Argue my preferences, but quit either putting words in my mouth or twisting what I say.
I'm heartily glad that I'm not the only one that has reacted that way to his "discussions". Maybe I'm not quite as unreasonable as I sometimes fear I am...
Indeed we are. Both because you are contradicting yourself now and because I will not accept that just using a certain type of magic suddenly stops DETECT MAGIC from working.
Again, if you can't see how this majorly nerfs the entire illusion school, then we are wasting our breath arguing.I beleive myself and MDT had this discussion before and I thought we got that straight. I am assuming since I am he is saying its a legit houserule. I can't seem to find the old thread however. Google can't even find it.
I am still failing to see how detect magic is ruining games? Sometimes the trap is on something you have to go to.
Detect Evil would do the same thing as far as finding invisible evil creatures. Should Paladins have that banned/nerfed also?
No Wraithstrike, you don't have it wrong. This is strictly my pointing out what I'm doing in my games to cut down on DM breaking the rythem of the game, and some people insist on attacking and being *#@(#*@'s rather than discussing things without insults.
And, I'm not banning DM, or even Nerfing it all that hard. Just making some changes to how it works to keep it from being a constant drain and slow on the game. The poster above seems to have a rod up his rear about anyone not accepting DM at will with anything other than open arms and hozannas of joy.
Silly me, I think magical traps should actually be, you know, traps, that have to be searched for. A trap with a glowing neon sign does not make a trap in my book.
I concur wholeheartedly to this one. Detect Magic shouldn't be doing the job of other people, let alone other spells. It's simply not valid from a gaming point of view.
Argue my preferences, but quit either putting words in my mouth or twisting what I say.I'm heartily glad that I'm not the only one that has reacted that way to his "discussions". Maybe I'm not quite as unreasonable as I sometimes fear I am...
Nope, not that you and I agree on everything, but, in general we try to argue our convictions. :)
I have not problem with cantrips being cast at will. I just make my players give a reason why they are casting the spell. Simple paranoia does not count. A wizard would not cast detect magic constantly for the same reason a fighter would not swing his sword in all 9 squares around him every time he moved 5 feet "just in case" there was something invisible there.I make a point not to tell my players what their characters can or can't do. If they want their character to jump up and down and cluck like a chicken until they pass out from fatigue, I couldn't care less. It's their character, not mine. I typically only prevent actions that are against the rules (whether those rules be in the book or in my house rules which I always make available to players before a campaign begins.)*points all parties to the now defunkt dm fiat hostility thread for any reference required on this particular topic*
For additional reference there is the 2 things a dm should not do thread.
Please, let me join one of your games. I'll make a fighter. I'll attack every square adjacent to me every five feet I move. It is legal by the rules. See how sick of it you get and you boot me out of the game. Does that mean fighters with unlimited attacks is broken? No.
Again, just because you CAN doesn't mean you should, or that the DM has to let you. Call me an ass or a despot, the point still stands.
Honestly, if you were to do something like that in my game I would ask you why. And try to come to a solution. For instance years ago I decided in any or my games that the perception (search back then) check to discover traps (by those that can find them) is passive. This was specifically so people didn't have/want to search every 5ft square for traps. Mind you the passive search was bonus +10 and you might do better if you rolled it, but it was enough where most people only searched the really important stuff.
If you were trying to find a specific invisible guy i'd certainly let you do it, you still have to pick the right square, hit, AND get through the miss chance. Its not a very effective method. On the other hand detect method is extremely effective, covers a large area and is an automatic success. Big difference there.
I want to thank all the people who posted with helpful suggestions about how to work around the issues, within the rules. However, I am obstinate about not changing the game over a cantrip. In my mind, It is better to change the cantrip.
I homebrewed some rules to fix the issues that I see with it:
Plain Sight rules for the Detect Magic cantrip
- Contrary to the spell description, Detect Magic does not penetrate barriers, and even ordinary clothing can hide the auras of magic items.
- the auras of Illusion spells are hidden from Detect Magic, unless the Illusion has been successfully disbelieved by the Detect Magic-er.
- If a Per check is required to notice a magic item (including magic device traps), spell or sensor, then the associated aura is hidden from Detect Magic unless the Per check is made. You get a non-cumulative +20 on this check if one or more persons points you to the relevent item, spell or sensor. Pointing is a free action.
-Area affecting spells (e.g. Alarm) are considered to be in plain sight whenever the Detect Magic-er can view the area that the spell affects.
-auras that are not in plain sight are hidden from Detect Magic, and are not detected in any way, shape or form, regardless of number of rounds of concentration.
and started a thread in the Homebrew section here Gimping the Detect Magic cantrip
I quit. If everyone is going to take a sledgehammer to a non-problem to apply non-fixes, fine. I'm tired of pointing out the absurdity of it.
I think having players concentrate for 1 full round to detect presence of magic in a limited area isn't a big deal, if it would be an invisible creature good chance he won't stay in the area long enough to pinpoint his location, and thus the wizard has to start over again.. in combat this spell is largely useless.
detecting traps and such, yea that could be bothersome, but really players will only do this in dungeons and they will assume every door to be trapped anyway in many cases (depending on the type of dungeon).
Simple traps will be found this way, hard traps might have non-detection cast which makes it challenging to some degree.
I haven't really ran into this problem, I do allow limited use of memorized cantrips though (total of level + casting ability modifier)
so they tend not to spam it without thought at all.
...and started a thread in the Homebrew section here...
I'll be happily following you over to the other thread. Those who do not believe there to be a problem are happily invited to ignore the thread :) Those who dislike the spell as it is in its core form are invited to tag along.
Why do threads always seem to go like...
Person A: "I have a problem with X. I dislike how it works."
Person B: "There is nothing wrong with X. Get over it."
Person A: "I don't care what you think, this is my campaign, I'm looking for feedback from other people who have a problem with X."
Person B: "Dude I told you there is nothing wrong with X. X is perfect as is."
Person A: <grumble>
Person B: "I don't get why people want to change the game. Play it as written. Everything is perfect."
Person A: "I thought that you were allowed to make house rules and change the game?"
Person B: "Not when everything is perfect."
Person A: <sigh>
Just once I'd like to see...
Person A: "I have a problem with X. I dislike how it works."
Person B: "I disagree. I think X is fine, but hey, its your campaign."
Person A: "Hey thanks person B for being so reasonable. Persons C-Z do you have any thoughts?"
Person B: "Hey no problem on being reasonable. Have fun!"
Persons C-F: "Yeah we dislike it too. Here is how we've handled it..."
<conversation continues...>
I quit. If everyone is going to take a sledgehammer to a non-problem to apply non-fixes, fine. I'm tired of pointing out the absurdity of it.
Yes, cause everyone is else is wrong and you are the one that's right... Correct.
It is bothersome that there has been no official word on this problem.
|
No, no one is making me make an attack roll against every square.Ok
"I attack squares adjacent to me."
"Ok."
Ad nauseum.
I am pretty sure you are more likely to stop before the DM gets tired of saying "OK"I just want to do it as a standard order. Attacking every adjacent square is AS NONSENSICAL as continually casting detect magic.Well, again, attacking every adjacent square is impossible and is far more nonsensical than casting detect magic all the time. What if you want to find magic? Your argument is silly.
I don't have to have target numbers or percentiles to attack a square, I can just roll a d20 and add my attack bonus.Against what? You declare your attack against the limited number of squares you can target. DM says "ok" and moves on. What exactly are you trying to hit by rolling? The darkness?
Who cares? Everyone in the game, because it slows down the game. Why would I be booted out of the game? Nothing would be accomplished by my constant attack rolls and it completely derails the game.You can roll whatever you want, the DM can ignore you as long as nothing is there.
Yes, I COULD attack every square, it would just take more than one round, just as casting detect magic in a 360 deg radius would.Then you get eaten by a Grue and ignored by the DM as the rest of your party progresses without you. Maybe they will res you later.
It is exactly for all of those reasons that I would ask for a player to give me a justifiable (i.e. non-metagame) rason for casting detect magic constantly throughout the game. Constant casting would slow down the game and the player and DM would either have to ignore the player and leave him behind or just say, "No, that's stupid. Let's go ahead and play the game now."
I have a very simple, very cheap solution to the magic trap issue:
Continual flame.
How is this a solution? For 50 gp you have a permanent genuine magical effect.
It can be a light source, you can hide continual flame objects in the walls, and so on.
How many magical objects are there in the dangerous storeroom? 50!
Crap.
Is that a magic trap or the 300th continual magic flame thimble hidden in the floor?
Also potentially confuses detecting invisibility, if the invisible guy is aware of it. 'I'm just another magic bush.'
Sure, filthy burglars, er, adventurers can start digging out continual flame from your home, but you can always put a few traps under/attached to them...
(For added lulz, a wizard with Heighten can create continual flame objects as 4th level flames, giving all these continual flames a scary Moderate or higher aura!)
|
|
Honestly, if you were to do something like that in my game I would ask you why.
That's all I said in my post. You replied with what amounted to "Well, you're a bad DM."
I would just ask the player why he was casting, and if the answer was "just 'cause," I would say "Sorry, no dice." However, if the last four doors they had passed through had magical traps, it would give the player a reason to suspect a magic trap on the door.
The statement about Detect Magic being a simple auto-success, several examples in this thread disagree. Plus, it requires concentration as a standard action to keep that up. That is a lot different than chewing gum and walking at the same time.
It is bothersome that there has been no official word on this problem.
Maybe, because it isn't a problem?
Disabling the trap has always been the challenge, detecting it via perception or detect magic, arcane sight (a far better solution) is only part of the fun.
Traps exist to give the rogue a moment to shine, that there is a chance that they'll hurt the party is a benefit not the actual goal.
|
|
...and started a thread in the Homebrew section here...I'll be happily following you over to the other thread. Those who do not believe there to be a problem are happily invited to ignore the thread :) Those who dislike the spell as it is in its core form are invited to tag along.
Why do threads always seem to go like...
Person A: "I have a problem with X. I dislike how it works."
Person B: "There is nothing wrong with X. Get over it."
Person A: "I don't care what you think, this is my campaign, I'm looking for feedback from other people who have a problem with X."
Person B: "Dude I told you there is nothing wrong with X. X is perfect as is."
Person A: <grumble>
Person B: "I don't get why people want to change the game. Play it as written. Everything is perfect."
Person A: "I thought that you were allowed to make house rules and change the game?"
Person B: "Not when everything is perfect."
Person A: <sigh>Just once I'd like to see...
Person A: "I have a problem with X. I dislike how it works."
Person B: "I disagree. I think X is fine, but hey, its your campaign."
Person A: "Hey thanks person B for being so reasonable. Persons C-Z do you have any thoughts?"
Person B: "Hey no problem on being reasonable. Have fun!"
Persons C-F: "Yeah we dislike it too. Here is how we've handled it..."
<conversation continues...>
That breaks teh Rulez of teh Interwebz.
As I said before, its not the people going through dungeons that bother me, but the ones sitting in an area detecting. It allows low level magical guards to detect when anyone with any type of magic comes near very passively, thus preventing my favorite use of invisibility (or even mundane stealth if you have magic items one you), eaves dropping, without the use of even higher level spells.
For the people who see no problem with Detect Magic it currently is, I would be interested in your answers to the following questions (peple who already answered, please don't re-post, I read them and any one still can read them):
If you have a player who declares that his character is always detecting magic, when not in combat, how do you handle:
Spell traps and Magical Device traps?
An Invisible creature that is not necessarily trying to attack (i.e. it might simply be trying to hide)?
I would also like to add a new question, that I didn't think of when I started thread, and would encourage anyone to answer- namely, what use are long lasting figment spells like Illusionary Wall, Permanent Illusion and Hallucinatory Terrain, if their aura is virtually certain to be detected?
@ Nebelwerfer41- I really don't understand how the 'a PC can only do it if he gives me a reason' scheme is supposed to work. What is wrong with saying "I like to see magical auras"
I generally allow PCs to do things that the rules allow, I would even allow your goofy example of attacking every single square, I just don't think that the other PCs would want to be slowed down by your character, and the party would continue a man short.
Edit: And I agree with Caineach, if PCs can do it, monsters can do it too.
It is bothersome that there has been no official word on this problem.Maybe, because it isn't a problem?
Disabling the trap has always been the challenge, detecting it via perception or detect magic, arcane sight (a far better solution) is only part of the fun.
Traps exist to give the rogue a moment to shine, that there is a chance that they'll hurt the party is a benefit not the actual goal.
Ah, but it is a problem.
While it is difficult to use, this Cantrip is potentially able to trump the 2nd Level Invisiblity spell (or even the 4th Level Improved Invisiblity).
Likewise it also, in some specific cases, trumps the 2nd Level Find Traps cleric spell (and the rogue's Trapfinding ability).
Poster Dilvish also makes a very valid point about Detect Magic vs. Illusions. While it may not automatically reveal them as false, it does justifiably raise PC suspions when there should be none.
This is too much power for an at will Cantrip that every caster will take because of its intended function - let alone these exploits.
Among other things, if someone walks around constantly using Detect Magic, I'd give them a -10 to Spot (and tell them this), because of the distraction.
That might not be much of a problem, of course, given the folks with huge Perception probably aren't using detect magic.
Spell/magic traps have been adequately addressed (thanks, James, didn't realize magic mouth is an even cheaper alternative! 10 gp to make chaf to confuse detection? Excellent)
Invisible guy? Ok, if you see 'PCs', hide behind something. Listen for them to pass, then follow carefully. Out of sight if the detecter is doing pirouettes every 10 feet.
It is bothersome that there has been no official word on this problem.Maybe, because it isn't a problem?
Disabling the trap has always been the challenge, detecting it via perception or detect magic, arcane sight (a far better solution) is only part of the fun.
Traps exist to give the rogue a moment to shine, that there is a chance that they'll hurt the party is a benefit not the actual goal.
Ah, but it is a problem.
While it is difficult to use, this Cantrip is potentially able to trump the 2nd Level Invisiblity spell (or even the 4th Level Improved Invisiblity).
If the user wants to spend three rounds pinpointing the source, then yes it trumps invisibility. 3 rounds vs 2nd level spell is a good balance.
Likewise it also, in some specific cases, trumps the 2nd Level Find Traps cleric spell (and the rogue's Trapfinding ability).
You detect magic, not a trap, maybe it is a potential trap but not knowing is part of the fun and brings in the rogue (time to shine moment)
Poster Dilvish also makes a very valid point about Detect Magic vs. Illusions. While it may not automatically reveal them as false, it does justifiably raise PC suspions when there should be none.
you detect magic, breeching the illusion is something else, detect magic helps with this but doesn't guarantee success regarding disbelieve.
This is too much power for an at will Cantrip that every caster will take because of its intended function - let alone these exploits.
using detect magic is a standard action, result is that the party moves slower through the dungeon. slow movement gives a greater at detection by enemy forces => actions have consequences is my number #1 rule.
It is bothersome that there has been no official word on this problem.
No official word on what problem? What is the question? If it's whether or not illusion spells can fool detect magic then they can't. That was handled on another thread. MDT can attest to that, since he does not like the rule, and we conversed about it after the proof was found. I just can't seem to find the thread that had the ruling in it.
Spell traps and Magical Device traps?
What is the difference between a magical trap and a spell trap. My question is how do they know its a trap? An aura does not mean a trap. I have played in more than AP where I was surrounded by magical auras.
An Invisible creature that is not necessarily trying to attack (i.e. it might simply be trying to hide)?
An invisible creature is nigh impossible to detect without magic. If the creature is there to observe(only) and it has been located I would have it run away.
Before I go any further I will state spamming detect magic would slow the party down. If they want to take their time on someone else's turf things will get pretty uncomfortable.
I would also like to add a new question, that I didn't think of when I started thread, and would encourage anyone to answer- namely, what use are long lasting figment spells like Illusionary Wall, Permanent Illusion and Hallucinatory Terrain, if their aura is virtually certain to be detected?
They still don't know the nature of the illusion. At best it tells them the school of magic. They still won't know if its a lingering aura or one from a spell still in affect. If they do choose to interact with it, I see it as a good idea. You could also bate them to get close to the illusion to be ambush by something.
...and started a thread in the Homebrew section here...I'll be happily following you over to the other thread. Those who do not believe there to be a problem are happily invited to ignore the thread :) Those who dislike the spell as it is in its core form are invited to tag along.
Why do threads always seem to go like...
Person A: "I have a problem with X. I dislike how it works."
Person B: "There is nothing wrong with X. Get over it."
Person A: "I don't care what you think, this is my campaign, I'm looking for feedback from other people who have a problem with X."
Person B: "Dude I told you there is nothing wrong with X. X is perfect as is."
Person A: <grumble>
Person B: "I don't get why people want to change the game. Play it as written. Everything is perfect."
Person A: "I thought that you were allowed to make house rules and change the game?"
Person B: "Not when everything is perfect."
Person A: <sigh>Just once I'd like to see...
Person A: "I have a problem with X. I dislike how it works."
Person B: "I disagree. I think X is fine, but hey, its your campaign."
Person A: "Hey thanks person B for being so reasonable. Persons C-Z do you have any thoughts?"
Person B: "Hey no problem on being reasonable. Have fun!"
Persons C-F: "Yeah we dislike it too. Here is how we've handled it..."
<conversation continues...>
Of course realistically, if the argument was "it's my campaign I can do what I want," it would look more like this:
Person A does not make a thread saying I have a problem with X ability.
Person B does not start argument because unnecessary thread is never made.
In my world they are more likely to try to use masonry or some of the other materials that block detects then a lead sheet. Though I'd probably throw that in for the Big Bad Evil Guy's lair. I am just saying that in an organic world that reacts to what different classes can do, the fact that detect magic is not a cantrip would likely have an impact on trapmakers.
I agree with this method. Trapmakers would know to protect their traps from discovery by Detect Magic. For example, a Fireball trap might be set off when a character steps on a floor plate, thus opening a lead aperature at the end of the hallway. Out of this aperature streaks a fireball.
It makes NO SENSE for someone who knows how to make spell or magical traps to MAKE THE TRAPS VISIBLE to Detect magic. It's just plain stupid. Why go through all the trouble of hiding them visually when they're just gonna get detected magically? There is NO POINT to making a trap that can be seen by the most mundane means. You are HIDING something that is MEANT to be hidden.
I'd say that any effort made to make a trap invisible to detect magic DOES NOT increase the CR of the trap. My players won't cry about it because they understand the concept of common sense.
It is exactly for all of those reasons that I would ask for a player to give me a justifiable (i.e. non-metagame) rason for casting detect magic constantly throughout the game.
Wouldn't adventurers knowing they are trailing some mage/walking into a dangerous dungeon/looking for a magical item in a cult headquarters/finding a magical item after every big fight know in character that having a constant magic radar on be a major advantage?
Your argument could be used against basically ever spell in the book.
In my world they are more likely to try to use masonry or some of the other materials that block detects then a lead sheet. Though I'd probably throw that in for the Big Bad Evil Guy's lair. I am just saying that in an organic world that reacts to what different classes can do, the fact that detect magic is not a cantrip would likely have an impact on trapmakers.I agree with this method. Trapmakers would know to protect their traps from discovery by Detect Magic. For example, a Fireball trap might be set off when a character steps on a floor plate, thus opening a lead aperature at the end of the hallway. Out of this aperature streaks a fireball.
It makes NO SENSE for someone who knows how to make spell or magical traps to MAKE THE TRAPS VISIBLE to Detect magic. It's just plain stupid. Why go through all the trouble of hiding them visually when they're just gonna get detected magically? I'd say that any effort made to make a trap invisible to detect magic DOES NOT increase the CR of the trap.
I did that with a scorching ray spell recently.
As I said before, its not the people going through dungeons that bother me, but the ones sitting in an area detecting. It allows low level magical guards to detect when anyone with any type of magic comes near very passively, thus preventing my favorite use of invisibility (or even mundane stealth if you have magic items one you), eaves dropping, without the use of even higher level spells.
The only reply I have is "le sigh."
For the people who see no problem with Detect Magic it currently is, I would be interested in your answers to the following questions (peple who already answered, please don't re-post, I read them and any one still can read them):
If you have a player who declares that his character is always detecting magic, when not in combat, how do you handle:
Ok
Spell traps and Magical Device traps?
They detect a magical aura. They concentrate three rounds to figure out a magical aura is emanating from the ceiling/a box/a tile/a door, make a Knowledge(arcana) check and identify that the ceiling/box/tile/door is emanating an Illusion/Necromancy/Evocation/Transmutation/something aura.
An Invisible creature that is not necessarily trying to attack (i.e. it might simply be trying to hide)?
They detect a magical aura. They concentrate three rounds to figure out a magical aura is emanating from some square, make a Knowledge(arcana) check and identify that there is an Illusion spell emanating from that square.
I would also like to add a new question, that I didn't think of when I started thread, and would encourage anyone to answer- namely, what use are long lasting figment spells like Illusionary Wall, Permanent Illusion and Hallucinatory Terrain, if their aura is virtually certain to be detected?
What good is anything if it is virtually certain to be detected and disarmed - the fate of all traps and locked doors.
Edit: And I agree with Caineach, if PCs can do it, monsters can do it too.
If the PCs are trying to break into a Mage's Tower and sneak up on some adepts, I suppose they will have to find a clever way to do it.
As I said before, its not the people going through dungeons that bother me, but the ones sitting in an area detecting. It allows low level magical guards to detect when anyone with any type of magic comes near very passively, thus preventing my favorite use of invisibility (or even mundane stealth if you have magic items one you), eaves dropping, without the use of even higher level spells.The only reply I have is "le sigh."
I would really like to hear a reason that detect magic wouldn't foil eavesdropping.
It makes NO SENSE for someone who knows how to make spell or magical traps to MAKE THE TRAPS VISIBLE to Detect magic. It's just plain stupid. Why go through all the trouble of hiding them visually when they're just gonna get detected magically? There is NO POINT to making a trap that can be seen by the most mundane means. You are HIDING something that is MEANT to be hidden.I'd say that any effort made to make a trap invisible to detect magic DOES NOT increase the CR of the trap. My players won't cry about it because they understand the concept of common sense.
Magic defeats magic. This is important to remember, it is also the reason why mechanical traps are popular.
Using magic to hide magical traps can increase the CR, treat the hiding element as a magical trap that you ADD to the existing trap. This can possibly increase the CR. Using a CR 4 non detection trap with a CR 4 fireball trap gives you a CR 6 trap.
Remember, in the end you are spending thousands of gp to decrease the chances of magical detection (and NOT mundane detection) by about 10-20 percent........
Likewise it also, in some specific cases, trumps the 2nd Level Find Traps cleric spell (and the rogue's Trapfinding ability).
I would like to note that said "specific cases" are the ones where the traps arn't magical. Perhaps you should put more exceedingly complex mechanical traps in your campaign and less things that cause fireballs to go off?
I would really like to hear a reason that detect magic wouldn't foil eavesdropping.As I said before, its not the people going through dungeons that bother me, but the ones sitting in an area detecting. It allows low level magical guards to detect when anyone with any type of magic comes near very passively, thus preventing my favorite use of invisibility (or even mundane stealth if you have magic items one you), eaves dropping, without the use of even higher level spells.The only reply I have is "le sigh."
The eavesdropper isn't doing it magically and isn't wearing magic items.
Success.
I would really like to hear a reason that detect magic wouldn't foil eavesdropping.As I said before, its not the people going through dungeons that bother me, but the ones sitting in an area detecting. It allows low level magical guards to detect when anyone with any type of magic comes near very passively, thus preventing my favorite use of invisibility (or even mundane stealth if you have magic items one you), eaves dropping, without the use of even higher level spells.The only reply I have is "le sigh."The eavesdropper isn't doing it magically and isn't wearing magic items.
Success.
Great, so no PCs will ever use this tactic, and he can't have any congingecy items to get out. Got it.
Using magic to hide magical traps can increase the CR, treat the hiding element as a magical trap that you ADD to the existing trap. This can possibly increase the CR. Using a CR 4 non detection trap with a CR 4 fireball trap gives you a CR 6 trap.
Or I could just not.
DM FIAT IN THE HOUUUUUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm Ok with Detect Magic revealing everything stuff
Would you give out normal experience point awards for PCs defeating traps?
Or I could just not.
DM FIAT IN THE HOUUUUUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!
And that would be wrong, you've increased the challenge (of finding the trap) but the reward stays the same?
But hey, your game.
And, if DM fiat is the answer why is this post 190 answers long ;>
I'm Ok with Detect Magic revealing everything stuffWould you give out normal experience point awards for PCs defeating traps?
Yes, because detection does not equal defeating.
Amusingly, continual flame and burning hands magic trap have the same aura strength and school.
Or I could just not.
DM FIAT IN THE HOUUUUUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!
And that would be wrong, you've increased the challenge (of finding the trap) but the reward stays the same?
But hey, your game.
And, if DM fiat is the answer why is this post 190 answers long ;>
Increase the CR by 2 for eliminating the use of a 0-level spell?
F that.
Great, so no PCs will ever use this tactic, and he can't have any congingecy items to get out. Got it.I would really like to hear a reason that detect magic wouldn't foil eavesdropping.As I said before, its not the people going through dungeons that bother me, but the ones sitting in an area detecting. It allows low level magical guards to detect when anyone with any type of magic comes near very passively, thus preventing my favorite use of invisibility (or even mundane stealth if you have magic items one you), eaves dropping, without the use of even higher level spells.The only reply I have is "le sigh."The eavesdropper isn't doing it magically and isn't wearing magic items.
Success.
Or you know, just hide behind a pillar or wall instead of out in the open or directly in front of the person being ease-dropped on. Or hell, hang from the rafters above their head. Whoever looks straight up?
I'm Ok with Detect Magic revealing everything stuffWould you give out normal experience point awards for PCs defeating traps?
I will answer with my own question.
Do you give out experience for PCs blindly stumbling into traps and setting them off?
And that would be wrong, you've increased the challenge (of finding the trap) but the reward stays the same?
Only if it's intended that all magical traps be automatically detected. My guess as to the intention of the designers is that magical traps are not intended to be automatically detected. That's why they have Perception DCs.
Thus, removing the auto-detection (which really isn't, but we won't get into that) doesn't change the intended difficulty of the trap and thus should not change the reward for the trap.
@Cartigan
yes, I do
but at will cantrips are cost free. Getting smacked by a trap isn't
Increase the CR by 2 for eliminating the use of a 0-level spell?
F that.
Then you clearly do not appreciate the power of nondetection (the spell). Which is too bad, and weakens you position in my view.
You're right. DM Fiat is NOT the answer. HOMEBREW is the answer!!!
School: Abjuration
Level: Sorcerer/Wizard 0, Cleric 0
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: S
Range: touch
Target: Creature or object touched
Duration: 1 round per Level
Saving throw: Will negates (harmless, object)
Spell Resistance: yes (harmless, object)
The warded creature or object becomes immune to the detect magic spell for the duration of this spell.
If cast on a creature, Ward Against Detect Magic wards the creature's gear as well as the creature itself.
Do you give out experience for PCs blindly stumbling into traps and setting them off?
Yes. You're supposed to. Overcoming the challenge of the trap includes more than just disarming it. Otherwise parties without Rogues would be even more penalized than they already are.
Increase the CR by 2 for eliminating the use of a 0-level spell?
F that.
Then you clearly do not appreciate the power of nondetection (the spell). Which is too bad, and weakens you position in my view.
Nondetection is worth CR 2. Warding just to eliminate Detect Magic is not. Hence the homebrew I suggest above.
back in 2nd edition there used to be a spell protection from cantrips, lasted a good while too ^^ about time we got it back :)