I just want to point out that I feel these spells are much more powerful for their level than it appears. Detect Magic, for example, can be used to detect invisible attackers and Arcane Sight can do the same, even though that is not the design intent of the spells. Illusions can also thus be detected. The spells can also tell whether somebody is enchanted or not and so on. The potency of these spells is further enhanced by the Pathfinder RPG rules that 0th level spells can be cast at will, since detect magic is a 0th level spell.
I think the solution to this problem would be to require an opposed caster level check to detect magic if the original caster wants to hide the spell from such detection. Specialists could get a bonus on the caster level check both on hiding and on detection when it pertains to their chosen school of magic.
I could also envision something like modifying the strength of the detectable aura by one step for specialist wizards casting spells from their chosen school if they so desire. So a weak aura would become undetectable (or perhaps faint aura) if shifted downwards or a moderate aura if shifted upwards. A moderate aura, by contrast, could be changed into a strong aura or a weak aura. If not for all specialists, an ability of this nature would be particularly appropriate for Illusionists or perhaps Enchanters.
I should also mention that caster level checks could potentially also be used to mitigate the use of other 'detect' spells, such as detect evil.
Note: I don't understand why I sometimes have to double post for my threads to appear.
yeah, I posted a similar thread earlier, and I agree with you completely, having it at will really is not a good thing. Although, it seems that not many people agreed with me, at least on the thread that I posted. They gave me suggestions on how to get around it as a DM, but nobody really recognized that it might be a problem.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha3/combatMagic/0LevelsDetectMagicWoes
Don't you have to concentrate on an area for more than one round to get that extra info? I have found that when scanning 1/4 of a room at a time(takes 3 rounds) when being attacked by an invisible creature is too much effort to bother.
yeah, I posted a similar thread earlier, and I agree with you completely, having it at will really is not a good thing. Although, it seems that not many people agreed with me, at least on the thread that I posted. They gave me suggestions on how to get around it as a DM, but nobody really recognized that it might be a problem.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha3/combatMagic/0LevelsDetectMagicWoes
awp832,I agree with you. Sorry I wasn't there to discount the meager opions of those that discounted you. However, my solution is simple as pie. ATTACK the idiot casting the spell with said invisible creatures over and over and over. Let a handful of detect magic casting wizards made by him die repeatedly. Then inform the party that you are not allowing detect magic to circumvent illusions since their essence is to trick and befuddle the mind. When the group moans and complains about this new house rule, look over at the guy in your group who thinks he's harry potter (we all have one). One good grim look from the DM should let him know that this new rule will save him from making a new character.
It's not just illusions and invisibility. As I pointed out, it's also enchantment spells that can pose problems. Detect magic at will will reveal all of these too, particularly when cast at will - so the enchanted king will be revealed to the players immediately and so on.
I think the idea of casting 0th level spells at will is a good one, so it is not that which needs to be changed. Rather, we need to modify the detect magic spell itself. If the caster of a spell wants to hide the spell's presence, he should be able to do so, in which case the caster of the detect magic spell will have to make a caster level check to detect the spell. The DC could be, for example, 10 + 1/2 the caster level of the caster of the original spell. The school of magic of the spell could be hidden in the same way. The DC should not depend on the level of the spell, as more powerful spells are not easier to hide...
-->
Detect Magic
Open Magic - Automatic Success
Open School - Automatic Success
Hidden Magic - Caster Level Check
DC = 10 + 1/2 Caster Level of the Spell
Hidden School - Caster Level Check
DC = 10 + 1/2 Caster Level of the Spell
Wouldn't the simpler solution be to move those offensive spells up to 1st level? Maybe give them a tad of a bump to justify it?
Far easier than DM mandated penalties for using the spells as written, or imposing caster level checks each round and such.
I am also curious how you all handled detect magic and permanency in 3.5 campaigns? It's effectively the same thing, without the requisite standard action to cast every few minutes.
-S
In 3.5E I am using precisely the rule I suggested - caster level checks.
To be more precise, I am also allowing opposed Spellcraft checks to hide/detect the spell and the type of aura with detect magic if the caster's Spellcraft skill is higher than his level, which is almost always the case.
Detect magic and arcane sight are not free detect invisibility spells. They only allow you to see magical auras and determine the power and school; granted, a moving Illusion magic aura is probably a creature under the effect of invisibility, but 1) it could be an arcane eye under the effect of a spell similar to Nystul's magic aura (mask spell?) and 2) you can't pinpoint the exact location of the invisible creature, meaning they still gain all the combat benefits of being invisible on PHB pg. 151 and total concealment (pg. 153). Detect magic has the additional restriction of requiring 3 consecutive rounds of concentration to determine location.
Sure, they are more limited in detecting invisibility than the actual detect invisibility spell, but they still can be used for that and even for the pinpointing if the invisible target is not moving. Plus, they are at will...
Besides, they can also reveal (again at will) enchanted creatures, thus revealing immediately why the king is acting strangely...
Given those circumstances, I think a roll is in order and have been using that for some time now. I feel it works much better that way.
Note: I just realized that a roll to detect also fits with the "Fewer Absolutes" philosophy of Sean Reynolds, the new designer at Paizo.
Sure, they are more limited in detecting invisibility than the actual detect invisibility spell, but they still can be used for that and even for the pinpointing if the invisible target is not moving. Plus, they are at will...
Besides, they can also reveal (again at will) enchanted creatures, thus revealing immediately why the king is acting strangely...
Given those circumstances, I think a roll is in order and have been using that for some time now. I feel it works much better that way.
Or just develop a spell that acts like Nystul's magic aura on an active spell, instead of an object... 2nd or 3rd level would probabably be appropriate, or possibly have several versions that affect X-level or lower spells (like globe of invulnerability).
Or just develop a spell that acts like Nystul's magic aura on an active spell, instead of an object... 2nd or 3rd level would probabably be appropriate, or possibly have several versions that affect X-level or lower spells (like globe of invulnerability).Sure, they are more limited in detecting invisibility than the actual detect invisibility spell, but they still can be used for that and even for the pinpointing if the invisible target is not moving. Plus, they are at will...
Besides, they can also reveal (again at will) enchanted creatures, thus revealing immediately why the king is acting strangely...
Given those circumstances, I think a roll is in order and have been using that for some time now. I feel it works much better that way.
Yes, that is also a solution, but it leads to a spell arms race. Detecting wizards will undoubtedly want to develop spell that can pierce that protection, and the spell-hiding wizards will then want another spell that protects even from that and... I suppose it could be an interesting arms race in a campaign concentrating on that, but I would not want that as a default approach.
Yes, that is also a solution, but it leads to a spell arms race. Detecting wizards will undoubtedly want to develop spell that can pierce that protection, and the spell-hiding wizards will then want another spell that protects even from that and... I suppose it could be an interesting arms race in a campaign concentrating on that, but I would not want that as a default approach.Or just develop a spell that acts like Nystul's magic aura on an active spell, instead of an object... 2nd or 3rd level would probabably be appropriate, or possibly have several versions that affect X-level or lower spells (like globe of invulnerability).Sure, they are more limited in detecting invisibility than the actual detect invisibility spell, but they still can be used for that and even for the pinpointing if the invisible target is not moving. Plus, they are at will...
Besides, they can also reveal (again at will) enchanted creatures, thus revealing immediately why the king is acting strangely...
Given those circumstances, I think a roll is in order and have been using that for some time now. I feel it works much better that way.
Analyze dweomer (Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 6), greater arcane sight (Sor/Wiz 7; "automatically know which spells or magical effects are active upon any individual or object"), and true seeing (Clr 5, Drd 7, Sor/Wiz 6; "see all things as they actually are") already exist. The "mask spell" enchantment would (paraphrasing from Nystul's magic aura) "alter the aura of an active spell so that it registers to detect spells (and spells with similar capabilites*) as though it were not magical, or that of another spell that you specify. If examined with analyze dweomer (or similar magic), the examiner recognizes that the aura is false and detects the enchantment's actual qualities if he succeeds on a Will save." Make it a 2nd level variant of Nystul's magic aura, and it does its job against low-level detect spells, while higher-level spells can pierce it (which is pretty much what you were asking for in the first place), without requiring a new mechanic.
*- Arcane sight says "the effect is similar to detect magic, but arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly."
I forgot to add commune (Clr 5) to the list of spells not affected by "mask spell" (if the cleric asks the right questions, at least).