spells, instead of always being limited to 4~6 of the easiest spells to cast per day when you have 9~10 of your higher level spells each...
I'm with you on this one. Also, that old chestnut about if the PCs can do it, so can the enemies. There are quite a few mook-types that can detect at will.
Zo