| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's teh Mask Dweomer spell, that basicly hides items from detect magic.
There are still ways around it, but not with the cantrip anymore. So that might be a better way for your DM to hide some magic things he wants to keep hidden, without destroying the spell outright.
Of course if he just automatically hides everything using that spell then, it's not a huge difference to what he's doing now.
The DM in a Pathfinder game I joined tells of another DM who made it so Summoned Creatures (summoned, not gated in through Planar ally or something) started refusing to do things that would get it killed - most specifically, set off traps. And our DM was thinking he would use that if it ever came to it. W. T. F. The monster will fight to its "death" but won't enter a trapped area because it will "die?" Indication number one of a bad DM: They make arbitrary and oddly specific rulings to nerf something they don't like.
+1 to this, and everything else you've said in this thread, Cartigan.
OP, Get a new GM.
House rules on certain things to set a mood for a campaign is fine. He wants to say "no divinations at all" because the game is supposed to be a whodunit mystery and he doesn't have enough knowledge to counter creative diviners? Fine. That's a trope for the entire campaign.
Arbitrary nonsense that has nothing to do with the story that serves only to nerf a player convenience? Crap GM.
I liked the suggestion of Sundering everything suspect. "Oh, was that a plot device? Hard to tell. I mean, it's covered in runes and stuff but we couldn't tell what kind of magic it was, or how powerful. Better to be safe than sorry." Have the wizard invest in Item Creation feats and just say screw it to found treasure.
If you really want to point out the flaw in his thinking, just get a ring of detect magic and let the rogue wear it. When it comes time for identifying items, have the spellcasters gather up the other magic stuff and go outside.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you really want to point out the flaw in his thinking, just get a ring of detect magic and let the rogue wear it. When it comes time for identifying items, have the spellcasters gather up the other magic stuff and go outside.
Rogue: "Wizard, take all this crap and go outside.
Wizard: "What?"
Rogue: "Trust me, just go in the kitchen."
Wizard: "Ok. Anyone want a mountain dew?"
Fighter: "Yeah."
Cleric: "I could use a glass of water."
Wizard: "No problem. Back in a sec."
Rogue: "Ok. With no other magic around, can I see the ring's aura?
GM: "Well, yeah, after a few rounds, but you don't have any idea what it means. You still can't identify it.
Rogue: "What color is the magic?"
GM: "Blue."
Rogue (yelling into the kitchen): "HEY BOB, WHAT"S BLUE MAGIC?"
Wizard: "WHAT?"
ROGUE: "MAGIC AURAS. WHAT"S IT MEAN WHEN THEY"RE BLUE?"
Wizard: "UM? ABJURATION, I THINK. CAN SOMEONE ROLL KNOWLEDGE ARCANA FOR ME?"
Fighter: "FIFTEEN. WHAT"S YOUR BONUS?"
Wizard: "NINE? SOMEONE CHECK MY SHEET."
Cleric: "YEAH, IT"S NINE."
Wizard: "OK, TWENTY FOUR ARCANA CHECK. BLUE IS ABJURATION, RIGHT?"
GM: "Yes."
Wizard: "WHAT?"
GM: "YES!"
Wizard: "I YELL THROUGH THE DOOR TO THE ROGUE TO TELL HIM IT"S ABJURATION."
Rogue: "COOL. Ok boss, how strong is it?"
GM: "You don't know. You have no frame of reference for this. It's just glowing."
Rogue: "Like a candle? A lantern?"
GM: "A lantern, I guess, but it's not real light so it doesn't really cast a glow."
Rogue: "Well, how's it compare to the Fighter's sword?"
GM: "You can't tell, it's not here."
Rogue: "Fighter, go get your sword."
Fighter: "I go get my sword and bring it into the room."
Rogue: "How's it compare?"
GM: "You aren't sure, the auras overlap and make reading them impossible."
Rogue: "I put the sword behind me, out of the spells detection range."
GM: "It still bleeds through."
Rogue: "Fighter, take the ring outside."
Fighter: "I take the ring outside."
Rogue: "Can I see the sword's aura now?"
Gm: ".......yes."
Rogue: "How's it compare?"
GM: "About the same, I guess."
Rogue: "HEY WIZARD, HOW STRONG IS FIGHTER"S SWORD?"
Wizard: "WHAT?"
Rogue: "FIGHTER"S SWORD. HOW STRONG IS THE MAGIC ON IT?"
Wizard: "SUN BLADE IS WHAT? MODERATE? SOMEONE LOOK IT UP."
Cleric: "IT TAKES A DAYLIGHT SPELL. THIRD LEVEL. "
Wizard: "SO IT"S MODERATE."
Rogue: "WHAT"S THAT MEAN?"
Wizard: "THIRD TO SIXTH LEVEL SPELLS. PROBABLY A HANDY DEFENSE ITEM."
Rogue: "COOL, THANKS. I put the ring on."
GM: "You die."
Rogue: "What? No save?"
Cleric: "Breath of Life."
GM: "You die too. You all die. The ring explodes and you all die. I'm going home."
Wizard: "CAN I COME OUT OF THE KITCHEN NOW?"
I think a lot of his problem is that he isn't new to GMing, just new to roleplaying. Before this, his most advanced plot was "The dragon kidnapped the princess! Get 'er back!" Since all of my friends have moved to Pathfinder, he decided he wanted to try his hand at a real campaign.
Safe to say, when this is all said and done, he might just go back to dungeon crawls.
Mmmm. Can I make a suggestion?
Convince him to run an adventure path. As written. Paizo somehow mysteriously manages to churn out something like 50 pages of adventure every single month, then string 'em all together so you get a 300-ish page career from 1st to 15th-ish, and not once do they rely on any plot twist that requires saying "those rules we print? Um... yeah, house-rule spells X, Y, and Z away because well, they ruin the game."
I'm hearing your DM is trying something new. Great. He needs exposure to learn. Trial & error is fine, sort of. But learning from the errors of others is better. Learning from the successes... best.
|
This issue came up a fair amount when PF RPG beta was out about the unlimited cantrips and people having issues with them. I seem to recall a lot of GMs moving over from 3.5 house ruled cantrips into finite casts just like it used to be because they had a problem with things like create water, light, and detect magic being infinite. Personally it seems more realistic to me that casters have some things they can do all day just like melee, even if they are a fairly weak nature overall
I can see why your GM hates it. But he just has to get into the swing of it. It does what it does.
But there are restrictions and time limits and power of identification. If the GM thinks the players are abusing it, it would be easy enough to have the enemy take advantage of the player's delay as the Detect Magic everything.
They could lay decoy auras, trapped magic items, they could charge in whilst the Wizard (or Rogue) is preoccupied with Detecting...
Or a valuable NPC could have anaphalatic reactions to Detect Magic...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was back in 3.5 with a rather loose game, but it is topical.
In one game I played I ran a dedicated item crafter (Artificer, Eberron CS for those who care). We were a fairly evil group and got in trouble with another evil group(Dopplgangers). My Crafter was working as a jeweler as front while the rest of the party ran controband. The Dopplgangers came to me to craft busts of two of my confederates.
So I did, but also crafted them as "cursed items" which would explode like a full Necklace of Fireballs if specific kinds of divination magic (chiefly scry) were used on them. I also included Magic Aura in the process to hide my "trap".
Needless to say we packed up and left town. The "Scrys" we knew were coming were much delayed. I guess it took them a few days to find replacement casters. *smirk* I added injury to injury by keeing a personal Scry Trap (3.5 Eberron spell if I remember right) up until it triggered. I think they got the hint not to pock with the crazed animated construct after that (playing Warforged as race).
Lesson, if you want to defeat magic you need to understand how it works and not makeup rulings that are inconsistent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ive really struggled with allowing this spell too. Any good medium ground?
The spell itself is fine. At-will access to it is also fine. Much like being able to cope with players that hit fifth level and learn fly, the DM has to plan his world understanding what his players' characters can do. Teleport only breaks the universe if you let it. Same goes for divination spells.
Just keep in mine the limitations of the spell and you'll be fine. Want an assassin to invisibly sneak up and do something? Fine. Remember that the spell is a cone. If he stays out of the area, problem solved. Also, players have to use a standard action every round to focus. It's not a combat spell, really.
Don't go hiding magic swords behind false walls. That worked in straight 3.5e but no longer. Now let the players detect the thing. Only it's got a gargoyle guardian so even though they find the sword effortlessly, getting it and keeping it... that's not so effortless.
Use detect magic, don't let it master you.
Ive really struggled with allowing this spell too. Any good medium ground?
Get familiar with the Magic Aura spell. Secret Page is another good one.
Make sure that the PC's understand that Detect Magic does not, in any way, tell them what the item actually does. That would take Legend Lore.
If you're just sick of them finding all the bad guy's gear, pull the old Drow trick and build some kind of self-destruct into the items. (Drow items used to disintegrate in sunlight)
If it's plot related and not just arbitrary GM cruelty they'll forgive you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Detect magic accidentally revealed a villain that should not have been revealed. The party got very suspicious when the supposedly unarmed farmer seemed to be in possession of some sort of magic item. Why the villain didn't attempt to hide it we will never know.In the first the supposed unarmed farmer should have cast Magic Aura before the encounter at some point if his goal was to remain hidden. This is not a problem of the spell messing up the plot hook, but rather the GM not thinking ahead. However, in this circumstance the GM could have just said "you don't detect anything" after realizing he had not personally foreseen the PCs doing that, but realizing the villain likely would have. Problem solved.
Exactly. I would discuss with him the ramifications of Detect Magic in the world as a whole, as well as Magic Aura. In such a world, anybody who routinely uses magic items, yet wants to be discrete about it, will also use Magic Aura. It`s REALLY REALLY long duration makes it extremely convenient, somebody with a spare 1st level spell slot per day can PERMANENTLY conceal 7 magic items. You can also use it to `shift` magic items, e.g. when trying to look like Mr. Totally Mundane won`t cut it, you can try to look like `Mr. Low Level Wannabe with a CLW Potion or 2 and a +1 weapon and not much else`.
Given the huge duration of Magic Aura, I don`t see why a 1hr version couldn`t also work as a Cantrip, although I would limit it to only being able to affect 1 target at the same time (i.e. so you can`t conceal every item in the world if you have enough rounds to do so).
We also used it to determine the difference of a cheap knock-off weapon from the real one. Supposedly we were supposed to use perception, and realize it had a certain symbol engraved on it. But I don't think that the advancement of the plot should be determined by a die roll.The second. No plot hook should ever depend upon the PCs doing ONE SPECIFIC thing to advance the story. In this case, discovering the proper weapon should have been enough, whether through Perception or Detect Magic. If the engraved symbol is what was REALLY the important clue then once the weapon was properly discovered the plot should still be waiting to advance and clues planted about the symbol. Additionally, there could have been a clue dropped that "only the symbol of the sword in the mountain will gain you entry" and have a character make an Intelligence check to realize he had noticed that symbol once, and maybe another check to remember it was on the weapon. The plot has now gone from a one skill check success or fail encounter (which kills plot advancement) to several checks and become a fuller, more enjoyable encounter.
+1
And instead of getting pissed that the players used a no-roll detection spell to notice that it was magic, without needing notice the flavorful details that he wanted to tie into the over-all story... Ask why not, when you cast the spell, he doesn`t `flavor` the result in a way that emphasizes the enscribed symbol, e.g. the symbol is the focus of the weapon`s enchantments, and glows stronger/with more detailed magicks than the rest of it.
|
Ive really struggled with allowing this spell too. Any good medium ground?
I had a problem with it as well. After some discussion we changed it so the cantrip doesn't go through objects. Direct line of sight only. If a caster is using detect magic and looking at an illusion, they have interacted with it and get a will save to detect it as an illusion.
Then I created a first level version equal to the current cantrip.
Ive really struggled with allowing this spell too. Any good medium ground?I had a problem with it as well. After some discussion we changed it so the cantrip doesn't go through objects. Direct line of sight only. If a caster is using detect magic and looking at an illusion, they have interacted with it and get a will save to detect it as an illusion.
Then I created a first level version equal to the current cantrip.
Our PbP DM is using a house ruled version of detect magic he said he got from you that has the cantrip restricted to range: Touch. Without at all trying to undermine my DM's authority, can I ask why you changed your mind about that?
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee in my system, but I don't see how detecting a magic item on an unarmed man = villain. That magic item could've been anything. A scroll, a ring, maybe a spoon that sparkles. What am I missing here?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a few simple, controversial rulings you can make in PFS to fix it within the rules.
First, if you cannot see something, you can't read its aura. Saves using it to find people, save to indicate there is "some magic" in the room. At least stops pinpointing.
Second, trapfinding specifically states that without it, you cannot see magic traps. So since they cannot see them, they cannot pinpoint them. Again, prevents them from getting more than a presence/absence "in the area" of their vision, which means door-detecting will Get them "there is either a trap or someone behind there or some magic item.
This is an ambiguous ruling, but other GMs support me when players complain, so it works. Sometimes you can use unclear rulings to your advantage :). And before it gets spammed, yes it can easily be read the other way, but as it can be read both, I choose to read it the "less broken" route because that's as good as a cantrip should be.
Sure, it takes 3 rounds to really pin-point stuff, and superstitious barbarians might not like it (not trying to pick on you here BigJohn, just using your example) but 18 seconds isn't that had to come by, and superstitious barbarians can only be around so much before it gets silly. Anti-magic zones, lead lined areas, and totally magic zones all have the same believability issues.
No worries about using my example - I kind of expected someone to comment on it. There doesn't need to be Superstitious Barbarians (tm) everywhere... but it doesn't hurt for a GM looking to limit the scope of the power of spellcasters to bring about social situations where subtle spellcasting is the only way for it to be useful. That's one of the major reasons why metamagics like silent and still exist, after all. One of the drawbacks to playing a spellcaster is that you can't just cast a spell anytime you want, without everyone wondering why you're standing there chanting and waving your arms around like a madman.
If a wizard that I'm GMing for wants to waste a 2nd level spell slot for a silent/still Detect Magic (+1 level for Silent Spell, +1 for Still Spell), I'm fine with that... especially since it can only be cast once per memorization. That guy gets to cast around the Superstitious Barbarian (tm) without anyone freaking out... just like they'd get to cast it at the Royal Banquet without the Court Bard noticing spellcasting going on, and giving the heads up to the Royal Assassin.
These are the things that are commonly forgotten about when playing spellcasters. Just because we're sitting around a table, drinking Mountain Dew, eating cheap pizza, and describing our characters actions, doesn't mean that it's that easy for the character to perform those actions. When a caster uses a spell, the character stands there, whips out unusual material components (pinch of sulfur, anyone?), and boldly chants in odd tongues while gesturing wildly around. It's going to draw attention.
All that having been said, the APs are a great resource for GMs looking to figure out how to "do it right" without having to re-write the rulebook.
Second, trapfinding specifically states that without it, you cannot see magic traps.
That is wrong.
In PF trapfinding is only needed for disabling magic traps, anyone can detect them.
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee in my system, but I don't see how detecting a magic item on an unarmed man = villain. That magic item could've been anything. A scroll, a ring, maybe a spoon that sparkles. What am I missing here?
See, in the worlds that I've played in, higher level characters have done things like magically enchant a field-plow for farmers that have done kindnesses for them in the past... and these things become family heirlooms for those peasants. a +1 enchantment on the blade of a field-plow, or a scythe for field cutting, or a blacksmith's hammer, is going to make that a very successful NPC. if characters are running around with "Unarmed NPC with Magic = Villain" in my world, they're going to be in for a rude awakening when they're branded murderers and villains.
Would making it a 1st level spell be a buzzkill?
If you make it a first level spell, you better make it actually BETTER. Like just roll Identify into it. You automatically get a +10 to identify items.
There are a few simple, controversial rulings you can make in PFS to fix it within the rules.
First, if you cannot see something, you can't read its aura. Saves using it to find people, save to indicate there is "some magic" in the room. At least stops pinpointing.
...What?
I think a lot of people actually have no idea what the spell says.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.
You already can't identify the school of magic or the item if it is out of line of sight.
And who and what exactly would be making saves? And why? And how?What do you mean pinpointing? You have to concentrate for three rounds on either something they can see or a specific, single area to "pin point" something.
Second, trapfinding specifically states that without it, you cannot see magic traps. So since they cannot see them, they cannot pinpoint them.
What?
Also. What.|
|
Our PbP DM is using a house ruled version of detect magic he said he got from you that has the cantrip restricted to range: Touch. Without at all trying to undermine my DM's authority, can I ask why you changed your mind about that?Ive really struggled with allowing this spell too. Any good medium ground?I had a problem with it as well. After some discussion we changed it so the cantrip doesn't go through objects. Direct line of sight only. If a caster is using detect magic and looking at an illusion, they have interacted with it and get a will save to detect it as an illusion.
Then I created a first level version equal to the current cantrip.
that was the original rule, but my players complained after initially agreeing. We went over what my problems with it were. I don't like it rendering illusions useless, and I don't like that a cantrip can see through walls, etc. The touch change was simpler (just change the range of the spell), but the party argued that was too much of a nerf. We compromised, and went with the new version, which still allows illusions to work if the will save is failed, and doesn't allow a cantrip to detect things through walls.
|
We compromised, and went with the new version, which still allows illusions to work if the will save is failed, and doesn't allow a cantrip to detect things through walls.
About those illusions, I'm not seeing why they wouldn't work via RAW.
1) The word 'illusion' isn't present in the spell text at all. Typically, in RAW, if the rules don't say it, it doesn't happen. That, in fact, is a common complaint about RAW.
2) Remember that the spell detect magic and all the illusion spells weren't born in this Pathfinder rule set. They were converted to it. Detect magic in the old versions may well have foiled illusions, as it may have made sense in that world. In THIS world, though, even the weakest hedge wizard can cast detect magic infinitely. As far as I am aware, infinite cantrips is not new to this world, either. Therefore logically either illusions do not exist in this world, OR they are hardened against this extremely common power.
Just a thought.
We compromised, and went with the new version, which still allows illusions to work if the will save is failed, and doesn't allow a cantrip to detect things through walls.About those illusions, I'm not seeing why they wouldn't work via RAW.
1) The word 'illusion' isn't present in the spell text at all. Typically, in RAW, if the rules don't say it, it doesn't happen. That, in fact, is a common complaint about RAW.
2) Remember that the spell detect magic and all the illusion spells weren't born in this Pathfinder rule set. They were converted to it. Detect magic in the old versions may well have foiled illusions, as it may have made sense in that world. In THIS world, though, even the weakest hedge wizard can cast detect magic infinitely. As far as I am aware, infinite cantrips is not new to this world, either. Therefore logically either illusions do not exist in this world, OR they are hardened against this extremely common power.
Just a thought.
Or they are illusions. What has a player learned by finding an illusion spell in a particular place? That there is an illusion spell there. They have no idea what it is of or what, if anything, it is hiding. If they go try to interact with it, then they have interacted with it.
|
|
Or they are illusions. What has a player learned by finding an illusion spell in a particular place? That there is an illusion spell there. They have no idea what it is of or what, if anything, it is hiding. If they go try to interact with it, then they have interacted with it.
Again, though, in such a world why bother? You, the powerful wizard could hide the entrance to your secret lair with a spell. Or you could use a tarp. If you use the spell, it is actually easier to locate when detect magic has no limits.
At what point do illusions simply stop being used?
Or they are illusions. What has a player learned by finding an illusion spell in a particular place? That there is an illusion spell there. They have no idea what it is of or what, if anything, it is hiding. If they go try to interact with it, then they have interacted with it.Again, though, in such a world why bother? You, the powerful wizard could hide the entrance to your secret lair with a spell. Or you could use a tarp. If you use the spell, it is actually easier to locate when detect magic has no limits.
At what point do illusions simply stop being used?
And if the "secret" entrance to your lair can be found by a 60' cone being able to notice "There is an illusion here!" covering a very real hole in a wall then it could be found by the players walking around a rock wall while touching it. Hey look, they interacted with the illusion! Saving throw!
Your argument is silly. A "powerful Wizard" hides somewhere material and the entrance to said material place is covered by an Illusion. Really? How do you define powerful? Adept that just graduated Wizarding school and is paying off his tuition by doing Prestidigitation at birthday parties?
Just like 99% of spells DMs have problems with, the problem is not the spell and is instead the DM either not understanding the spell or being small-minded. How about instead the "powerful Wizard" makes his "secret" lair only enterable by a tiny hole in the wall and he enters via gaseous form? Or it can only be gotten to by a teleport circle in a random grassy knoll? Or on another plane of existence? Rope Trick is practically a bloody coop in hiding from people and it's a 2nd level spell.
|
|
Ive really struggled with allowing this spell too. Any good medium ground?I had a problem with it as well. After some discussion we changed it so the cantrip doesn't go through objects. Direct line of sight only. If a caster is using detect magic and looking at an illusion, they have interacted with it and get a will save to detect it as an illusion.
Then I created a first level version equal to the current cantrip.
Eliminate unlimited Orisons/cantrips: 4 uses a day, they can cast anything they want from the list as needed, no prep.
Solves the spamming problem.
Also Illusions should never have been handled like other magic, any detection type spell of a lower level than the illusion should auto-fail or ping whatever the illusion dictates - higher level detection spells should require a caster check to function/detect vs. the level of the illusion caster.
Works perfectly fine and preserves relative powers (plus really helps the illusionist).
Ive really struggled with allowing this spell too. Any good medium ground?Just change the Range from 60 feet to Touch and pretty much all of the issues go away.
This is how I do it. It's largely an noninvasive tweak in terms of how all of the rules interact with each other, it even allows players to still spam the spell as much as they like, however their are actual social and tactical implications to the use of the spell.
Like getting to touch traps to see if they are magic. Or touched cursed items to see if they are magic. Yeah, that's totally not a nerf that changes the entire dynamics of the spell or anything.
For myself, I want cinematic games where traditional narrative tropes can be used to set up dramatic situations. Spells like Detect Magic blow all of that up and reward spamming and grind play and strip drama as players set up "grid scans" with the spell as if they were Spock with the tricorder.
Perhaps an entirely different game system would be more to your liking? You know, one where you have to do less work to deprive the players of abilities they can use to their own advantage.
Someone commented earlier in the thread about a DM disliking using summons just to set off traps. I saw that one too, but I "fixed" it a different way. I made summons always summon the same being over again. This allowed them to gain experience for being in fights, but if they died, they caster got a new creature who started fresh with no experience. So they could sacrifice Fluffy's experience to set off a trap, but would lose his combat skills. Took 15 minutes to make a spreadsheet for teacking this, which also doubles as the player's stat blocks for their summons in an easy to read format. Will also allow for summons to gain personalities the longer they survive.
For what it's worth, I like this. It allows players to use the spell in that way, if they so choose, but reward those characters who want more than a tool out of the spell.
|
|
For myself, I want cinematic games where traditional narrative tropes can be used to set up dramatic situations. Spells like Detect Magic blow all of that up and reward spamming and grind play and strip drama as players set up "grid scans" with the spell as if they were Spock with the tricorder.Perhaps an entirely different game system would be more to your liking? You know, one where you have to do less work to deprive the players of abilities they can use to their own advantage.
Naw, this is the right system.
If some spells and their use/definition just a get little paring down and some extra work almost all of the problems for the game system are going to be solved.
These people posting here are on the right track.
3.5 is dead.... maybe it's time you moved on?
For myself, I want cinematic games where traditional narrative tropes can be used to set up dramatic situations. Spells like Detect Magic blow all of that up and reward spamming and grind play and strip drama as players set up "grid scans" with the spell as if they were Spock with the tricorder.Perhaps an entirely different game system would be more to your liking? You know, one where you have to do less work to deprive the players of abilities they can use to their own advantage.Naw, this is the right system.
If some spells and their use/definition just a get little paring down and some extra work almost all of the problems for the game system are going to be solved.
These people posting here are on the right track.
3.5 is dead.... maybe it's time you moved on?
Indeed it is, yet the people who can't come to grips with the system as it is written are still here. Perhaps you all should finally find a new one that is practically identical to 3.5?
|
|
Indeed it is, yet the people who can't come to grips with the system as it is written are still here. Perhaps you all should finally find a new one that is practically identical to 3.5?
Not identical but close, with the strength to change WILLY-NILLY and not worry about some 3.5 has-beens lurking around to comment/rage on player rights and entitlements.
Best of both worlds really.
Like getting to touch traps to see if they are magic. Or touched cursed items to see if they are magic. Yeah, that's totally not a nerf that changes the entire dynamics of the spell or anything.Ive really struggled with allowing this spell too. Any good medium ground?Just change the Range from 60 feet to Touch and pretty much all of the issues go away.
This is how I do it. It's largely an noninvasive tweak in terms of how all of the rules interact with each other, it even allows players to still spam the spell as much as they like, however their are actual social and tactical implications to the use of the spell.
Have to agree with Cartigan here. 60' cone may be too powerful in some peoples' minds for a cantrip, but limiting it to touch-only makes the spell actually dangerous to use in several cases. If it must be cut down, the 5' area of effect mentioned earlier could work, although you still have to deal with players systematically scanning entire areas. If that irritates you and as a GM you see no other better alternatives (some have been pointed out in this thread) then force them to move and check one. Square. At. A. Time. Make it a 5' cone so that they can literally only check a single square. After the first 10x10 room, players should dial it back. Again, if that's really what you're looking for.
I removed some posts. Anger leads to the dark side.
|
|
But...this thread is about Detect Magic...in Pathfinder...
3.5 is dead.... maybe it's time you moved on?
The at-will/illusion issue is the only problem. Fixed both and didn't lose one bit of sleep over the issue.
See how easy that was? And I didn't need wotc era rules-lawyer approval to do it. It's great.
But...this thread is about Detect Magic...in Pathfinder...
3.5 is dead.... maybe it's time you moved on?
The at-will/illusion issue is the only problem. Fixed both and didn't lose one bit of sleep over the issue.
See how easy that was? And I didn't need wotc era rules-lawyer approval to do it. It's great.
The problem is neither is really an issue. Realizing an illusion exists does not tell you anything, nor does it necessarily act as "interaction" to give you a saving throw against the illusion. At will isn't even remotely a problem except for those that (a) don't realize how the spell actually works and (b) can't adapt their cinematic masterpiece to reality and get mad when players ACTUALLY solve problems, or at least do so in a non-standard way.
You want a WotC-era rules lawyer rule statement? Detect Magic wasn't at-will in 3.5. Welcome to Pathfinder.
|
|
Dial it back a notch, please!
Promoting your own interpretation or offering ways to deal with "problems" people have with the spells is okay, but I don't know that being antagonistic against people who offer alternative house rules is useful. I also don't think it useful be antagonistic against those that don't see a problem with the rules as written, and offer their reasons for thinking so, and how they deal with specific situations.
I think that being able to tell when something has an illusion aura on it at will does seriously depower illusion magic. If people don't want to change how detect magic works, that's fine. I have a house rule in my game, that all players were aware of before creating characters. When they asked me to change it, after the game already started, we compromised.
Part of the joy of Pathfinder is the rules system, while it has some problems, is robust enough to handle house rules - especially if the DM and players are all aware of and discuss these rules as issues arrive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Detect Magic can't detect the Illusion school, how is it to detect magic items of that school? Like a Wand of Silent Image?
I don't see how finding an illusion in X place that an Illusion is depowers Illusion spells.
I don't see how finding an illusion in X place that an Illusion is depowers Illusion spells.
Me neither.
It isn't an interaction and all you know i that there is an illusion effect there, might be a phantasmal killer waiting to happen might be silent image, want to know which one of two? go and check, interact with the illusion and get your saving throw
As long as you understand the limitations of the spell Infinite Detects are no big deal. Just like any detect spell, or any spell for that matter if it has any components (Specifically Verbal) and they cast it in social situations it will rile people up (realistically).
As for Illusions being an issue, well there's a simple fix that can be interpreted as RAW really. If you cast detect magic and catch an illusion in the midst you are interacting with it. If you fail the save you fall for the illusion, nothing short of the appropriate spells will tell you otherwise...