Dire Mongoose wrote:
Eh, between extend spell (rod or feat) and +caster level boost items, I tend to assume hour/level is all day for most midlevel casters if they really want it to be. A rod of lesser extend is only 3k gp. A character who can't afford that probably also doesn't detect as evil.
Even with extend spell, it needs a caster level of 12... So yes, mid-level might just work. Of course, with a caster level of 12, significantly more powerful divinations become available, and the resources of people intent to breaking disguises have vastly increased.
Dire Mongoose wrote:
You've got me there: I somehow missed that detect-casters get a save against it. That being said, you could fix the problem pretty neatly for your world by house-ruling that they don't.
If not, how about a Ring of Mind Shielding + casting Magic Aura to make it appear nonmagical? Seems like you'd be covered there unless someone decides to cast identify on the ring, but then, if they get it off you you're already sunk.
*blinks* Now that's something. For some reason, I had a failure chance in my memory for that spell... But yes, against accidental detection, that works splendidly, especially with the massive duration. Still not going to help against a dedicated check, but its a start.
Darkheyr wrote:
Even with extend spell, it needs a caster level of 12... So yes, mid-level might just work.
I admit I'm sort of assuming you either can manage to cast it twice, or you don't need to cover a full day. For example, maybe your evil infiltrator secures a day job at the good mage academy he wants to sabotage but doesn't need to sleep there.
Failing that, I don't think casting the spell twice in a day is that onerous in most cases.
Incidentally, I do agree that the divination vs. deception battle in D&D/PF is generally skewed too far in the detector's favor. I also think the game could use more divination-specific minefields, like wraiths (I think? Or was it shadows?) are for detect thoughts.
Yes, Alignment is pretty dumb and most certainly would not be included if the game were made today but because the founders did include it alignment unfortunately stays.
It's easy to house rule remove it though so let the Gyrax nuts enjoy it and move on.
The Outlaw Josie Whales wrote: Yes, Alignment is pretty dumb and most certainly would not be included if the game were made today but because the founders did include it alignment unfortunately stays.
It's easy to house rule remove it though so let the Gygax nuts enjoy it and move on.
Fixed for you.
Dire Mongoose wrote:
I admit I'm sort of assuming you either can manage to cast it twice, or you don't need to cover a full day. For example, maybe your evil infiltrator secures a day job at the good mage academy he wants to sabotage but doesn't need to sleep there.
Failing that, I don't think casting the spell twice in a day is that onerous in most cases.
Oh, sure, even 8 times a day if you can. It starts getting very resource intensive though. And if you are an evil wizard infiltrating a good wizard guild pretending to be a good wizard, your third level spells might occasionally be used for other stuff.
It's annoying. Thankfully in most campaigns this issue doesn't turn up, or can often be tailored around party capabilities. I know I was VERY happy none of my players could Detect Evil in my last campaign.
On the other hand, on a persistent NWN server I co-run, we explicitly forbid playing out things like detect evil, detect lies, zone of truth, and so on. Just to give the evil characters a sporting chance, considering they were restricted to the limited server locales. No running off and try again elsewhere. Helped immensively.
Darkheyr wrote: I know I was VERY happy none of my players could Detect Evil in my last campaign. But your NPC's didn't know that, so they cast their Nondetection spells anyway, right?
Tanis wrote:
But your NPC's didn't know that, so they cast their Nondetection spells anyway, right?
As a matter of fact, no. Nondetection is third level, which none of their arcane casters had. I think one cleric had the trickery domain and thus nondetection, but it'd have to check again.
Otherwise, the clerics were usually pretty good with their undetectable alignment, and in that specific situation, they could play off any abjuration aura as something else, not that it would have mattered. Still, a paladin detecting evil over the place could have killed the entire "are they for real or not" suspense, especially when they sneaked into the temple basement. Luckily, their detection capability was pretty much limited to poison, secret doors and magic, so no dead sure interrogation either. Hence my words about working around party capabilities :)
It was a modified version of the Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave module, if that means anything to you. The fake Mystra temple. D&D 3.5, too.
I was (cheekily) asking if you were mega-gaming.
Tanis wrote: I was (cheekily) asking if you were mega-gaming.
Thought as much. :) You have to, partially. If my players had ways to easily pass all those countermeasures, I would have done things differently so a single save doesn't mess up ten sessions of plot. This way it was grand suspense.
lol, good times.
Best for the game = good DM.
Another way of dealing with evil auras is to make evil characters more common. When evil characters are 1 in 10000, detect evil is a dead give away. When evil characters are 1 in 10 or 20, things are very different.
Paladin Detect Evil and finds the local child molester, spends the next 3 weeks stalking him to catch him. Meanwhile the evil wizard is off doing his evil, which is far worse.
Also remember, clerics take on the aura of their god. So a cleric of an evil god might actually be neutral, but they will detect as evil. It would be funny as hell for the paladin trying to convince an entire town that their fair and just LN healer is a evil person only to find out they are actually LN, but they worship a LE diety.
I find if you throw a few curve balls at the players like this, they will stop relying on alignment detection spells exclusively.
So, aside from random detect/smite sprees, that helps... how?
Darkheyr wrote: So, aside from random detect/smite sprees, that helps... how? The players will learn eventually that just because someone detects as evil doesn't mean that they are automatically the villian.
Maybe the evil old hag is the one person who has the information the players need to stop the even more evil lich from destroying the world. If the paladin goes of on a random detect evil/smite spree, then they just killed one of the only people who can help them.
Finally, in my games just because someone detects as evil doesn't give the paladin free reign to kill them. The paladin needs more justification than, "That person detects as evil" especially since there are ways to make neutral people detect as evil.
I tend to agree with the dislike of the Alignments as it's been stated. I have been playing D&D and D20 Games since... well a long time and to be honest out of every game system I've ever seen whose Alignment System I loved, though not the actual Game System, was Palladium Games. Their Alignment's actually made sense to me AND they gave 'feel' to the character of what they will and will not do.
I do wish Paizo could do something akin to that though.
my 2 cents and your humble servant
Charender wrote:
The players will learn eventually that just because someone detects as evil doesn't mean that they are automatically the villian.
Maybe the evil old hag is the one person who has the information the players need to stop the even more evil lich from destroying the world. If the paladin goes of on a random detect evil/smite spree, then they just killed one of the only people who can help them.
Finally, in my games just because someone detects as evil doesn't give the paladin free reign to kill them. The paladin needs more justification than, "That person detects as evil" especially since there are ways to make neutral people detect as evil.
No offense, but you have completely missed my point about what the main problem is with detecting evil. It's not random detect evil/smite sprees.
If I were to through out the Lawful only for paladins, I'd make them have to be either good or evil.
Paladin= good
Anti-paladin=evil
do I believe it was a mistake to keep it, to an extent, yes.
past it, no.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
