RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Okay, this is what we've got so far after my resurrection of the 'Can Detect Magic Detect Invisible Critters' thread (sorry for the messy repost):
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.
Sebastian:
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.
Fyraxis:
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*
Uhm, yes, that's pretty blatantly slanted and wrong. My faith in that DM's capabilities and my own ability to enjoy the game would be greatly compromised after such an exchange.
|
I just reread both spells, and either one IMHO could detect the location of an invisible creature, AFTER 3 ROUNDS , during which the invisible creature has to stand right there like the exposure time on an old timey photograph.
Also, the detector has to be concentrating the whole time. So you don't just get to dispel the invisibility and that's that they're visible. You have to MAINTAIN CONCENTRATION on a pretty much immobile target.
What does this mean? I think it means you're right, Fatespinner.
I'm not sure that the target has to be immobile, but in general I agree with Heathensson with the three round delay.
Invisibility is an ugly effect/mechanic that I try to avoid whenever possible...and it only gets worse with greater invisibility.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm sorry I complained about starting a new thread - it looks like this thread is becoming Detect Magic and Invisibility Part II rather than Detect Magic v. Detect Evil and Invisibility.
Here's the root of Fatespinner's question. He's not really asking if Detect Magic should pierce invisibility. He's asking whether Detect Magic should pierce invisibility given that Detect Evil does. In other words, is there any reason to believe that Detect Magic operates differently enough from Detect Evil that the behave differently with respect to Invisibility.
Sebastian
Your Friendly Neighborhood Tread Nazi
I just reread both spells, and either one IMHO could detect the location of an invisible creature, AFTER 3 ROUNDS , during which the invisible creature has to stand right there like the exposure time on an old timey photograph.
Also, the detector has to be concentrating the whole time. So you don't just get to dispel the invisibility and that's that they're visible. You have to MAINTAIN CONCENTRATION on a pretty much immobile target.
What does this mean? I think it means you're right, Fatespinner.
After following the trend and rereading all three spells, I have to agree, both "Detects" should work... Invisibility is listed as an Illusion [Glamer], which I see as bending light in certain ways (or radio waves, etc. for Darkvision ;) ), so it wouldn't, in any way I can see, prevent detection magiks from locating auras...
I'm sorry I complained about starting a new thread - it looks like this thread is becoming Detect Magic and Invisibility Part II rather than Detect Magic v. Detect Evil and Invisibility.
Here's the root of Fatespinner's question. He's not really asking if Detect Magic should pierce invisibility. He's asking whether Detect Magic should pierce invisibility given that Detect Evil does. In other words, is there any reason to believe that Detect Magic operates differently enough from Detect Evil that the behave differently with respect to Invisibility.
Sebastian
Your Friendly Neighborhood Tread Nazi
To keep on thread, YES, they should work the same... the decriptions in the PHB are almost identical except for exchanging the words "magic" and "evil"...
So the general opinion is; change it so both spells work, or neither works.
|
|
I'm not sure that the target has to be immobile, but in general I agree with Heathensson with the three round delay.
Invisibility is an ugly effect/mechanic that I try to avoid whenever possible...and it only gets worse with greater invisibility.
Well not exactly immobile. He just has to loiter for 18 seconds in the general vacinity of a cone-shaped area emanating from the caster. I think if he quietly tiptoed over to the right a little ways...nada! He's out of the frame.
AND, I'm assuming the guy who detected him with detect evil was attacking him? Don't you have to at least make a conc. check to fong somebody while you're concentrating on a spell? I'm sketchy on how that works meself.
I just reread both spells, and either one IMHO could detect the location of an invisible creature, AFTER 3 ROUNDS , during which the invisible creature has to stand right there like the exposure time on an old timey photograph.
Also, the detector has to be concentrating the whole time. So you don't just get to dispel the invisibility and that's that they're visible. You have to MAINTAIN CONCENTRATION on a pretty much immobile target.
What does this mean? I think it means you're right, Fatespinner.
This is pretty much how I would view it as well. The spells would operate the same way vs. an invisible creature. The first round the detector can tell there is magic or evil (depending on the spell) in the area. The second round determines number and strengths. The third round detects location. Now I guess you could say that as long as the invisible creature does not leave the cone at anytime during the three rounds they could move about to a certain degree and still be detected. Granted that would be very generous on the DMs part.
|
|
So the general opinion is; change it so both spells work, or neither works.
I...guess I think they both work, but they're both pretty much next to useless. I think for delivering a coup de grace on a passed out drunk invisible guy, it'd work great, but for an invisible guy with his wits about him, who sees you pointing at him and muttering weird stuff,...meh...
So the general opinion is; change it so both spells work, or neither works.I...guess I think they both work, but they're both pretty much next to useless. I think for delivering a coup de grace on a passed out drunk invisible guy, it'd work great, but for an invisible guy with his wits about him, who sees you pointing at him and muttering weird stuff,...meh...
Just a thought but it would have made more sense for this detect evil caster to point out the area they're sensing to others.
Detect Magic on the other hand doesn't need to discern what kind of magic is going on, YOU KNOW there's something enchanted in the area and if its moving around you're going to be warning everyone else pretty sharpish!Still a mite harsh, but i had a dm where he used a scroll of flame strike doing major damage using earlier edition rules and then my cleric got access to that spell the range reduced pretty sharpish (230' according to him now 40' or so) and I dodged that scroll thanks to roleplaying my character who had been aged 60 years by his previous use of a ghost of a black dragon having only covered barely 45' of a 300' distance thanks to being heavily encumbered by armour I needed to survive the foes he was throwing at us (Start at Yu'anti and then go up to Slaad of all types by MM I fortunately)and then he had my cleric rendered insane by a symbol even though when it was activated he was behind a pillar and facing the opposite direction holding some undead at bay so there are worser fates with some dubious rulings on spell use.
Thats why they claim the dm has the final say, the fact he's wrong might come up but if it persists all you can do is find someone else to dm for you instead.
Take care!
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Still a mite harsh, but i had a dm where he used a scroll of flame strike doing major damage using earlier edition rules and then my cleric got access to that spell the range reduced pretty sharpish (230' according to him now 40' or so) and I dodged that scroll thanks to roleplaying my character who had been aged 60 years by his previous use of a ghost of a black dragon having only covered barely 45' of a 300' distance thanks to being heavily encumbered by armour I needed to survive the foes he was throwing at us (Start at Yu'anti and then go up to Slaad of all types by MM I fortunately)and then he had my cleric rendered insane by a symbol even though when it was activated he was behind a pillar and facing the opposite direction holding some undead at bay so there are worser fates with some dubious rulings on spell use.
Thats why they claim the dm has the final say, the fact he's wrong might come up but if it persists all you can do is find someone else to dm for you instead...
Ummm... what? I'm sorry, I fail to see the relevance here.
Yes, Sebastian, you are correct as to the root of my question. I'm not debating the ability of detect magic or detect evil to locate invisible creatures. The DM made it clear that detection spells CAN detect invisibility because his paladin used detect evil to locate my warlock while under invisibility. My post pertains to the fact that my DM said detect evil WILL pierce invisibility but detect magic will not.
My post pertains to the fact that my DM said detect evil WILL pierce invisibility but detect magic will not.
Yeah, that's crap. The DM just didn't want you to be able to spot his bad guy.
|
Hey there,
Was reading this thread and was thinking that this had been mentioned/answered in a FAQ or Ask the Sage article. I don't remember the verbatim of it all but the answer went sorta like this:
(Specifically dealing with Detect Magic and Invisibility)
The Detect Magic spell is a creative way to get an idea if there is an Invisible creature in the area.
Round 1 - Caster receives the information about the presence or absence of magic (Invisibility by the spell is magical and would register as being present)
Round 2 - Number and strength of each magical aura (including Invisibility if it is still present in the cone)
Round 3 - Location of each magical aura in the cone (Invisibility would register as a blip in a 5' square (if the creature was smaller than Large). It would then be possible to target the square that contained the Invisible creature allowing the creature the standard 50% miss chance on the attack (unless it was an area effect or some such)
This is the DM's game going on here and so if it is how he wants it - no problem, just remember the things he does for later should you have people looking for you using Detect Magic to quickly cast Invisibility - cause no 0-level spell will outdo a 2nd level one ;^)
To the DM I would say don't punish the players for creative ways of getting around a severe disadvantage. That 50% miss chance is nothing to laugh at and is the same benefit the creature receives because it is invisible anyway. Plus a PC giving up 3 rounds of his combat to find someone should be able to do so given the logical tools.
An Invisible Rogue, even one who is detected using Detect Magic, still gets his Sneak Attack and the like. The detecter (sp? ;^D) only knows that there is something magical in a certain ssquare. Not what it is, what it is doing, nor can he see it in any way, shape, form or fashion.
Should you convince the DM that he needs to change his ruling, I would say that your PCs shouldn't be able to pinpoint the square for a different player by pointing at the square, I'd make the caster tell the others where it was relative to his position.
"15 feet in front of me and 10 feet to my left" when spoken aloud only once will cause all sorts of problems for people as they try to convert the spoken word into usable information on the fly. Try it sometime in a group of six and see how many can accurately pinpoint the location without having to ask for a repeat of the words.
As far as Detect Evil goes, I'd say it works the same way, only in relationship to evil things and in the exact same way. In fact, I wouldn't let players pinpoint the evil creatures by pointing to them (unless there was only one or two of course) but by the whole relative position to their own PC, one time.
Just my 2cp
Frank
|
|
Yes, Sebastian, you are correct as to the root of my question. I'm not debating the ability of detect magic or detect evil to locate invisible creatures. The DM made it clear that detection spells CAN detect invisibility because his paladin used detect evil to locate my warlock while under invisibility. My post pertains to the fact that my DM said detect evil WILL pierce invisibility but detect magic will not.
I think the two aforementioned statements CAN BE mutually exclusive. However, if they ARE mutually exclusive, it takes the argument away from one hinging on interpretation of "RAW" into the realm of frontier justice, i.e. "I'm the dm, what I say goes," and thus makes the point moot. The transitivity of the statement, i.e. detect evil works THEREFORE detect magic should've worked and vice versa, has little to no bearing if the actual debate is not whether or not according to the RAW detect magic AND detect evil can or cannot detect an invisible creature. Transitivity disintegrates because the dungeon master says so.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think the two aforementioned statements CAN BE mutually exclusive. However, if they ARE mutually exclusive, it takes the argument away from one hinging on interpretation of "RAW" into the realm of frontier justice, i.e. "I'm the dm, what I say goes," and thus makes the point moot. The transitivity of the statement, i.e. detect evil works THEREFORE detect magic should've worked and vice versa, has little to no bearing if the actual debate is not whether or not according to the RAW detect magic AND detect evil can or cannot detect an invisible creature. Transitivity disintegrates because the dungeon master says so.
In other words, you agree the DM is being arbitrary and that the distinction between detect magic and detect evil is not well founded.
|
|
In other words, you agree the DM is being arbitrary and that the distinction between detect magic and detect evil is not well founded.
I think the distinction isn't founded in the RAW. I can't attest to the arbitrariness of the statement because I frankly wasn't there. I think the rules should be broken in the name of beauty. The way Dizzy Gillespie used to blow up his cheeks when he played the trumpet. The way Joseph Conrad wrote in long run on sentences. Hell, the way Richard Pett's query for the first Styes adventure went a hundred or so (give or take a hundred) words over the word limit for queries. You're not supposed to do these things, and yet...
I agree with the posts that say either spell should allow you to pinpoint the invisible creature - after 3 rounds of concentration.
Round 1 will indicate that something magic/evil is present.
Round 2 will give the strength of the aura, and type of magic if applicable (detect magic - illusion).
Round 3 will pinpoint the location.
But the target will still have total concealment, and can usually move out of the affected arc easily enough to foil this tactic.
However, I am quite certain that either both detect magic and detect evil should work, or neither should. A DM who rules otherwise is being unfair IMO, and I would not play with such a DM for long.
Detect evil / detect magic should work in the same way. Your DM is not being very consistent, and that is a shame. Because now the seed of doubt has been planted.....
You should point your DM to this and the previous thread concerning detect magic vs invisibility.
I agree with the posts that say either spell should allow you to pinpoint the invisible creature - after 3 rounds of concentration.
Round 1 will indicate that something magic/evil is present.
Round 2 will give the strength of the aura, and type of magic if applicable (detect magic - illusion).
Round 3 will pinpoint the location.
But the target will still have total concealment, and can usually move out of the affected arc easily enough to foil this tactic.
However, I am quite certain that either both detect magic and detect evil should work, or neither should. A DM who rules otherwise is being unfair IMO, and I would not play with such a DM for long.
Could not have put it better.
This is my opinion as well, and it is how we run our games.
My two coppers,
-Roth
I'm sorry I complained about starting a new thread - it looks like this thread is becoming Detect Magic and Invisibility Part II rather than Detect Magic v. Detect Evil and Invisibility.
Here's the root of Fatespinner's question. He's not really asking if Detect Magic should pierce invisibility. He's asking whether Detect Magic should pierce invisibility given that Detect Evil does. In other words, is there any reason to believe that Detect Magic operates differently enough from Detect Evil that the behave differently with respect to Invisibility.
Sebastian
Your Friendly Neighborhood Tread Nazi
Well, if the Paladin was significantly higher level than the Warlock, and the Warlock were a lower level than the target trying to be detected, I could see an arguement for Detect Evil and Magic working a bit differently. It would be better to give a roll for each instead of just a hard "pass/fail" level difference at the DM's disgression. With some modifiers.
The DM's ruling of "a 0 level spell should not trump a 2nd level spell" is off. But if you want to present a different "detect" system concerning invisibility caster level and detect caster level might be fun.
Say a 60% base chance to detect an invisible object/creature with a 5% +/- per level difference of the casters. Season to taste. I haven't thought all that much about it, but figure you guys could design something a bit better.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Well, if the Paladin was significantly higher level than the Warlock, and the Warlock were a lower level than the target trying to be detected, I could see an arguement for Detect Evil and Magic working a bit differently. It would be better to give a roll for each instead of just a hard "pass/fail" level difference at the DM's disgression. With some modifiers.
Well, for what its worth, the paladin was two levels LOWER than the warlock and the invisible creature was 3 levels HIGHER than the warlock.
I kind of like your idea, though. I'll give it some more thought for the future.
Well, if the Paladin was significantly higher level than the Warlock, and the Warlock were a lower level than the target trying to be detected, I could see an arguement for Detect Evil and Magic working a bit differently. It would be better to give a roll for each instead of just a hard "pass/fail" level difference at the DM's disgression. With some modifiers.Well, for what its worth, the paladin was two levels LOWER than the warlock and the invisible creature was 3 levels HIGHER than the warlock.
Hmm... I can see the DM having an arguement if he made it a consistant occurance. A zero level spell would have a hard time detecting a 2nd level spell by a caster 3 levels higher. If you want invisibility to be instead of a "no see" to "no see and supress detection."
However, a 1st level spell would also have a hard time detecting a 2nd level spell by a caster 2 levels higher, but not as hard as the above situation.
I like the change to invisibility (supress detection), and I might tweak this a bit and use it in a campaign someday.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I like the change to invisibility (supress detection), and I might tweak this a bit and use it in a campaign someday.
The only issue I have with this idea is that you basically eradicate the need for spells like nondetection. Invisibility is powerful by itself but if you incorporate nondetection (which is a higher level spell) into it, you're making the spell much more powerful than it should be at that level.
That said, how far does this 'detection suppression' go? Does it make the character harder to be found by locate creature? Does it help against being tracked (by the Track feat)? It seems to me that this whole notion tips the balance of power a bit too far. Consider creating a new, higher level spell (I would say 5th or 6th level) that combines invisibility with nondetection. Maybe call it greater nondetection or something.
I like the change to invisibility (supress detection), and I might tweak this a bit and use it in a campaign someday.The only issue I have with this idea is that you basically eradicate the need for spells like nondetection. Invisibility is powerful by itself but if you incorporate nondetection (which is a higher level spell) into it, you're making the spell much more powerful than it should be at that level.
That said, how far does this 'detection suppression' go? Does it make the character harder to be found by locate creature? Does it help against being tracked (by the Track feat)? It seems to me that this whole notion tips the balance of power a bit too far. Consider creating a new, higher level spell (I would say 5th or 6th level) that combines invisibility with nondetection. Maybe call it greater nondetection or something.
I figured as much. My higher level play is severely limited, so the higher level spells are VERY foreign to me. It seemed a bit over powered to me as I was writing it.
Good to know that a combo like that does already exist. Hmm... that changes my opinion a little bit about the OP question. I still like the checks to detect though...
I like the change to invisibility (supress detection), and I might tweak this a bit and use it in a campaign someday.The only issue I have with this idea is that you basically eradicate the need for spells like nondetection. Invisibility is powerful by itself but if you incorporate nondetection (which is a higher level spell) into it, you're making the spell much more powerful than it should be at that level.
That said, how far does this 'detection suppression' go? Does it make the character harder to be found by locate creature? Does it help against being tracked (by the Track feat)? It seems to me that this whole notion tips the balance of power a bit too far. Consider creating a new, higher level spell (I would say 5th or 6th level) that combines invisibility with nondetection. Maybe call it greater nondetection or something.
Often as a DM players question my NPCs actions when they only know part of the truth. Have you told you DM how bothered you are by his decision? At the very least by addressing the issue you will have done what you can. Good luck.
The DM's ruling of "a 0 level spell should not trump a 2nd level spell" is off. But if you want to present a different "detect" system concerning invisibility caster level and detect caster level might be fun.
Actually, the precedent is for the level of the spells, rather than the level of the casters, to determine which spells trump one another. From the description of the Daylight spell (PHB p.216):
"Daylight counters and dispels any darkness spell of equal or lower level, such as darkness."
|
The DM's ruling of "a 0 level spell should not trump a 2nd level spell" is off. But if you want to present a different "detect" system concerning invisibility caster level and detect caster level might be fun.Actually, the precedent is for the level of the spells, rather than the level of the casters, to determine which spells trump one another. From the description of the Daylight spell (PHB p.216):
"Daylight counters and dispels any darkness spell of equal or lower level, such as darkness."
That's the only example of that situation that I know of. I would hesitate to try to apply it to other areas of magic.
I won't threadjack further... See the other detect magic/invisibility thread for my views on that line of logic.
An instance where a lower level spell trumps a high level spell is see invisibility (2nd) against greater invisibility (4th). Detect spells make a poor choice for locating an invisible enemy but help in a pinch.