Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
The first big limitation on using DM to find an invisible person is that it requires 3 rounds of concentration to get location. All you know on round 1 is that there is a magical aura somewhere in the cone. I would suggest that most parties would not instantly leap into full "nuke em from orbit" mode every time a magic aura appears on the DM-user's radar screen.
MAGIC AURA!!! I DON'T SEE ANYTHING!!! BLAST IT!!! BOOM! SLASH! STAB! Hmm, looks like we successfully annihilated the magic mouth. Too bad we wasted those spells, powers, and items now; those might come in handy later on.
Second, it requires concentration, which means that one party member (the DM-user) is mostly out of action for anything that happens. As soon as you stop concentrating, the spell ends.
Third, if the invisible creature moves It's not until the third round that you get location. The guy moves out of the cone and you have to start the process all over again.
Now, I'll give you that arcane sight will do everything you suggest above (though it will only give the location of a faint illusion aura, not specifically identify an invisibility spell) without requiring concentration, but it's a 3rd level spell.
Fourth, using DM (or arcane sight) still leaves you with 50% miss chance and other inviso penalties, plus prevents you from targeting the creature for anything that requires line of sight (like most individually targeted spells).
Fifth, using DM takes an action to do, so you have to be doing it continuously or else have some forewarning. See invisibility (and arcane sight) is on all the time, which helps avoid ambushes or getting sneaked up on.
|
We've always debated that; from a home game perspective, I rule anything that has spells to detect cannot be auto-eliminated by Detect Magic. This means DM is useless vs invisibility and Magic traps. At PFS I try to rule that way, but if a player pushes it I hAve to admit I have no rules/errata to support my belief, so let the players uncover the area.
But even in home campaign settings, it doesn't take many resources to take out a magic trap. Send the fighter in first mage hand, and summon
monster I are all handy workarounds. Unless you are trying to force a party to have a rogue, their trapfinding is only marginally useful. Skillmonkeys are somewhat handy, but for this bards are generally better, and diplomatically many PCs take those skills for personal use. So that leaves them as a fair melée character, I guess a solid enough tier 4.
As to Druid vs Fighter, I can only relate what I have seen. Druid effectiveness has been dubious at best, and fighterless parties end up in a lot of trouble with rampaging monsters. I am glad for this, as stated before I am from the 3.5 schoool of "Why melée guys?". I have seen less Druids, they aren't popular, but seeing them doesn't impress me. Conjurer-Mah
If you notice, a thin sheet of lead stops the spell cold. That's the cheapest, and easiest, way to block the spell. You can put it on the back of a door, cast the spell on the other side of the lead. Same with the concealed trap under the fake floor.
If you notice, a thin sheet of lead is not a pile of sugar.
Wizard : "Oh, I see an aura over there." Points to 5 foot square, or 10x10 square. "I put a fireball on the center of the aura." [BOOM]
Rogue : "Ah, I toss bottle of acid into the center of the area he pointed at, splash damage hits everything in 10 feet." [SHATTER]
Cleric : Runs close to where fireball went off. "Ah, I channel negative energy to harm, but exclude my friends." [ZOTT]
Chief... who in their right mind would do something like that? It's a bloody waste of resources. At most, you'd blow a bag of flour for something like that, thrown by your familiar.
Rather, it's, "I see an aura. I have the dog run around over there. Oh, gee, he set off a scythe trap. Good boy." Or just throw around a few acid splashes and see if anything goes kablooie. Mage Hand on a decent-sized rock, tamp the area around a bit, prod it with your eleven-foot pole.
And if the aura actually isn't a trap? The dog runs around, and nothing happens, or the cantrips cantrip and nothing happens. And they do the same for the next aura or twelve.
You may not like how Detect Magic works, but it is tremendously and ridiculously powerful, especially now that it's infinite-use. You could pass all kinds of houserules to beat it back down, but unless you're explicitly designing the world to screw with the Wizard (in which case, you're deliberately designing the world to screw with the Wizard), it will detect the vast majority of the meaningful traps.
Now, I'll give you that arcane sight will do everything you suggest above (though it will only give the location of a faint illusion aura, not specifically identify an invisibility spell) without requiring concentration, but it's a 3rd level spell.
A third level spell that will be the very first third level spell to be made permanent via permanency.
After the first time they fireball a magic item (which can potentially be destroyed) they will think twice from hurling spells and other effects at a magic aura before they know what it is. Detect magic gives the players the opportunity to be cautious, but it isnt as good as the higher level spells that pick things out. I admit I play high magic games. In my world the Keg at the Bar is as likely to be magic as the sword at the hip of the guy sitting at the bar. Wealthy people and dungeon denizens will often have inconcequetial magic trinkets, or effects in their realms. A magic mouth greeter, wandering unseen servents, all sorts of amusing little bells and whistles. So detect magic becomes less 'oh know theres something important over there kill it!'.
If you start letting magic items be destroyed by Ae spells, you're making blaster master opposing mages way too powerful. And making everything in the world magic kinda eliminates a lot of the charm of magic; one reason I used to like Darksun.
Unattended items are damaged by area of effect spells, attended items (gear) are not. I'm not letting anything, that is RaW.
As for the 'charm' of magic, that is your preference. I like high magic, and magic as technology, in the style of say Pierce Anythony. Makes the world a little more interesting, and less medieval. After all, if there are people who can conjure demons from hell, why would the local noble go without running water? If a 3rd level cleric can make food and water for a crowd, why not put that to practical use in taverns, and in markets? The world is going to be full of magic users (unless your pcs are the only ones) so I dont see why they wouldnt turn their efforts to varied persuits.
Ok,
Obviously I didn't give enough specifics in my wizard boom example. I was of the mind they suspected an invisible party (or flat out knew it because the guy cast invisibility and they saw it).
In which case, the spell is useless. Same with greater invisibility, you attack from invisibility, and suddenly they let go with area effect things because the mage can figure out where you are based on DM. Even if it takes him 2 rounds of concentration to narrow you down enough to cast glitterdust, that's still an at will cantrip giving you almost as good a benefit as see invisibility.
I just can't see an at will cantrip being the begin and end all of all illusion spells, which is how people (in this thread even) try to make it.
Wizard : "I think that's an illusion, I cast detect magic. Oh, there's an aura near the thing I think is an illusion, it's an illusion, I attempt to disbelieve."
I have had the above happen in a game before, back when detect magic was not at will. I will reiterate, a cantrip should not trump an entire school of magic. Illusions 'fool' detect magic just as surely as they fool your eyes. If you want to see through illusions, there is a spell for that, true seeing, not at will detect magic.
MDT, that has nothing to do with the fundamental point. The magic trap's still sitting there, after all, and you don't need a roll to find it with Detect Magic. That a Wizard can do things that a Wizard can do (such as see invisible people) has nothing to do with a Wizard's ability to do things a Rogue can do.
And there's nothing that says that Detect Magic can't detect illusions. Detect Magic detects magic auras. Active spells have magic auras. Active illusion spells are still active spells. If you cast Detect Magic and scan an illusion, you know there's an illusion unless there's a clause in the specific illusion spell in question that says otherwise. Which there isn't.
To state that illusions fool Detect Magic is a houserule, and has nothing to do with the rules themselves.
Ok,
Obviously I didn't give enough specifics in my wizard boom example. I was of the mind they suspected an invisible party (or flat out knew it because the guy cast invisibility and they saw it).In which case, the spell is useless. Same with greater invisibility, you attack from invisibility, and suddenly they let go with area effect things because the mage can figure out where you are based on DM. Even if it takes him 2 rounds of concentration to narrow you down enough to cast glitterdust, that's still an at will cantrip giving you almost as good a benefit as see invisibility.
I just can't see an at will cantrip being the begin and end all of all illusion spells, which is how people (in this thread even) try to make it.
Wizard : "I think that's an illusion, I cast detect magic. Oh, there's an aura near the thing I think is an illusion, it's an illusion, I attempt to disbelieve."
I have had the above happen in a game before, back when detect magic was not at will. I will reiterate, a cantrip should not trump an entire school of magic. Illusions 'fool' detect magic just as surely as they fool your eyes. If you want to see through illusions, there is a spell for that, true seeing, not at will detect magic.
Well if the players have reason to suspect an invisible target they are already gonna hurl fireballs and gliterdust and acid flasks over there arent they? I mean heck, its actually a loss of 3 turns where the improved invis is sneak attacking your arse to try to get detect magic off in that case. I would say that the decect spells are almost useless in a combat situation because of the actions they take up. Its still not as good as see invisibility, because the mage doesnt need glitterdust at that point, he sees the invisible guy and can just take him out.
I do think that in time after i get comfortable with the system enough to start passing out house rules I may institute a cooldown time for cantrips. I like that they dont have a per day limit, but the whole create water to flood the desert and always on detect spells is a little silly. But I dont think its as gamebreaking as you say it is.
I do think that in time after i get comfortable with the system enough to start passing out house rules I may institute a cooldown time for cantrips. I like that they dont have a per day limit, but the whole create water to flood the desert and always on detect spells is a little silly. But I dont think its as gamebreaking as you say it is.
A cooldown is unnecessary; most of the cantrips are pretty trivial. Just make Detect Magic a first-level spell and the rest are more or less fine. Even Create Water, so long as you're mindful of just how much water that really is.
One cubic foot is about 7.4 gallons. A 5' cube is 125 cubic feet, about 924 gallons. For a level 20 Cleric, they're putting out 40 gallons per round, 400 gallons per minute. Which is about on par with one hundred bathtub faucets. They could probably fill an entire bathtub in 2-4 rounds. Filling that 5' cube? 23.1 rounds. Two minutes, twenty-four seconds, with some change. Want to flood the bottom level of a dungeon? Let's assume no outflow (unreasonable; a dungeon pretty much needs outflow), and that the bottom level's 100' by 100'. Now, let's say you want it 5' deep to drown the bugbears. That's 10,000 5' cubes. It'll take 23,100 minutes. That's 385 hours. That's 16 days. If you spent all day, a full twenty-four hours without eating, sleeping, or drinking, as a 20th-level Cleric casting Create Water, you could put that bottom level under 3.7 inches of water. It would take four full casters magicking all day just to get the place under a foot of water, and that's not going to drown a kobold.
Going to the desert, the basic unit for rainfall over a large area is the acre-inch. An acre is 43,560 square feet. That sounds like a lot, but it's only about two hundred feet by two hundred feet. One acre-inch comes out to 3630 cubic feet. 26862 gallons. For a 20th-level Cleric, that's 671.55 rounds. A little over an hour of constant casting to put a single acre under an inch of water. And a lot of that's gonna get soaked into the soil, or flow further out rather than stand there.
Here is some data on rivers and streams in Iowa. Note that even for small creeks, you have flow rates on the order of, say, 13 cubic feet per second. That level 20 Cleric's forty gallons per round comes out to less than one cubic foot per second. You're not going to flood the desert with a flow less than that of Muddy Creek on a bad day.
[/engineer mode]
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
A third level spell that will be the very first third level spell to be made permanent via permanency.Jason Nelson wrote:
Now, I'll give you that arcane sight will do everything you suggest above (though it will only give the location of a faint illusion aura, not specifically identify an invisibility spell) without requiring concentration, but it's a 3rd level spell.
So your argument is that a 5th level spell with a minimum caster level of 11th plus a 7500 gp investment (AS + Perm) is better than a 2nd level spell with a minimum caster level of 3rd with no gp investment (SI)?
I don't disagree with that, though even in that case SI has advantages over permanent AS, such as ignoring miss chance and preventing sneak attack and other inviso penalties. Permanent AS clearly wins on duration, though for SI the 10 min/lvl duration is probably long enough to last most of an adventuring day given one or two castings.
All of that, though, is immaterial to the argument of whether detect magic, the cantrip, can replace or duplicate see invisibility, the 2nd level spell, because your counter-argument is reliant on the use of a 3rd level spell plus a 5th level spell to get around the rather enormous limitations of DM as a combat-scanning spell for finding invisible enemies.
To which I should have added the following:
Sixth, a 60-foot cone, which is what DM affects, is REALLY BIG. Unless you are in very close quarters with no turns or cover (emanations, like bursts, do not go around corners), knowing that an illusion spell (assuming you make the Spellcraft roll) is somewhere in that 60-foot cone doesn't tell you much about targeting. You could lob a fireball into that cone and still miss the guy by a (figurative) mile, to say nothing of hurled acid (oh no, 1 point of splash damage even if you hit!) or even glitterdust - only a 10-foot spread.
Seventh, we might at least enter into the discussion the admittedly rare creatures that are naturally invisible and would not register on DM at all.
I do think that in time after i get comfortable with the system enough to start passing out house rules I may institute a cooldown time for cantrips. I like that they dont have a per day limit, but the whole create water to flood the desert and always on detect spells is a little silly. But I dont think its as gamebreaking as you say it is.A cooldown is unnecessary; most of the cantrips are pretty trivial. Just make Detect Magic a first-level spell and the rest are more or less fine. Even Create Water, so long as you're mindful of just how much water that really is.
One cubic foot is about 7.4 gallons. A 5' cube is 125 cubic feet, about 924 gallons. For a level 20 Cleric, they're putting out 40 gallons per round, 400 gallons per minute. Which is about on par with one hundred bathtub faucets. They could probably fill an entire bathtub in 2-4 rounds. Filling that 5' cube? 23.1 rounds. Two minutes, twenty-four seconds, with some change. Want to flood the bottom level of a dungeon? Let's assume no outflow (unreasonable; a dungeon pretty much needs outflow), and that the bottom level's 100' by 100'. Now, let's say you want it 5' deep to drown the bugbears. That's 10,000 5' cubes. It'll take 23,100 minutes. That's 385 hours. That's 16 days. If you spent all day, a full twenty-four hours without eating, sleeping, or drinking, as a 20th-level Cleric casting Create Water, you could put that bottom level under 3.7 inches of water. It would take four full casters magicking all day just to get the place under a foot of water, and that's not going to drown a kobold.
Going to the desert, the basic unit for rainfall over a large area is the acre-inch. An acre is 43,560 square feet. That sounds like a lot, but it's only about two hundred feet by two hundred feet. One acre-inch comes out to 3630 cubic feet. 26862 gallons. For a 20th-level Cleric, that's 671.55 rounds. A little over an hour of constant casting to put a single acre under an inch of water....
That is a very thorough set of numbers there. I was being hyperbolic with the whole create water in the desert deal. But as for detect magic, I would never make it a level 1 spell, because that would make it less useful for its actual purpose (in my view) identifying magic items in a reasonable amount of time, as you discover them. That was among my favorite changes. No longer do you need 3 spells and 3 hours to identify a small loot pile. If i made detect magic a per day spell it would reverse some of that benefit.
That is a very thorough set of numbers there. I was being hyperbolic with the whole create water in the desert deal. But as for detect magic, I would never make it a level 1 spell, because that would make it less useful for its actual purpose (in my view) identifying magic items in a reasonable amount of time, as you discover them. That was among my favorite changes. No longer do you need 3 spells and 3 hours to identify a small loot pile. If i made detect magic a per day spell it would reverse some of that benefit.
It takes three rounds to identify an object. Detect Magic lasts a minute per level. That's 3.3 items per level. Which is a lot of items.
And if you want one function to be infinite-use, but a dozen others are problematic, that's easy to resolve; make the one function infinite-use, and the rest a first-level spell. Detect Magic becomes a first-level spell, and you add in a new appraisal cantrip.
Or, if you want your players to know what the items automatically or close to it, just tell them, or let them make the checks without bothering with spells. It's a fairly petty formality at that point.
MDT, that has nothing to do with the fundamental point. The magic trap's still sitting there, after all, and you don't need a roll to find it with Detect Magic. That a Wizard can do things that a Wizard can do (such as see invisible people) has nothing to do with a Wizard's ability to do things a Rogue can do.
And there's nothing that says that Detect Magic can't detect illusions. Detect Magic detects magic auras. Active spells have magic auras. Active illusion spells are still active spells. If you cast Detect Magic and scan an illusion, you know there's an illusion unless there's a clause in the specific illusion spell in question that says otherwise. Which there isn't.
To state that illusions fool Detect Magic is a houserule, and has nothing to do with the rules themselves.
Congratulations, your interpretation has rendered the entire school of illusion utterly irrelevant, because every illusion spell can be detected by a cantrip and therefore it is useless to cast them.
Call it a house rule if it makes you feel better, but a cantrip, no matter the cantrip, will never, in any game I ever run, render an entire school of magic useless.
Congratulations, your interpretation has rendered the entire school of illusion utterly irrelevant, because every illusion spell can be detected by a cantrip and therefore it is useless to cast them.
Call it a house rule if it makes you feel better, but a cantrip, no matter the cantrip, will never, in any game I ever run, render an entire school of magic useless.
It's not a matter of interpretation. If you read the spell, it detects illusion effects. Period. It also detects transmutation effects and conjuration effects and universal effects. That's the defined function of the spell. It's what the spell does, undeniably; no use chastising me over it. And it's a major part of the reason Detect Magic should never have been made infinite-use in the first place.
However, it doesn't make the entire school useless. Not in the least. It still takes time, and for many illusion effects, it doesn't matter if you know they're illusions or not; you're still rolling for that Mirror Image, or against that Shadow Conjuration bear, or that Phantasmal Killer.
It's not a matter of interpretation. If you read the spell, it detects illusion effects. Period. It also detects transmutation effects and conjuration effects and universal effects. That's the defined function of the spell. It's what the spell does, undeniably; no use chastising me over it. And it's a major part of the reason Detect Magic should never have been made infinite-use in the first place.However, it doesn't make the entire school useless. Not in the least. It still takes time, and for many illusion effects, it doesn't matter if you know they're illusions or not; you're still rolling for that Mirror Image, or against that Shadow Conjuration bear, or that Phantasmal Killer.
It is a matter of interpretation.
You detect magical auras. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
1st Round: Presence or absence of magical auras.
2nd Round: Number of different magical auras and the power of the most potent aura.
3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura: DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + 1/2 caster level for a nonspell effect.) If the aura eminates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).
Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras.
Aura Strength: An aura's power depends on a spell's functioning spell level or an item's caster level; see the accompanying table. If an aura falls into more than one category, detect magic indicates the stronger of the two.
Lingering Aura: A magical aura lingers after its original source dissipates (in the case of a spell) or is destroyed (in the case of a magic item). If detect magic is cast and directed at such a location, the spell indicates an aura strength of dim (even weaker than a faint aura). How long the aura lingers at this dim level depends on its original power:
I don't see anything in the spell's description that says 'You are immune to the effects of illusion spells while using this spell'.
IllusionIllusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened.
Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. It is not a personalized mental impression. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the figment produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like (or copy another sense exactly unless you have experienced it).
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly.
A figment's AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.
Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.
Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
Phantasm: A phantasm spell creates a mental image that usually only the caster and the subject (or subjects) of the spell can perceive. This impression is totally in the minds of the subjects. It is a personalized mental impression, all in their heads and not a fake picture or something that they actually see. Third parties viewing or studying the scene don't notice the phantasm. All phantasms are mind-affecting spells.
Shadow: A shadow spell creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy. Such illusions can have real effects. Damage dealt by a shadow illusion is real.
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
Please note the bolded and italicized bits above. An Illusion spell deceives your senses. Detect Magic allows you to sense magic auras, it gives you an extra sense. Nowhere does it say 'Illusions deceive all senses except detect magic'. Specific spells say they negate illusions (True Seeing for example).
Since there are spells that specifically state they negate the effects of illusions, but detect magic does not, I fail to see how you can argue that the illusion does not affect that sense as well. Sure, the spell is popping off that there is an illusion aura around that bridge, but your senses are fooled by the magic, and you don't actually register that sense correctly.
And as far as phantasm's go, detect magic doesn't do you one whit of good with them. Phantasm's are all in your mind, the spell is on you not on the murdering psychopath you see attacking you. Detect magic wouldn't detect him as magical at all. You wouldn't be able to tell the spell is on you, since the cone extends in front of you, not through you. You might be able to pick up the spell on a friend, except that if you are under the influence, your senses are being deceived. That's sort of the point of illusion spells, they are deceiving your senses.
So, I reiterate, you are interpreting that a cantrip detects spell auras and that those spells don't affect your senses, despite the definition of illusion spells being that they deceive your senses.
I really don't know how else to explain this, it seems so plain to me. Interpreting the interaction between two rules can be done multiple ways. Your method of interpreting how detect magic interacts with illusions causes a cantrip to trump a 9th level illusion spell. My method causes a 1st to 9th level spell to trump a cantrip.
I'm sorry, I think my way is more reasonable, and more in keeping with the magic rules as they are (which states opposing spells that cancel each other out function by level, like darkness and light spells).
If invisibility foiled detect magic it would have been called out. It does not say detects auras of all schools except Illusion. Nondetection would fool it though. I understand that you don't like it being a cantrip, but the spell being the wrong level does not change the way it works.
I don't see the point in classifying them into tiers of 'who is best'. The classes were designed to work together to support and overcome challenges.
Put any class in my game with any selection of powergamed, min/maxed stats alone and that class is a tier 5 class, they will die.
Take the same party through the same challenges and watch as they shine, kickin' ass and taking names.
Party Combinations should have tiers, not individual classes.
And I'm a fan of the Samurai Intimidation trick, PCs hated when they all stood there for a turn then were shaken afterward. Good times. :)
If invisibility foiled detect magic it would have been called out. It does not say detects auras of all schools except Illusion. Nondetection would fool it though. I understand that you don't like it being a cantrip, but the spell being the wrong level does not change the way it works.
Why would it have been called out? Detect Magic is a cantrip. I'll ask it another way, why does True Seeing specifically call out that it does negate illusion spells? Why would a 3rd level spell need to specifically state it fools a cantrip?
You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are. The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. Further, the subject can focus its vision to see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extradimensional spaces). The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet.
Why would you need to call out that true seeing works against invisible creatures and illusions if a cantrip can do the same thing by detecting their aura? I understand why people would like for detect magic to sense illusions and not have the caster's senses effected, because that makes it so you don't have to deal with illusions, thus making the whole school a total waste of space. But, that's not how it works. If it was, True Seeing wouldn't specifically call out that it negates invisibility, illusions, and other spells.
Your argument is a false negative argument. "The rules don't say the spell doesn't work, so it does". Instead, it should be a positive argument, "The spell (true seeing) says it works against illusions, invisibility, etc, so it does". Note that True Seeing is a 6th level wizard spell.
*grumble*
Stupidest thing I ever read. Got to poking around in the 3.5 FAQ and it specifically says Detect Magic can detect invisibility and isn't fooled by illusions spells. Dumbest thing I ever read. Totally negates the entire illusions school.
Deffinately being house-ruled into some semblance of sanity in my games, but I figured I'd post and acknowledge that the morons who answered the FAQ gave it a seal of approval in rules land. Sheesh. A stupid cantrip negating 9th level spells. That's utterly rediculous.
I don't see anything in the spell's description that says 'You are immune to the effects of illusion spells while using this spell'.
...
Do you even read? Where did immunity even come up other than your own ramblings? Detect Magic locates and identifies magical auras. Period. I never even hinted at anything close to immunity to magic and even explicitly stated the opposite. A Phantasmal Killer will bloody kill you, period. Detecting Phantasmal Killer does not change that, and I explicitly said so in the very segment of my post that you quoted. I explicitly stated you are still affected by that Phantasmal Killer, not that you are immune. Bloody 'ell, Detect Magic is a powerful spell, but you're ascribing things to it that have no basis and then saying I'm the one who came up with 'em in the first place.
If you detect a Silent Image, you still see that illusory raisin bread dragon unless you make your save. It's just that Detect Magic has pegged a weak raisin bread dragon-shaped illusion effect. If you cast Detect Magic on that bear summoned by Shadow Conjuration, you know it's an illusion, sure, but it's still eating your spleen.
Please note the bolded and italicized bits above. An Illusion spell deceives your senses. Detect Magic allows you to sense magic auras, it gives you an extra sense. Nowhere does it say 'Illusions deceive all senses except detect magic'. Specific spells say they negate illusions (True Seeing for example).
Read the spells themselves. For Silent Image, "This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you. The illusion does not create sound, smell, texture, or temperature. You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect."
It fools your sense of vision. It says nothing of fooling Detect Magic or Tremorsense or Blindsense and explicitly states it doesn't fool Scent. It states what sense it does fool, though; sight. That's what the spell does. It fools sight.
Illusions may fool senses, but Invisibility doesn't hinder your sense of hearing, or your sense of touch, or your Tremorsense, or your Blindsense, or your Detect Magic. It makes you invisible. Period.
Spells say what they do. To start adding arbitrary clauses from nowhere is absurd. And nowhere does it even say 'Illusions deceive all senses.' It says, 'Illusions deceive senses or minds of others.' That's the general mission statement. Silent Image does that by making a visual-only illusion. Phantasmal Killer does that by scaring people to death. Every illusion spell has a specifically defined effect, and other than Magic Aura and a few others, those specifically defined effects don't include, "Come up as jack when viewed with Detect Magic."
Since there are spells that specifically state they negate the effects of illusions, but detect magic does not, I fail to see how you can argue that the illusion does not affect that sense as well. Sure, the spell is popping off that there is an illusion aura around that bridge, but your senses are fooled by the magic, and you don't actually register that sense correctly.
Detect Magic does not negate anything. Detect Magic detects things. That is its purpose. It detects active magical effects. An Invisibility spell or a Major Image is, quite clearly, an active magical effect. The very thing Detect Magic is defined as detecting.
I really don't know how else to explain this, it seems so plain to me. Interpreting the interaction between two rules can be done multiple ways. Your method of interpreting how detect magic interacts with illusions causes a cantrip to trump a 9th level illusion spell. My method causes a 1st to 9th level spell to trump a cantrip.
My interpretation has absolutely nothing to do with anything you've 'refuted' in the entire post and whatever position it is you're arguing against is one that is completely and utterly of your own concoction.
I don't see the point in classifying them into tiers of 'who is best'. The classes were designed to work together to support and overcome challenges.
It's not about who is best. It's about where the power is, and what the state of balance within the game as a whole is. If the Commoner were listed as a serious and balanced PC class, the fact that it has zero power is a Big Deal. Likewise, it's of vital importance to understand the state of balance within the game as a whole to give perspective when the inevitable houserules start rolling.
Why would it have been called out? Detect Magic is a cantrip. I'll ask it another way, why does True Seeing specifically call out that it does negate illusion spells? Why would a 3rd level spell need to specifically state it fools a cantrip?
Resist Energy is a 2nd-level spell. It works against the 8th-level Polar Ray.
True Seeing's effect is that it sees through illusions. Its description states that it sees through illusions, therefore. Detect Magic's effect is that it detects continuous magic effects, therefore it detects continuous magical effects. That Major Image is a continuous magical effect, therefore Detect Magic will detect it as such. It won't see through it, but it will detect it.
All light and darkness spells all explicitly state that higher-level light/darkness effects specifically negate each other, therefore they negate each other. Heat Metal and Chill Metal explicitly state that they negate each other, therefore they negate each other. Illusion spells do not say that they automatically negate lower-level divination effects, therefore they do not negate Detect Magic.
Why would you need to call out that true seeing works against invisible creatures and illusions if a cantrip can do the same thing by detecting their aura? I understand why people would like for detect magic to sense illusions and not have the caster's senses effected, because that makes it so you don't have to deal with illusions, thus making the whole school a total waste of space. But, that's not how it works. If it was, True Seeing wouldn't specifically call out that it negates invisibility, illusions, and other spells.
Except the cantrip doesn't do the same thing. The cantrip can say what square the target is in after three rounds of concentration; that's radically different from seeing someone automatically as if the spell weren't even there. They're entirely different effects, each very clearly laid out in their respective spell descriptions.
Your argument is a false negative argument. "The rules don't say the spell doesn't work, so it does". Instead, it should be a positive argument, "The spell (true seeing) says it works against illusions, invisibility, etc, so it does". Note that True Seeing is a 6th level wizard spell.
The rules explicitly states that Detect Magic detects magic auras continuous magic effects, therefore it detects continuous magic effects. Invisibility is a continuous magic effect, therefore Detect Magic can identify and locate it as laid out in its spell description.
Stupidest thing I ever read. Got to poking around in the 3.5 FAQ and it specifically says Detect Magic can detect invisibility and isn't fooled by illusions spells. Dumbest thing I ever read. Totally negates the entire illusions school.
Deffinately being house-ruled into some semblance of sanity in my games, but I figured I'd post and acknowledge that the morons who answered the FAQ gave it a seal of approval in rules land. Sheesh. A stupid cantrip negating 9th level spells. That's utterly rediculous.
Er... no it doesn't. It doesn't negate anything. If you're using Detect Magic, and someone casts Weird on you, you still gotta save or die. If you're using Detect Magic and someone casts Shades to summon an elemental, you're still getting squished. If someone casts Major Image, you still see that raisin bread dragon. It's just flagged as an illusion, but you're not gonna see through.
You're getting worked up over a false assertion of your own creation that no one else put forth and which you're blowing out of proportion way beyond the facts of the situation.
If invisibility foiled detect magic it would have been called out. It does not say detects auras of all schools except Illusion. Nondetection would fool it though. I understand that you don't like it being a cantrip, but the spell being the wrong level does not change the way it works.Why would it have been called out? Detect Magic is a cantrip. I'll ask it another way, why does True Seeing specifically call out that it does negate illusion spells? Why would a 3rd level spell need to specifically state it fools a cantrip?
You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are. The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. Further, the subject can focus its vision to see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extradimensional spaces). The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet.
Why would you need to call out that true seeing works against invisible creatures and illusions if a cantrip can do the same thing by detecting their aura? I understand why people would like for detect magic to sense illusions and not have the caster's senses effected, because that makes it so you don't have to deal with illusions, thus making the whole school a total waste of space. But, that's not how it works. If it was, True Seeing wouldn't specifically call out that it negates invisibility, illusions, and other spells.
Your argument is a false negative argument. "The rules don't say the spell doesn't work, so it does". Instead, it should be a positive argument, "The spell (true seeing) says it works against illusions, invisibility, etc, so it does". Note that True Seeing is a 6th level wizard spell.
Being a cantrip does not automatically mean X, Y, or Z is not possible. If the spell says it does X, then it does X. It's that simple. Now there are spells that are misleveled(?), just like there are monsters that have the wrong CR. By the way the spell is written, it detects "any" magical aura, and it is not near see invisibility in usefulness.
The enemy has to stay put for 3 rounds as pointed out earlier. It is really no different than a paladin using detect evil to find someone.If the enemy is behind cover the spell should be blocked, and if he is located it not stop him from getting a surprise round in because you have to clearly see someone to retain your dex or stop sneak attacks.
If you think the spell is not the correct level then bump the level, but to say the rules intended for it to exclude one school of magic without anything any proof just does not make sense.
PS: I am to lazy to edit my post after I see you found the answer, but I am interested as to why you think the spell is an auto-foil. An aura does not tell you the specific spell. If your players are throwing fireballs into an area just because of detect magic, then it seems they have adjusted to your DM style and are metagaming. I can't see one reason to start throwing spells and weapons at an illusion aura. There are a lot of fun ways to take care of metagaming if that is what is going on.
|
|
Getting back on topic, the reason for Tiering is in hopes it sparks conversation of change. Now, we've had some debate on Druid vs Fighter, which says these are probably OK (and as I stated, the scale between the top 3 tiers is much less than they once were). We all generally agree the Mage/Sorceror are on their own in the top tier, and have to hope that Pathfinder does not take WoTCs approach of making them even more obnoxious with each new book.
So while there is some debate on tiers 2 and 3 (Pally, Fighter, Cleric, Druid, Bard) we can say all of these classes are reasonably in line with optimal game play; we don't want them more or less power-creeped, they all do their roles well and are both fun and diverse.
Rogues similarly have no debate as a Tier 4, though whether it's a strong or weak tier 4 is more debatable. You're fine having one along, you're OK playing one, but they are not optimal. So nobody would complain if a future book power creeped them.
5 and 6 well, they are neither fun nor interesting. We have to hope Rangers, Barbarians, and the much-beloved Monk get some help in the future, they need it. Now that they have discouraged multi-classing, they need the base classes to be better than ever. A revisit, or powerful this-class only feats, would be appropriate in future books.
Thoughts?
Getting back on topic, the reason for Tiering is in hopes it sparks conversation of change. Now, we've had some debate on Druid vs Fighter, which says these are probably OK (and as I stated, the scale between the top 3 tiers is much less than they once were). We all generally agree the Mage/Sorceror are on their own in the top tier, and have to hope that Pathfinder does not take WoTCs approach of making them even more obnoxious with each new book.
So while there is some debate on tiers 2 and 3 (Pally, Fighter, Cleric, Druid, Bard) we can say all of these classes are reasonably in line with optimal game play; we don't want them more or less power-creeped, they all do their roles well and are both fun and diverse.
Rogues similarly have no debate as a Tier 4, though whether it's a strong or weak tier 4 is more debatable. You're fine having one along, you're OK playing one, but they are not optimal. So nobody would complain if a future book power creeped them.
5 and 6 well, they are neither fun nor interesting. We have to hope Rangers, Barbarians, and the much-beloved Monk get some help in the future, they need it. Now that they have discouraged multi-classing, they need the base classes to be better than ever. A revisit, or powerful this-class only feats, would be appropriate in future books.
Thoughts?
I don't think any class should drop below a tier 3, which is my issue concerning the noncaster classes, except for the paladin. If we can get the ranger to throw out damage like that fighter just did, then it may not be as weak as it seems. It gets some of feats for free, and it does decent damage in TWF mode also, but still not the same as a fighter.
I will be running a ranger through Shackled City so I will get to see how viable ranged attacks are in a game.I still don't feel confident with the fighter, but it may be 3.5 prejudice.
I think a point that should be considered is a class in the hands of players at various levels. It was proven in 3.5 to me that any class can work, but some classes are harder to build and maintain when it comes to staying viable. I always plan my classes out along with potential magic items, but not everyone does that, and you should not have to, even though it helps.*
*This assumes the campaign is not more than moderately difficult overall.
PS: I am to lazy to edit my post after I see you found the answer, but I am interested as to why you think the spell is an auto-foil. An aura does not tell you the specific spell. If your players are throwing fireballs into an area just because of detect magic, then it seems they have adjusted to your DM style and are metagaming. I can't see one reason to start throwing spells and weapons at an illusion aura. There are a lot of fun ways to take care of metagaming if that is what is going on.
Because Detect Magic, as it is now, is a must have and must keep up for every party. It's also a game ruiner from a GM perspective.
Dungeon full of traps? None of them can be magical, because the sorcerer or wizard can detect every blessed one of them. This basically wipes out the rogue's abilities (a sorcerer/wizard can take disable device too now at little or no penalty). So a cantrip is basically taking the place of an entire class.
Opponent can cast greater invisibility? So what, wizard/sorcerer can sense him in 2 rounds close enough to glitter dust him, unless he does nothing but full moves to keep getting out of the cone, but then he's not doing anything else but moving, which keeps him out of the fight. Check that one off, cantrip trumps high level spell. And the sor/wiz can keep detect magic going way longer than the BBEG can keep invisibility up, since it's at will cantrip.
Trying to have a disguised enemy trick the players? Better make sure you don't use magic to do it, the sor/wiz will sense the magic aura and study the person while they try to make bluff checks to fool the PC's. "Hey, if you're really farmer Todd, how come you got an illusion aura around you?" Another higher level spell trumped by a cantrip. And it's kind of hard for the Gnoll sorcerer to disguise himself as human farmer Todd without magic.
It wouldn't be so bad if the spell were not at will, but since it is at will, it busts many of the classic story lines. The only way around it is to GM Handwave and say 'Oh, everyone casts nondetection every time they cast any other spell', but now I'm double dipping on spells for a BBEG and he's eating through his spells twice as fast, all because of a stupid cantrip. I can't believe nobody else thinks that this is WAY unbalanced for a cantrip. With all that ability, it's at least a 1st level spell. But that wouldnt' fix the brokenness, because lots of creatures get it at will or all the time (Noble drow?).
I think Jason didn't realize what he was doing when he made Detect Magic At Will. It needs to be toned down, it's way too good as an at will ability.
|
|
Getting back on topic, the reason for Tiering is in hopes it sparks conversation of change. Now, we've had some debate on Druid vs Fighter, which says these are probably OK (and as I stated, the scale between the top 3 tiers is much less than they once were). We all generally agree the Mage/Sorceror are on their own in the top tier, and have to hope that Pathfinder does not take WoTCs approach of making them even more obnoxious with each new book.
So while there is some debate on tiers 2 and 3 (Pally, Fighter, Cleric, Druid, Bard) we can say all of these classes are reasonably in line with optimal game play; we don't want them more or less power-creeped, they all do their roles well and are both fun and diverse.
Rogues similarly have no debate as a Tier 4, though whether it's a strong or weak tier 4 is more debatable. You're fine having one along, you're OK playing one, but they are not optimal. So nobody would complain if a future book power creeped them.
5 and 6 well, they are neither fun nor interesting. We have to hope Rangers, Barbarians, and the much-beloved Monk get some help in the future, they need it. Now that they have discouraged multi-classing, they need the base classes to be better than ever. A revisit, or powerful this-class only feats, would be appropriate in future books.
Thoughts?
Indeed. It is important to have some balance, otherwise it is asking DMs and players to change their style to make another class useful. That's just asking for too much. There should be enough balance that players will not feel weak or useless in multiple situations.
As for the monk, I'm considering letting him use Ki points (2 to be exact), to let him use flurry of blows as a standard action. He needs more than that, but it's a start.
|
|
lots of stuff
It's like this. Somebody has invisibility, another has see invisbility, so the invisible guy is seen.
With detect magic, it's more like somebody is invisible, and then the caster of detect magic sense something is wrong, but not sure what, where, when, and how it's wrong. He need to take a few extra rounds.
So in those extra rounds, the invisible guy should get away or attack. Or better yet, hid behind barriers to screw with the detect magic guy.
Dungeon full of traps? None of them can be magical, because the sorcerer or wizard can detect every blessed one of them. This basically wipes out the rogue's abilities (a sorcerer/wizard can take disable device too now at little or no penalty). So a cantrip is basically taking the place of an entire class.
A Rogue whose only purpose on the team is trapdar isn't much of a Rogue. After all, the Rogue class is a leader in the murder industry and have a ton of skills besides Perception (and even Perception does more than detect traps).
Opponent can cast greater invisibility? So what, wizard/sorcerer can sense him in 2 rounds close enough to glitter dust him, unless he does nothing but full moves to keep getting out of the cone, but then he's not doing anything else but moving, which keeps him out of the fight. Check that one off, cantrip trumps high level spell. And the sor/wiz can keep detect magic going way longer than the BBEG can keep invisibility up, since it's at will cantrip.
...
Or, the invisible guy could just stab the Wizard in the face while she's occupied with Detect Magic. I do believe stabbing someone in the face is part of the plan in going invisible in the first place, and the guy's location is likely revealed by the stabbing unless Spring Attack is involved. Those 2-3 rounds blown in combat mean everything when fights are generally 0-3 rounds long.
Detect Magic is useless as an in-fight anti-invisibility measure; the Wizard who's using Detect Magic is spending three rounds doing almost nothing while the invisible character is free to go stab-happy.
Trying to have a disguised enemy trick the players? Better make sure you don't use magic to do it, the sor/wiz will sense the magic aura and study the person while they try to make bluff checks to fool the PC's. "Hey, if you're really farmer Todd, how come you got an illusion aura around you?" Another higher level spell trumped by a cantrip. And it's kind of hard for the Gnoll sorcerer to disguise himself as human farmer Todd without magic.
Woo~ A cantrip actually having an effect in the face of a first-level spell. Scary~
The scenario is so niche and precarious to begin with as to be absurd. In fact, the example you give could just as easily be beaten by shaking Farmer Todd's hand. That a Cantrip could do the same thing as a handshake is not impressive.
It wouldn't be so bad if the spell were not at will, but since it is at will, it busts many of the classic story lines. The only way around it is to GM Handwave and say 'Oh, everyone casts nondetection every time they cast any other spell', but now I'm double dipping on spells for a BBEG and he's eating through his spells twice as fast, all because of a stupid cantrip. I can't believe nobody else thinks that this is WAY unbalanced for a cantrip. With all that ability, it's at least a 1st level spell. But that wouldnt' fix the brokenness, because lots of creatures get it at will or all the time (Noble drow?).
I think Jason didn't realize what he was doing when he made Detect Magic At Will. It needs to be toned down, it's way too good as an at will ability.
Or perhaps a lot of those cliche stock storylines are bunk to begin with. Characters can do and achieve and discover things. If your story can't endure the possibility that someone might notice that Farmer Todd feels exceptionally fuzzy today, that storyline is not well-conceived.
The players have powerful and useful tools. If your murder mystery doesn't take into account the fact that the PCs can just cast Speak to Dead and ask the guy whodunit, it's a failing on your part as the DM for not considering that the character who took the, "I have a Swiss army knife of magical effects," class might actually have a Swiss army knife of magical effects.
And multiple people, myself included, have already said that if cantrips are infinite-use, Detect Magic shouldn't be a cantrip. However, you're wildly overstating the issues in ways that are just absurd and calling out good and reasonable uses of the spell as horrible gamebreakers. That and claiming uses that are either illegal or useless are gamebreakers.
Because Detect Magic, as it is now, is a must have and must keep up for every party. It's also a game ruiner from a GM perspective.
Dungeon full of traps? None of them can be magical, because the sorcerer or wizard can detect every blessed one of them. This basically wipes out the rogue's abilities (a sorcerer/wizard can take disable device too now at little or no penalty). So a cantrip is basically taking the place of an entire class.
How do they know its a trap?. It could be an illusion based spell(invis). It could be an illusion based trap. Even if you find a trap and determine its a trap it still has to be disarmed. Even if you find the aura, that does not mean you know exactly where the trap is. You only know what square its in, and some traps are multi-traps. You find the magic part, and think you are done, and the other half is sprung. If they want to assume its a one-part trap.... :)
Opponent can cast greater invisibility? So what, wizard/sorcerer can sense him in 2 rounds close enough to glitter dust him, unless he does nothing but full moves to keep getting out of the cone, but then he's not doing anything else but moving, which keeps him out of the fight. Check that one off, cantrip trumps high level spell. And the sor/wiz can keep detect magic going way longer than the BBEG can keep invisibility up, since it's at will cantrip.
The cone can't move. The invisible opponent can. Once again cover blocks the spell. You still don't know if its an invisible person or not. It could be something disguised as something else. Now your players have just wasted a spell. Throwing spells around arbitrarily should work against them, not for them. If the caster is using detect magic instead of casting a spell other spells they party will probably be dead soon. I don't think spamming detect magic in the middle of combat against the BBEG is considered a valid tactic by anyone, and like I just said, if they do they deserve to die for not casting a better spell.
Trying to have a disguised enemy trick the players? Better make sure you don't use magic to do it, the sor/wiz will sense the magic aura and study the person while they try to make bluff checks to fool the PC's. "Hey, if you're really farmer Todd, how come you got an illusion aura around you?" Another higher level spell trumped by a cantrip. And it's kind of hard for the Gnoll sorcerer to disguise himself as human farmer Todd without magic.
If you use a regular disguise they dont even get a check against it, unless they specifically call for it. So what if Todd is 7 ft tall. Have him get someone that is specialized in disguise to do the disguise for him. The penalty is only -2. The disguise kit(masterwork) gives a +2, and Todd's buddy if given skill focus adds a +3. Todd can now be disguised without magic
It wouldn't be so bad if the spell were not at will, but since it is at will, it busts many of the classic story lines. The only way around it is to GM Handwave and say 'Oh, everyone casts nondetection every time they cast any other spell', but now I'm double dipping on spells for a BBEG and he's eating through his spells twice as fast, all because of a stupid cantrip. I can't believe nobody else thinks that this is WAY unbalanced for a cantrip. With all that ability, it's at least a 1st level spell. But that wouldnt' fix the brokenness, because lots of creatures get it at will or all the time (Noble drow?).I think Jason didn't realize what he was doing when he made Detect Magic At Will. It needs to be toned down, it's way too good as an at will ability.
Eating through one extra spells is not eating through them twice as fast. It's only one spell.
With all of my playing devil's advocate I do think it should be a level one spell. I don't see it as in the same light that you do, but its good enough that it maybe should not be spammable.
...Or, the invisible guy could just stab the Wizard in the face while she's occupied with Detect Magic. I do believe stabbing someone in the face is part of the plan in going invisible in the first place....
Awesome yet simple.
I do not possess the linguistic acuity nor the broad vocabulary required to make fun of this effort. Please just interject any witty and sarcastic banter that comes to mind in place of this post. Thank you.
;)
Or, the invisible guy could just stab the Wizard in the face while she's occupied with Detect Magic. I do believe stabbing someone in the face is part of the plan in going invisible in the first place....
I LOL'ed.
Show of hands who plays a caster with a detect magic cantrip on a loop.
I punish silliness like that by flooding the area with magical auras 1st level spell magic carried by the party or over whelming auras, roll save smart ass. They only get knocked out or a nose bleed that is normal warning enough.
Show of hands who plays a caster with a detect magic cantrip on a loop.
I punish silliness like that by flooding the area with magical auras 1st level spell magic carried by the party or over whelming auras, roll save smart ass. They only get knocked out or a nose bleed that is normal warning enough.
Now you are stepping into the 'GM Breaks Player because player is using a rule GM doesn't like'. I'm sure Viletta will be along shortly to tell you you are a WRONG GM. :)
That sort of makes my point though, if the GM has to jump through hoops and go to extremes to make it not worth using the spell, then the spell is broken.
A Rogue whose only purpose on the team is trapdar isn't much of a Rogue. After all, the Rogue class is a leader in the murder industry and have a ton of skills besides Perception (and even Perception does more than detect traps).
One of the rogue's primary abilities is trap finding and disabling, it's also the classic ability, and most rogues want to use that ability. Overshining that ability defeats the whole purpose of having them along. It also steals fun from the rogue's player.
Opponent can cast greater invisibility? So what, wizard/sorcerer can sense him in 2 rounds close enough to glitter dust him, unless he does nothing but full moves to keep getting out of the cone, but then he's not doing anything else but moving, which keeps him out of the fight. Check that one off, cantrip trumps high level spell. And the sor/wiz can keep detect magic going way longer than the BBEG can keep invisibility up, since it's at will cantrip....
Or, the invisible guy could just stab the Wizard in the face while she's occupied with Detect Magic. I do believe stabbing someone in the face is part of the plan in going invisible in the first place, and the guy's location is likely revealed by the stabbing unless Spring Attack is involved. Those 2-3 rounds blown in combat mean everything when fights are generally 0-3 rounds long.
Detect Magic is useless as an in-fight anti-invisibility measure; the Wizard who's using Detect Magic is spending three rounds doing almost nothing while the invisible character is free to go stab-happy.
Oooh, I why didn't I think of that, just stab them in the face. Uhm, because usually mages don't have the attack bonus to hit melee? And, I'm also thinking of the classic bad guy trying to get away to come back another day, attacking doesn't help him escape, it just pinpoints which square he is in so he can be AOE'd to death.
I guess we play in different games, the combats in my games rarely last only 2-3 rounds, they generally last 5-8 rounds.
As usual, we don't see eye to eye, and as usual, you drop into a denegrating mode when you post to people you don't agree with, making snide remarks, telling them they are wrong, just wrong, etc. This will be my last response to your posts, here or elsewhere. Our personalities appear to be designed to feel like acid soaked sandpaper on each other's sensitive areas.
mdt wrote:
Trying to have a disguised enemy trick the players? Better make sure you don't use magic to do it, the sor/wiz will sense the magic aura and study the person while they try to make bluff checks to fool the PC's. "Hey, if you're really farmer Todd, how come you got an illusion aura around you?" Another higher level spell trumped by a cantrip. And it's kind of hard for the Gnoll sorcerer to disguise himself as human farmer Todd without magic.
Woo~ A cantrip actually having an effect in the face of a first-level spell. Scary~
The scenario is so niche and precarious to begin with as to be absurd. In fact, the example you give could just as easily be beaten by shaking Farmer Todd's hand. That a Cantrip could do the same thing as a handshake is not impressive.
I use disguise in the general sense, as in the skill disguise, not the specific spell disguise. This could be disguise the spell, alter self, polymorph, etc. A good bluff from Farmer Todd is, 'I'm sick, don't touch me, the creature that afflicted me is down in the forest! It killed my wife already with this sickness' (cough cough) 'My children are sick and dying, please help! Kill it! I'm sure that will end this curse!'. That would be, gasp, a cantrip counteracting a 1st level spell, or a 2nd, or a 5th, along with what could reasonably be a 30 check on the acting/bluff check of the sorcerer. An awful lot for a little at will cantrip, IMHO.
How do they know its a trap?. It could be an illusion based spell(invis). It could be an illusion based trap. Even if you find a trap and determine its a trap it still has to be disarmed. Even if you find the aura, that does not mean you know exactly where the trap is. You only know what square its in, and some traps are multi-traps. You find the magic part, and think you are done, and the other half is sprung. If they want to assume its a one-part trap.... :)
Either way, they have advanced foreknowledge of the trap, without any effort or resources, or even skill checks (other than a spellcraft, and even that they can miss and still know there's a VERY POWERFUL spell over in the corner, or a little bitty spell). And yes, you do know 'right where the trap is', at least down to a 5 foot square, which is usually enough to avoid it. If you look at most traps, they have a trigger spot, and if you avoid that, you avoid the trap.
Opponent can cast greater invisibility? So what, wizard/sorcerer can sense him in 2 rounds close enough to glitter dust him, unless he does nothing but full moves to keep getting out of the cone, but then he's not doing anything else but moving, which keeps him out of the fight. Check that one off, cantrip trumps high level spell. And the sor/wiz can keep detect magic going way longer than the BBEG can keep invisibility up, since it's at will cantrip.The cone can't move. The invisible opponent can. Once again cover blocks the spell. You still don't know if its an invisible person or not. It could be something disguised as something else. Now your players have just wasted a spell. Throwing spells around arbitrarily should work against them, not for them. If the caster is using detect magic instead of casting a spell other spells they party will probably be dead soon. I don't think spamming detect magic in the middle of combat against the BBEG is considered a valid tactic by anyone, and like I just said, if they do they deserve to die for not casting a better spell.
Uhm, why can't the cone move? It's a cone shaped emenation that comes from you, so yes, the cone absolutely does move, it moves whereever you are facing. And they don't have to spam detect magic in a combat, That's sort of my point, it's an at will ability that lasts N minutes. It takes a standard action to cast. And whether they know it's the big bad guy or not is kind of irrelevant, they know something is there. The only way around it is to start casting non-detect on everything, or put lead around all traps, and then the players start screaming about how you are cheating them out of an ability. *sigh* I don't know if I'm doing any good with this discussion.
Trying to have a disguised enemy trick the players? Better make sure you don't use magic to do it, the sor/wiz will sense the magic aura and study the person while they try to make bluff checks to fool the PC's. "Hey, if you're really farmer Todd, how come you got an illusion aura around you?" Another higher level spell trumped by a cantrip. And it's kind of hard for the Gnoll sorcerer to disguise himself as human farmer Todd without magic.
If you use a regular disguise they dont even get a check against it, unless they specifically call for it. So what if Todd is 7 ft tall. Have him get someone that is specialized in disguise to do the disguise for him. The penalty is only -2. The disguise kit(masterwork) gives a +2, and Todd's buddy if given skill focus adds a +3. Todd can now be disguised without magic.
You sort of missed my scenario, I'm talking about monstrous NPC's trying to pass themselves off as human or elf or whatever. No amount of physical disguise is going to make a 7 and a half foot gnoll pass for a 5 foot 8 Farmer Todd. No matter how specialized you are in disguise, a 3 foot tall goblin can't be made to look like 5 foot 8 Farmer Todd.
If it's a human bandit, yes, you can do it with disguise, but that's what I said in my post, you can only do it using disguise the skill, not magic, and that's no longer an option, unless everyone casts non-detection every time they do something. That's a spell tax all caused by a cantrip. That just seems too powerful for me, to force a spell tax on everyone. And sorcerers have limited spells known in the first place.
Eating through one extra spells is not eating through them twice as fast. It's only one spell.
With all of my playing devil's advocate I do think it should be a level one spell. I don't see it as in the same light that you do, but its good enough that it maybe should not be spammable.
It's one spell if you are just needing to cast it on yourself. If you also need to cast it on your disguised/altered/polymorphed minion, that's another spell, and on the trap you just set, that's another nondetection, and so forth. It is a spell tax.
I'm glad to see someone at least gets that the problem is mainly that it's at will and usable 24/7. Thanks.
Dungeon full of traps? None of them can be magical, because the sorcerer or wizard can detect every blessed one of them. This basically wipes out the rogue's abilities (a sorcerer/wizard can take disable device too now at little or no penalty). So a cantrip is basically taking the place of an entire class.Yeah.
Unless the magical trap is on the other side of the room. Many published modules have that, yet still put out a Search DC and a Disable Device DC.
Unless the trap builder is cunning enough to remove the magical aura with a regular casting of Magic Aura. You know, that 1st level spell that completely and utterly destroys a cantrip...perhaps it should be banned or made 7th level?
No need to be snide or snarky. And, as a note, in the future, when you attempt to be snide and snarky, you should probably read your comment so you don't come off looking like you don't get the concept of snide or snarky.
My point was that a cantrip was interfering with a spell of a higher level, not that one spell can cancel another. Your example, of a first level spell totally trumping a second level spell, gasp, totally backs up my point of how things should work. Thanks for making that point for me.
It still brings up the point that you are enforcing a spell tax, no illusion or magical trap can work without a casting of magic aura or nondetection. Neither of those can be made permanent with the permanency spell either. Granted, the aura lasts for days, but that doesn't help much for setting up traps and such. And, if you look at the traps in the book, not a single one of those has a 'magic aura' spell included. Which means a hefty gold tax on traps, all thanks to an at will cantrip. Again, it just seems like the fact this spell is at will is the main issue, and it is having repercussions throughout the game. Before, you had only 4-5 castings of this per day, usually, especially at lower levels. So you couldn't detect magic your way through a dungeon, so traps were dangerous if they were magical. Now, it's hard to be fooled by one, unless you up the cost for the magic aura spell.
Opponent can cast greater invisibility? So what, wizard/sorcerer can sense him in 2 rounds close enough to glitter dust him, unless he does nothing but full moves to keep getting out of the cone, but then he's not doing anything else but moving, which keeps him out of the fight. Check that one off, cantrip trumps high level spell. And the sor/wiz can keep detect magic going way longer than the BBEG can keep invisibility up, since it's at will cantrip.I don't know about you as a DM, but if my wizard/sorc player spends 2 rounds worth of standard actions (meaning they cast very little else of note) to detect the invisible rogue facing them, he'll be sneak-attacked to death before he has time to cast that glitterdust. What? the npc is stupid enough to just stay there motionless ready to be picked up?
Again, my point. The enemy has to move, that means he is limited in what he can do. And, how is the magic user being sneak attacked? By the invisible guy? So he's not a spellcaster? Just a rogue using UMD? The sorcerer has no friends? Can't cast 'invisibility' himself while he finds the guy and glitter dusts him?
And again, magic aura does help, I'm not arguing that, but it means extra added cost that is all caused by a cantrip. I just, as I stated before, have trouble with the concept of an at will cantrip that any spell slinger can use resulting in this much disruption to the world and requiring this many work arounds. Magic Aura needing to be cast on every illusion, or nondetection at least, lots and lots of magic aura's in the dungeon, crafted into walls and floors, just to overcome a cantrip? I'm not saying there aren't work arounds, but, my goodness, the expense you have to go to is just scary if you add it up. It just seems overpowered to me. Obviously very few people agree with me that this is a vast change in how things have to be designed, and how much things cost in a dungeon etc to make things work like they did before.
I agree with mdt on this one. I have seen detect magic used to disable illusions on multiple occasions. I disagree that it is useful in combat, but there are dozens of non-combat situations where 2-3 rounds is irrelevant and a 0 level spell should not negate the challenge. Invisibility isn't only used in combat. I also feel non-detection should be much easier, and you should never be able to get a complete number of auras (I mean, who wants to count out the potentially hundreds of auras a mid level party can have on them?) So unless your mage wants to focus on something, I say he gets overwhelmed
personally, I just rule that detect magic is sight based and is fooled by anything that fools your sight, removing most its issues with illusions.
As far as the greater thread, I think 1 of the past 10 campaigns I've been in had both a full arcane and full divine caster in it. I don't think there is such a thing as a mandatory class. Sure, sometimes you go through a lot of wands with a Bard as your healer, but you can get through a lot of situations with minimal spellcasters, and I have never seen a situation where the wizard could defeat all obsticles. More often than not he doesn't have the necessary spells prepared, and if he is using scolls then he is wasting consumable resources he wont have next time. Most times, I see a wizard contributing 1 or 2 major things to a combat, and having the meelee characters doing the real dirty work. If the wizard does much more, he has already blown his wad for the next combat. At 3-4 combats in a day I see wizards useless in at least 1 of them fairly freequently.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Again, my point. The enemy has to move, that means he is limited in what he can do. And, how is the magic user being sneak attacked? By the invisible guy? So he's not a spellcaster? Just a rogue using UMD? The sorcerer has no friends? Can't cast 'invisibility' himself while he finds the guy and glitter dusts him?
Nope, he can't, because DM requires concentration. He could start out invisible for 1 min/level and THEN use DM, but if he has DM going he has to drop it in order to cast any other spell or take any other standard action.
Also, you don't get location until round THREE of concentration on an area. If you move, you are now scanning a new area, which means you start over again at round 1. Your target doesn't need to move every round. He only needs to move every THREE rounds to avoid getting pinpointed.
Until you get that pinpointing, a 60-foot cone covers 76 squares, if you consider only horizontal area and not vertical volume. Glitterdust covers only 12 of those, faerie fire only 4. Your chance to hit the inviso target without a location is slim.
Even if you want to "AoE them to death," fireball only hits 44 squares, barely better than a 50/50 chance. Cone of cold - there's your winner. Then again, it is a 5th-level spell.
It's not a matter of interpretation. If you read the spell, it detects illusion effects. Period.
It detects illusion effects if you spend three rounds concentrating on the effect. It's nearly useless against invisibility or any other mobile effect because the first round only detects the presence or absence of auras within the 60' cone; it doesn't tell you where those auras are. You don't find that out until the third round. You don't even know how many auras there are until the second round.
Show of hands who plays a caster with a detect magic cantrip on a loop.
I punish silliness like that by flooding the area with magical auras 1st level spell magic carried by the party or over whelming auras, roll save smart ass. They only get knocked out or a nose bleed that is normal warning enough.
I have done it recently to a new DM*. We always give new DM's a hard time by the way, its just a way of initiation, then we hook them up with tips on how to stop certain things that may occur.
*He was a player in my group, but he just moved away.
It's not about who is best. It's about where the power is, and what the state of balance within the game as a whole is. If the Commoner were listed as a serious and balanced PC class, the fact that it has zero power is a Big Deal. Likewise, it's of vital importance to understand the state of balance within the game as a whole to give perspective when the inevitable houserules start rolling.
I guess... if you're an obsessive compulsive who is playing the game in some vain attempt to 'win'.
People claim 'balance this' and 'balance that', but honestly all I see is a ton of people who are looking for issues. When you look for a problem you will always find one. All in all the classes aren't bad at all and compliment each other rather well.
Much like the current, and completely ignorant, 'Detect Magic' debate. Why does it matter? My players will use detect magic, and if the illusion/invisibility/immunity/WTFever/Loop issue comes up then I will handle it as I see fit. I see no reason to type up some 20,000 word diatribe that is either telling all of you why I'm right, or attempting to sway you to my point of view.
Good luck trying to be right on the internet guys, I'm sure this debate shall earn you much prestige from the gaming community. Frankly, all it's done for me is bore me to tears.
Just play the game and have fun.
|
Friends, I don't mind this thread being threadjacked (that's just the way threads go when they reach page 2) but I didn't intend to stir any bad feelings so please, if you have to disagree then maybe you can do this in the Paizo way I've come to appreciate by now. Guess I don't need to explain what "Paizo way" means in this context :)
5 and 6 well, they are neither fun nor interesting. We have to hope Rangers, Barbarians, and the much-beloved Monk get some help in the future, they need it. Now that they have discouraged multi-classing, they need the base classes to be better than ever. A revisit, or powerful this-class only feats, would be appropriate in future books.
Interestingly enough I'd be perfectly happy if those tiers were the D&D standard for player characters. Now I understand that those tiers are weak in the standard D&D context but as a matter of fact, this context is what I'm trying to change. In my opinion,player characters should never get so mighty that there's basically no chance that they can't get stopped by , let's say, orcs or hobgoblins. If I'm looking at the PRD, the highest-CR-monster I'm really interested in presenting to my players as something they should be able to beat regularly if they are good at what they do may be the Rakshasa with CR 10. To beat a black dragon, a cloud giant or a cauchemar (all CR 11) should already be challenges with epic proportions.
And yeah, I know that this view is changing some base assumptions of standard D&D/Pathfinder so my tiers-related question was just a little part of what I'm thinking about.