except he can, he just can't do it simultaneously
No, he cannot. He cannot detect through stone walls. He has to be fully in the room (and in a corner of the room) to scan the entire room at once. And that's only for certain shapes of rooms. Circular rooms can never be scanned all at once with a cone, for example. Nor can any room with more sides than 4 or with an irregular shape.
Detection spellls do work through walls, because it takes at least 1' of stone to stop them.
I don't think an at-will level 0 spell should thwart a level 2 spell.
Dave says, "I detect magic in the room"
Dave says, "Wait, now I don't. I wonder what could have happened?!"
Dave tells Fred, "Nevermind, its all clear, I must have been imagining things, go ahead."
Because invisible creatures wait in the middle of rooms while Fred the Full-Plated clomps around with his -20 Stealth check coming up the hall?
Think if every group of guards could see PCs comming from 60 ft away with no save or check through walls.As has been pointed out more than once in this thread, the detect spells do not work through walls. 1 foot of stone stops them.
Stone. I know very few houses with 3 ft thick wood walls. and a 60 ft cone would detect every magic item in my house, both floors, from the street.
Giving up and moving on...
Detection spellls do work through walls, because it takes at least 1' of stone to stop them.
And if you're standing behind the doorway in a dungeon (which typically have at least 5' thick walls), you're going to have at least one foot of stone between you and the parts of the room you cannot see from your position.
Detection spellls do work through walls, because it takes at least 1' of stone to stop them.And if you're standing behind the doorway in a dungeon (which typically have at least 5' thick walls), you're going to have at least one foot of stone between you and the parts of the room you cannot see from your position.
Who says you have to be in a dungeon. I get ganked by invisible rogues in inns more often then the dungeon.
Stone. I know very few houses with 3 ft thick wood walls. and a 60 ft cone would detect every magic item in my house, both floors, from the street.Think if every group of guards could see PCs comming from 60 ft away with no save or check through walls.As has been pointed out more than once in this thread, the detect spells do not work through walls. 1 foot of stone stops them.
How many medieval European houses do you know that are built with particle board and foam insulation? Using your house as an example is silly beyond belief.
Besides, the example I was arguing with jreyst was a 30x30 room in a dungeon. How many dungeons are built out of anything other than stone or metal?
You are nuts if you think that people's houses, at any time in history, had stone walls a foot thick.
Who says you have to be in a dungeon. I get ganked by invisible rogues in inns more often then the dungeon.
Please do try to keep up. Go back and read the thread of responses. The example we were discussing was a dungeon. So, in fact, it's jreyst that said it was in a dungeon.
As for your inn example, detect magic is going to do jack diddly there. People are always moving around in inns, and in any magical society there's going to be little charms of magical protection that half the populace will have that are going to detect as magic even if they don't really do much of anything.
Please do try to keep up.
Having a bad day or are you always this rude?
Go back and read the thread of responses. The example we were discussing was a dungeon. So, in fact, it's jreyst that said it was in a dungeon.
Sure, the example I used was a dungeon, but his example is even better.
As for your inn example, detect magic is going to do jack diddly there. People are always moving around in inns, and in any magical society there's going to be little charms of magical protection that half the populace will have that are going to detect as magic even if they don't really do much of anything.
I see, so its not going to work because you say everyone has magic items. Ok, now it becomes clearer. This is a High magic vs. Low magic discussion apparently. In my campaigns magic charms are not the norm. I see that they are in yours. Yes, then in the scenario where everyone and their brother has a magic item then it might be more difficult. I guess I just don't run my worlds that way, nor do my inns and taverns have lead coated walls. Crazy me.
You are nuts if you think that people's houses, at any time in history, had stone walls a foot thick.
"While the dry-stone technique is generally used for field enclosures, it also was used for buildings. The traditional turf-roofed Highland Black house was constructed using the double wall dry stone method. When buildings are constructed using this method, the middle of the wall is generally filled with earth or sand in order to eliminate draughts. During the Iron Age, and perhaps earlier, the technique also was used to build fortifications such as the walls of Eketorp Castle (Oland, Sweden), Maiden Castle, North Yorkshire, Reeth, Dunlough Castle in southwest Ireland and the rampart of the Long Scar D+#*. Many of the dry-stone walls that exist today in Scotland can be dated to the fourteenth century or earlier when they were built to divide fields and retain livestock. Some extremely well built examples are found on the lands of Muchalls Castle."
I submit that two layers of dry stone is going to be at least a foot thick in total.
Detect magic detects magical traps.
Detect magic detects invisible creatures (after three rounds).
Both actions do not break the game, as disarming the trap is the true challenge and detecting invisible creatures is very difficult and time consuming this way.
I was referring to dwelling places, not churches and castles
Sure, the example I used was a dungeon, but his example is even better.
Since the example being discussed, that Caineach took exception to was a dungeon, his example is irrelevant to that particular discussion.
nor do my inns and taverns have lead coated walls. Crazy me.
Again with the putting words in my mouth. It's plain at this point that you're actively trying to irritate me; so much for your claims of "I only want civil discussion!".
I was referring to dwelling places, not churches and castles
Did you not read the quote? I'll repeat again.
"The traditional turf-roofed Highland Black house was constructed using the double wall dry stone method."
Houses, last I checked, were dwelling places.
Here's an article on them. Look like dwelling places to me. Look very much like your prototypical D&D peasant house, actually.
Arcane sight is even better at detecting magic.
I don't think an at-will level 0 spell should thwart a level 2 spell.
It doesn't unless the user of the 2nd level spell just stands there. Detecting the aura that does nothing to stop the spell. If the invisible creature intends to sneak attack someone he still can. My first target would be the mage. 60 feet is within charging range for most sneaky types and some non-sneaky types.
Who says you have to be in a dungeon. I get ganked by invisible rogues in inns more often then the dungeon.Please do try to keep up. Go back and read the thread of responses. The example we were discussing was a dungeon. So, in fact, it's jreyst that said it was in a dungeon.
As for your inn example, detect magic is going to do jack diddly there. People are always moving around in inns, and in any magical society there's going to be little charms of magical protection that half the populace will have that are going to detect as magic even if they don't really do much of anything.
and if you sit still and watch the door, you will be able to tell exactly how many magic items anyone who enters the building has on them. Good way to pick out marks I guess
There may be historical examples like you stated, but in any given campaign setting, unless it was specified that a given building was constructed of stone, I would assume that it was made of wood.
Stone. I know very few houses with 3 ft thick wood walls. and a 60 ft cone would detect every magic item in my house, both floors, from the street.Think if every group of guards could see PCs comming from 60 ft away with no save or check through walls.As has been pointed out more than once in this thread, the detect spells do not work through walls. 1 foot of stone stops them.How many medieval European houses do you know that are built with particle board and foam insulation? Using your house as an example is silly beyond belief.
Besides, the example I was arguing with jreyst was a 30x30 room in a dungeon. How many dungeons are built out of anything other than stone or metal?
My house is a 1880s Victorian with plaster and lath. Doesn't mean it has ft thick walls.
I guess I just don't run my worlds that way, nor do my inns and taverns have lead coated walls. Crazy me.
It would probably help if you quoted him exactly instead of making up things up. My little brother does that, and it is irritating, so I can understand why he is getting upset.
You are nuts if you think that people's houses, at any time in history, had stone walls a foot thick.
i can think of several designs that are just off the top of my head look at the cliff buildings in western us for a good example
My house is a 1880s Victorian with plaster and lath. Doesn't mean it has ft thick walls.
A late 19th century house is considerably out of the range of the average D&D campaign setting.
You are nuts if you think that people's houses, at any time in history, had stone walls a foot thick.i can think of several designs that are just off the top of my head look at the cliff buildings in western us for a good example
I can think of a bunch of different designs. The mediteranian area for instance, or the middle east. But look at northern european cities, or most clasic Japanese buildings, and its a completely different story.
My house is a 1880s Victorian with plaster and lath. Doesn't mean it has ft thick walls.A late 19th century house is considerably out of the range of the average D&D campaign setting.
yes, well then I will submit the many buildings built in the 1600s that I have worked on that have wooden planks and no insalation in New England.
Edit: And the building techniques didn't change as much as the styles.
You're absolutely right that Japanese style houses will be completely transparent to detect magic. Fortunately for my point in this debate, the typical generic D&D setting doesn't have houses with the interior walls literally made of paper.
yes, well then I will submit the many buildings built in the 1600s that I have worked on that have wooden planks and no insalation in New England.
No insulation? The inhabitants would have frozen to death. I'm not talking modern foam insulation, but you don't live in New England without walls that keep heat in. Literally don't live.
My house is a 1880s Victorian with plaster and lath. Doesn't mean it has ft thick walls.
no probably not but late Victorian housing is the start of the framed construction era of building if you want examples of medevil buildings/ look at some of the historical re-enactment towns in the UK most of the structures there have 1 to 2 thick walls depending on the building mats
Also one other point if any of the walls are painted then more than likey you are not going to be detecting though them any way due to the lead in the paints , lead free paints did not exist really before the 20th century. Thats realy going to mess up that spell more than any thing else
You're absolutely right that Japanese style houses will be completely transparent to detect magic. Fortunately for my point in this debate, the typical generic D&D setting doesn't have houses with the interior walls literally made of paper.
yes, well then I will submit the many buildings built in the 1600s that I have worked on that have wooden planks and no insalation in New England.No insulation? The inhabitants would have frozen to death. I'm not talking modern foam insulation, but you don't live in New England without walls that keep heat in. Literally don't live.
No, they have litterally no insulation. My late victorian had no insullation in the entire house until the mid 80s. It also has 4 fireplaces. Heat was cheap.
|
I don't think an at-will level 0 spell should thwart a level 2 spell.
But a level 1 spell should?
Faerie Fire turns off invisibility in a 5' area, no saving throw. So having an ability that allows you to tell that there is something there (after three rounds of concentration**) makes sense to me. you can always make a perception check to figure out which 5' square they are in (since invisibility does not silence them also).
What about the cleric Invisibilty Purge, which @ level 3 can remove all level 4 Greater invisibility in a minimal 25' radius (5' per caster level)?
** Remember, the caster that is concentrating to maintain a spell, can perform no other standard actions (this includes casting other spells), and has a number of ways to be interrupted (like a good sneak attack):
Concentration: The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you're maintaining one, causing the spell to end. See concentration.You can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Some spells last for a short time after you cease concentrating.
** Remember, the caster that is concentrating to maintain a spell, can perform no other standard actions (this includes casting other spells), and has a number of ways to be interrupted (like a good sneak attack):
It's really the out of combat implications of Detect Magic at will, that are bothersome. The fact that someone attempting to hide from the party via Invisibility, not hide and attack- just hide, becomes more detectable.
No, they have litterally no insulation. My late victorian had no insullation in the entire house until the mid 80s. It also has 4 fireplaces. Heat was cheap.
Incorrect. Every structure ever made has insulation. Sometimes it's very poor insulation, but in cold climates buildings are intentionally constructed in a manner so as to keep heat in. An example are those very same Highland Black Stone houses. The layer of dirt between the two stone walls was insulation, as were the two stone walls themselves. The three layer design increases the efficacy of the insulation effect.
I guess I just don't run my worlds that way, nor do my inns and taverns have lead coated walls. Crazy me.
It would probably help if you quoted him exactly instead of making up things up. My little brother does that, and it is irritating, so I can understand why he is getting upset.
Even a thin coating of lead foils it, and it doesn't take much stone either.
So what exactly am I making up? Did Zurai not say those words? I believe the above is an exact quote. Now did he specifically say he coats the walls of his inns and taverns with lead? No, of course he didn't. He simply vaguely alluded to the fact that "even a thin coating of lead foils it" which, for some reason I took to mean that you could protect a place (such as an inn or tavern) from detection by... umm coating it with a thin layer of lead.
It is clear though that this discussion has caused some level of consternation so... as I said before, I guess I'm done. I certainly don't want anyone to feel like I am purposely attempting to irritate them.
Now did he specifically say he coats the walls of his inns and taverns with lead? No, of course he didn't. He simply vaguely alluded to the fact that "even a thin coating of lead foils it" which, for some reason I took to mean that you could protect a place (such as an inn or tavern) from detection by... umm coating it with a thin layer of lead.
That's quite a leap of logic considering that the specific context of my lead comments was "As for magical traps".
Also, as mentioned, paint was almost all lead based before the 19th century, so any painted walls probably are covered with lead.
|
|
It's really the out of combat implications of Detect Magic at will, that are bothersome. The fact that someone attempting to hide from the party via Invisibility, not hide and attack- just hide, becomes more detectable.** Remember, the caster that is concentrating to maintain a spell, can perform no other standard actions (this includes casting other spells), and has a number of ways to be interrupted (like a good sneak attack):
So the players take 20 on a perception check? If the invisible person moves at all, they are located almost as well.
The players still need a reason to be checking for invisibility the whole time (and in my games, better not be metagaming it). If they are just walking around with detect magic up the whole time, then you have a list of "standard actions" that they will also not be doing, and that includes things like, using extraordinary abilities, skills that take 1 action or more, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, and casting other spells. I think that disabling a character to doing one spell constantly and not using some skills/abilities is good with me.
Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerors and Wizards can all cast it at will. Having a Detect Magic spell up constantly, would not be such a great chore, if that is the way a party wants it.
It's really the out of combat implications of Detect Magic at will, that are bothersome. The fact that someone attempting to hide from the party via Invisibility, not hide and attack- just hide, becomes more detectable.** Remember, the caster that is concentrating to maintain a spell, can perform no other standard actions (this includes casting other spells), and has a number of ways to be interrupted (like a good sneak attack):
So the players take 20 on a perception check? If the invisible person moves at all, they are located almost as well.
The players still need a reason to be checking for invisibility the whole time (and in my games, better not be metagaming it). If they are just walking around with detect magic up the whole time, then you have a list of "standard actions" that they will also not be doing, and that includes things like, using extraordinary abilities, skills that take 1 action or more, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, and casting other spells. I think that disabling a character to doing one spell constantly and not using some skills/abilities is good with me.
Taking 20 requires more rounds and does not guarantee success. Even if he is moving, he still gets +20, so if his roll+mod is better than their perception score, he wins.
Did you read my example of a guard. He has nothing better to do than concentrate on an area, and any invisible person sneaking into his area will stick out like a sore thumb.
I wonder, if we can for a moment consider given the premise that Detect Magic should not be capable of bypasing illusions/invisibility and detecting magical traps(obviously not everyone agrees with this, but for the moment give it the benefit of the doubt). How would you change the spell to prevent this? Or would you change other spells. I am strongly considering something to this end in my upcoming campaign. I am just having trouble determining how to go about it. Anyone think of an elegant way to maange it?
I wonder, if we can for a moment consider given the premise that Detect Magic should not be capable of bypasing illusions/invisibility and detecting magical traps(obviously not everyone agrees with this, but for the moment give it the benefit of the doubt). How would you change the spell to prevent this? Or would you change other spells. I am strongly considering something to this end in my upcoming campaign. I am just having trouble determining how to go about it. Anyone think of an elegant way to maange it?
My solution:
For illusions: any spell designed to fool the senses bypasses detect magic unless they have bypassed the illusion (save, see invisibility, ect.)
For traps: magic aura is assumed to be built into all traps.
Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerors and Wizards can all cast it at will. Having a Detect Magic spell up constantly, would not be such a great chore, if that is the way a party wants it.
Again, verbal and somatic components every few minutes would make the caster fatigued and hoarse after the first hour or two. Just because the rules don't say you get fatigued shouldn't negate common sense imo.
|
Also, as mentioned, paint was almost all lead based before the 19th century, so any painted walls probably are covered with lead.
LoL! I had forgotten that bit of trivia. Maybe they made lead-based paint because of all those pesky at-will Detect Magic-using adventurers.
Back on topic, I cannot believe this thread has degenerated to the point of arguing what houses may or may not be made of in a typical fantasy setting. Really?
@ Kolokotroni
I don't know how elegant it is, but I would probably institute my 3.5 house rule: you can't use Detect Magic to detect the aura of anything you can't already see. If someone else sees it, such as a rogue noticing a magical trap, then I ruled you get a +20 on Per checks to notice it, as long as the other person points at where you should look.
Edit: Also regarding magical traps, I ruled that the triggers for Magical Device traps aren't hidden if the area that they cover is in plain sight. So if the squares of the dungeon corridor ahead of a party are covered by an Alarm spell, which triggers a concealed magical device trap, the trap is hidden, but the alarm spell is detected as normal as long as the area it covers is visible to the detector.
The biggest problem with the whole perma-detect magic idea is that in any decent party, the signal to noise ratio would be horrible.
Player - Detect Magic...
DM - You detect magic
Player - Ok concentrating
1 round later
DM - You detect 10 Magic Auras
Player - Ok, I am focusing on the closest
2 rounds later
DM - It is a Medium Enchantment Aura of the +2 weapon enhancement on Bill the Barbarians's Axe
Player - Dammit Bill get the hell out of my way....
Any time another player with any magic gear steps in front of the PC, the detect magic will go off.
Unless the caster was in front ALL the time, the spell would be next to useless.
Now if the players look around a room, it looks empty, have the caster stand at the doorway and cast detect magic. That still give any hidden enemies plenty of time to stick a knife in the caster's ribs.
Finally, detect magic gives absolutely no protection against mundane traps(How many crossbow traps does it take before the wizard decides they don't want to be in front anymore?), and the players will still have to figure out how to disarm magic traps without getting caught in them.
The biggest problem with the whole perma-detect magic idea is that in any decent party, the signal to noise ratio would be horrible.
Player - Detect Magic...
DM - You detect magic
Player - Ok concentrating
1 round later
DM - You detect 10 Magic Auras
Player - Ok, I am focusing on the closest
2 rounds later
DM - It is a Medium Enchantment Aura of the +2 weapon enhancement on Bill the Barbarians's Axe
Player - Dammit Bill get the hell out of my way....
Any time another player with any magic gear steps in front of the PC, the detect magic will go off.
Unless the caster was in front ALL the time, the spell would be next to useless.
Now if the players look around a room, it looks empty, have the caster stand at the doorway and cast detect magic. That still give any hidden enemies plenty of time to stick a knife in the caster's ribs.
Finally, detect magic gives absolutely no protection against mundane traps(How many crossbow traps does it take before the wizard decides they don't want to be in front anymore?), and the players will still have to figure out how to disarm magic traps without getting caught in them.
The problem with your solution is actually round 2 IMO. If you detect 10 auras, and know the party only has 8, you just detected a problem. If you're somewhere you know (like some place your guarding), it doesn't matter how good a rogue you are, you can't sneak past that mage if you have any magic.
I guess I just don't run my worlds that way, nor do my inns and taverns have lead coated walls. Crazy me.It would probably help if you quoted him exactly instead of making up things up. My little brother does that, and it is irritating, so I can understand why he is getting upset.Even a thin coating of lead foils it, and it doesn't take much stone either.So what exactly am I making up? Did Zurai not say those words? I believe the above is an exact quote. Now did he specifically say he coats the walls of his inns and taverns with lead? No, of course he didn't. He simply vaguely alluded to the fact that "even a thin coating of lead foils it" which, for some reason I took to mean that you could protect a place (such as an inn or tavern) from detection by... umm coating it with a thin layer of lead.
It is clear though that this discussion has caused some level of consternation so... as I said before, I guess I'm done. I certainly don't want anyone to feel like I am purposely attempting to irritate them.
It sounds like you are insinuating that he runs his world withe lead coated walls. That may not have been what you meant, but that is how it came off.
Wasn't there a time when detect magic simply allowed the wizard to see a blue glow surrounding magic items, active spells, magic traps, etc? Or am I thinking of a different spell? If it is the same spell why not just go back to that? If you can't see the item, spell, creature, whatever, you can't see the blue glow. So if the spy has magic items hidden under a heavy cloak, you wont be able to detect them. If a magic trap is placed on the inside of a treasure chest's lid, you wont be able to detect it. If a creature is invisible you wont be able to detect it. Personally, I think detect magic as it is now is stupidly powerful for a 0-level spell, especially with Pathfinder's unlimited 0-level castings rule. At the very least there should be some kind of saving throw or caster level roll to detect magic.
Amen
Again, verbal and somatic components every few minutes would make the caster fatigued and hoarse after the first hour or two. Just because the rules don't say you get fatigued shouldn't negate common sense imo.Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerors and Wizards can all cast it at will. Having a Detect Magic spell up constantly, would not be such a great chore, if that is the way a party wants it.
I think it would cut the party's traveling speed in half. Sometimes time is not an infinite resource.
I would start to have "run away" villains to alert the rest of the dungeon. The longer they take, the more prepped the bad guys are.