|
There's alot of interesting posts on this.
First, to Cartigan, I think the writer knows that 5HD is suppose to be 'evil' or 'good' based on the fact that they've had time to embrace it - he wasn't arguing that the rules support it (for Detect Evil)
He was arguing - that it's not comfortable for him to follow that aspect of it. For the record, I've been using Detect Evil in that same fashion for years - even back in 2nd edition.
Only things that have an "evil" aura can detect as evil. I'm not saying the rules state this - I'm just saying that this is how I prefer to use it.
As for Detect Magic being unlimited in use, I too am a DM that is uncomfortable with the amount of plot interruption that and other types of spells create.
To correct this, I too limited it to "line of sight" only, and requires a caster level check when used against illusions - things intentially meant to mask.
Identify spell on the other hand now allows for the Detect Magic to work as written in the core rules AND provide a +10 bonus to identify an item once you've established it's magical; but must be handled to identify. I feel now that they've removed the 100 gp pearl from the material components of the spell, it's not all that unfair to use the spell as a detect magic alternative.
Making it "touch" was a consideration, but with that, it creates a problem in that all things have to be touched and that isn't fair considering some things are dangerous to touch.
Like a previous poster indicated, I favor campaigns that are more story based and political intrigue intense; and so it's far more enjoyable when all the best plans are not so easily foiled with zero level spells. Instead the players rely on their skills, roleplaying, and their own cleverness to overcome encounters, which is far more enjoyale and memorable.
To the OP of this thread:
I reccomend disregarding alot of the commentary instructing you to find a new GM and be confrontational etc.
Truth is he's probably an inexperienced DM in dealing w/ storyline etc that are not in a easily confined dungeon. He will learn with enough gaming, patience, and working out your concerns like adults.
Talk with him and express why you feel that he's being unfair with your spell. Ask him his reasoning for the changes, and ask him what his expectations of the what the spell can or should do, and ask that he keep that as his consistent style each time its cast - to be fair to you and the players.
But at the same token, I've witnessed a number of novice DMs who get frustrated over certain spells, feats, skills, etc, because players are using them incorrectly either by their own inexperience, or knowingly abusing it over an inexperienced DM.
Be sure for your own part that you're fairly using the spell as written - meaning the concentration and the rounds to determine position of the magic, etc. If they haven't been being used that way
Explain to him some of the potential fixes to compromise such as:
1) Include Detect Magic in w/ Identify - making it not unlimited
2) Casting time increased to 1 minute
3) Rg: Touch
4) Rg: 5'
5) Line of Sight only
6) Caster Level check vs spells
Any or any combo of these may help him be a bit more agreeable with the spell.
Robert
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
It's like saying "Detect Evil seriously depowers Evil."
D&D and Mystery/Political Intrigue.
I don't get people starting these campaigns with willful disregard with the system they are creating it in. Read thoughts of everyone in 60'? That ruins my game! Disabled! But that is part and parcel of how the problem would be solved in D&D. Divination magic exists. Its purpose is divining. I mean, really.
Sounds like a bookkeeping headache to me.
Player1: "Well, I've got 4 masterwork swords, that MIGHT be magical. I draw one and attack."
GM: "Which one are you using?"
Player1: "I don't remember where we got them. Don't we have one from the orc chief, the hobgoblin warlord, the elven mercenary, and the dragon's treasure trove?"
Player2: "Um, didn't we already sell the one from the hobgoblin? I think the other sword is the one we picked up from the dwarf king."
Player1: "I dunno. I didn't have enough room on my character sheet to record all this stuff on its own line. I've got 2 suits of armor, 3 shields, 5 vials of liquid that may be potions (or poisons), 6 daggers, a bunch of other stuff... and 4 bags of holding just to carry all the possibly magical stuff we find. I just wrote down 4 masterwork longswords."
The way I'd probably handle it is NOT the right way. To be completely honest, I'd be passive-agressive and as a group, collectively decide to take EVERYTHING that isn't nailed down. Buy a bunch of pack mules and wagons to carry it all, and hire a bunch of NPC commoners to watch over the stuff and care for the animals. Have more than one player take the leadership feat as well. Eventually, a combat will occur that he'll have to keep track of HP totals for 6 monsters, a dozen pack mules, and a dozen NPC goodguys. That's when I'd also cast every summoning spell I know and litter the battlefield with creatures. When pack mules start to die, DON'T abandon the gear. Make a point to drag it to the nearest town, no matter how long that takes, and start again by buying more pack mules. When he comments on your attachment to all this stuff, tell him that since Detect Magic doesn't work, until you can figure out a way to decide what is and isn't magical, you don't want to accidentlally throw away something valuable.
As I said, that's NOT the right way to handle it, I just know myself and know that if the other players in my group were as annoyed as I was, I could probably convince them to go along with this, at least for a while. Heck, I once convinced my group to buy (nonmagical) wine from a monistary and transport it to a far away town for a profit, and then make a return trip to do it all again.
The RIGHT way is to tell your GM that its a problem for you, and ask him how he wants you to find magic items. It will save time in the end, and everyone can get back to playing the game.
Not wanting to start an edition war here, but 4e takes Detect Magic (and Identify) a step further. ANYONE can identify an item's properties by just handling it for 5 minutes. It's not a perfect solution, but it does cut down on needless bookkeeping, which is my least-favorite part of the game.
|
I house-ruled it into not detecting illusions and abjurations; that makes it useful for fusing magic items, but not illusions, invisible people, and magic traps.Interesting. Is there any fluff for that, or is it just arbitrarily dropping the hammer on something you don't like?
If you DON'T play it that way, 9th level magic is no match for a frelling CANTRIP. It makes the school of illusion far far weaker than any of the other schools. Frelling 1st level adepts look at 20th level illusionists and laugh, wondering why they've wasted their lives away.
EDIT: I want to rephrase something. It makes the entire school of magic far far weaker than A SINGLE CANTRIP.
If you DON'T play it that way, 9th level magic is no match for a frelling CANTRIP. It makes the school of illusion far far weaker than any of the other schools. Frelling 1st level adepts look at 20th level illusionists and laugh, wondering why they've wasted their lives away.I house-ruled it into not detecting illusions and abjurations; that makes it useful for fusing magic items, but not illusions, invisible people, and magic traps.Interesting. Is there any fluff for that, or is it just arbitrarily dropping the hammer on something you don't like?
...HOW. Did Detect Magic suddenly make you immune to Illusion spells? "Phantasmal Killer? Haha, I have Detect Magic on!"
Congratulations, you know an ILLUSION exists there. You win forever! Is this wall real? No, it's illusary! Or wait, is it conjured! Wait, that means Detect Magic nerfs conjuration because then Adepts can identify conjured walls hiding things! This is serious! Whole schools of magic are nullified by the ability to know they exist!
When detect magic suddenly (and foolishly) became "at will," I initially did what a lot of people do: houserule that illusion spells hid their auras as part of the illusion, and that magic traps hid their auras as part of the DC of finding the trap.
Jess Door was in our group, and she came up with a MUCH better solution.
Range: Touch.
Problem solved. Because, really, if you want to see magic auras at range, there are already 3rd and higher-level spells (e.g., arcane sight) for that.
When detect magic suddenly (and foolishly) became "at will," I initially did what a lot of people do: houserule that illusion spells hid their auras as part of the illusion, and that magic traps hid their auras as part of the DC of finding the trap.
Jess Door was in our group, and came up with a MUCH better solution.
Problem solved. Because, really, if you want to see magic auras at range, there are already 3rd and higher-level spells (e.g., arcane sight) for that.
Range: Touch
"Hey, look at all these cool items we found! I bet one is magic, these guys were high levels. I cast detect magic and touch the ring."
"Roll a Fort save""Uh, I rolled a 1"
"You die."
Good job, I like where that's going.
Good job, I like where that's going.
I can't tell if that's sarcasm (in which case your point was lost on me) or honest appreciation.
|
|
...HOW. Did Detect Magic suddenly make you immune to Illusion spells? "Phantasmal Killer? Haha, I have Detect Magic on!"
Congratulations, you know an ILLUSION exists there. You win forever! Is this wall real? No, it's illusary! Or wait, is it conjured! Wait, that means Detect Magic nerfs conjuration because then Adepts can identify conjured walls hiding things! This is serious! Whole schools of magic are nullified by the ability to know they exist!
Most of the best uses of illusion spells function based on the assumption that victim doesn't know it's an illusion.
I do like Jess Door's "Range: Touch" solution.
|
I actualy agree with Cartigan. If players are using the spell cleverly and appropriately, and you haven't accounted for that, and you get annoyed and ban the spell, or nerf it, you are a bad GM.
As an in-game on the fly reaction, yes - I'd agree with you. Maybe not as much a bad GM but not a very consistent or an experienced one.
That doesn't change the terribad at will design of cantrips, nor the creation of 0-level spells that: stomp on other classes abilities, negate schools of magic, spam item creation, break immersion, give too much information (at will/no risk), create magic escalation for plot protection (detection/counter-detection nonsense), and so on.
And all just so PF could compete with 4e's "I can always do something" mantra.
Bad rules and poor spell design are part of the problem, not the whole problem but part of it. The DM in question with his lack of familiarity of the rules or not having enough experience to adapt to the bad rules/spells is another
|
I actualy agree with Cartigan. If players are using the spell cleverly and appropriately, and you haven't accounted for that, and you get annoyed and ban the spell, or nerf it, you are a bad GM.As an in-game on the fly reaction, yes - I'd agree with you. Maybe not as much a bad GM but not a very consistent or an experienced one.
That doesn't change the terribad at will design of cantrips, nor the creation of 0-level spells that: stomp on other classes abilities, negate schools of magic, spam item creation, break immersion, give too much information (at will/no risk), create magic escalation for plot protection (detection/counter-detection nonsense), and so on.
And all just so PF could compete with 4e's "I can always do something" mantra.
Bad rules and poor spell design are part of the problem, not the whole problem but part of it. The DM in question with his lack of familiarity of the rules or not having enough experience to adapt to the bad rules/spells is another
Detect Magic
You detect magical auras. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
1st Round: Presence or absence of magical auras.
2nd Round: Number of different magical auras and the power of the most potent aura.
3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura: DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + 1/2 caster level for a nonspell effect.) If the aura eminates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).
Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras.
- Stomp on which class abilities?
- Negate which schools of magic?
- Invisibility clearly states that it can only be detected by see invisibility or true seeing.
- Spam item creation?
- It breaks immersion only if players are bad roleplayers and people who don't know when enough is enough.
- It doesn't give away any information except that there is magic and that it is a certain school, and a rough chance of figuring out a spell level...the spell is called Detect Magic...that is what it does...
- Plot escalation? Like i said, only a bad GM, or an inexperienced one will not account for a cantrip, or not have his NPCs prepare contingencies for a cantrip. A spell that a rouge, adept and all other spellcasters can cast. Most of them at will.
|
|
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.
Knowing that the illusion exists means that the PCs will absolutely search for it until they find it. Perception checks don't come with any knowledge whether success was possible.
Hey look, they interacted with the illusion! Saving throw!
At what DC? You have ample game knowledge to realize that save DCs exist, yes?
Your argument is silly.
And your reply is condescending.
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?
Let's put the wizard at level 20, with an illusionist specialty. Powerful enough? I'm at a loss as to what honest effort caused you to fail to make the same logical leap.
Assuming this power level, and without taking additional precautions, the level 1 acolyte still knows than an illusion was used in that area. A level 1 fighter would have to contend with the save DC.
You may not care that there is a difference. I do. In fact, I'd assume that denizens grown organically in such a world would care as well. It would make sense that precautions to hide the magical aura of the illusion were built into the illusion spell. Failing that it might make sense to simply consider the detect magic use an interaction with the illusion.
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.
Your insults are not warranted nor valid. I'm trying to make a point about how a world with such ramped-up magic might be different than classic D&D. You're trying... less than that.
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.
Um...
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Let me test you on this bluntly, is it that:
A) I chose an example of using an illusion spell and you modified that example in support of your argument
or
B) You misunderstood my example
Please do explain how you didn't just resort to one of the most famous and obvious internet fallacies.
Is it that you find no conflict between illusions and detect magic as a cantrip? Or is it that you simply find such a conflict easy to ignore?
I'm aiming for courtesy here, but if you're not inclined or able to do the same, please do not bother to reply.
When detect magic suddenly (and foolishly) became "at will," I initially did what a lot of people do: houserule that illusion spells hid their auras as part of the illusion, and that magic traps hid their auras as part of the DC of finding the trap.
Jess Door was in our group, and she came up with a MUCH better solution.
Problem solved. Because, really, if you want to see magic auras at range, there are already 3rd and higher-level spells (e.g., arcane sight) for that.
Range: Touch.
Unless you are a divine caster.
|
|
When detect magic suddenly (and foolishly) became "at will," I initially did what a lot of people do: houserule that illusion spells hid their auras as part of the illusion, and that magic traps hid their auras as part of the DC of finding the trap.
Jess Door was in our group, and she came up with a MUCH better solution.
Problem solved. Because, really, if you want to see magic auras at range, there are already 3rd and higher-level spells (e.g., arcane sight) for that.
Range: Touch.
I like it because it's simple. It changes one small line of the spell, is immediately understandable, and takes care of the issues I have with it.
My Kingmaker party requested that it be usable at range after we played for a bit, so in my Kingmaker campaign now, it operates on line of sight, and the detect spell is considered interaction with an active illusion spell, thus it's only detectable if the caster succeeds on a will save.
|
|
That doesn't change the terribad at will design of cantrips, nor the creation of 0-level spells that: stomp on other classes abilities, negate schools of magic, spam item creation, break immersion, give too much information (at will/no risk), create magic escalation for plot protection (detection/counter-detection nonsense), and so on.
While I do agree, I do also want to be clear about my own position:
I am NOT saying that the world should or should not work this way.
I AM saying that a Pathfinder world with these 'D&D-breaking' spells SHOULD behave differently. You mustn't change the design of one thing, even a simple one, and assume it has no impact on the world.
Think of it as the whole 'go back in time and kill baby Hitler' conundrum. This is 'go back in time and change detect magic'. What happens to the world? SOMETHING happens. I'd ask, what.
The gap we're seeing here is that the GM in question is playing in the old, unchanged world. I'm trying to make the example that in the changed world illusions are very much weaker.
I'm not about nerfing it. I'm about trying to understand the impact of this choice.
|
|
Like i said, only a bad GM, or an inexperienced one will not account for a cantrip, or not have his NPCs prepare contingencies for a cantrip. A spell that a rouge, adept and all other spellcasters can cast. Most of them at will.
Perhaps, but:
Only a bad game designer, or an inexperienced one will not account for a cantrip, or not have his game world adapt to changing a cantrip.
Equally valid. Especially since I don't think the Paizo crew fall into that category.
This feels like an 'oops' to me.
|
|
Magic Aura...1day/level of things that would have magical auras appearing like they have none...
Again, though, and specifically in the case of illusions, which is easier:
A) Assume that all illusionists have adapted to cast magic aura after every illusion, or
B) Assume that illusions account for this by their very design
Pretend that the world really exists somewhere for a minute and imagine - which makes more sense?
There are 2 cursed items in the core book that activate upon merely being held: the Scarab of Death and the Stone of Weight.
|
|
If a GM broke out the insta-kill ring, I'd be far more pissed about that than about nerfing a cantrip down to somewhere in the vague vicinity of the power level it should be at.
I've never heard of a cursed object that simply touching it required a fort save or death. Symbol of death? I dunno. I"m the Kthulhu - that would upset me, unless I knew I was playing that sort of game up front!
Edit: Ninja'd! I need to read up on cursed objects more! :)
I believe sarcasm...you touch a cursed ring to check for magic, you die...simple...a very stupid houserule...
You find a ring that no one was wearing, and never thought to wonder why, and because you can't be bothered to detect evil or remove curse, and don't feel like casting any of the various higher-level spells that will enable you to detect magic (and school and effects) at range... then you touch it, and maybe die if you fail a save.
Very stupid players, and a molly-coddling GM, rather than a stupid houserule -- if you just want to fling insults, that is.
|
I believe sarcasm...you touch a cursed ring to check for magic, you die...simple...a very stupid houserule...You find a ring that no one was wearing, and never thought to wonder why, and because you can't be bothered to detect evil or remove curse, and don't feel like casting any of the various higher-level spells that will enable you to detect magic (and school and effects) at range... then you touch it, and maybe die if you fail a save.
Very stupid players, and a molly-coddling GM, rather than a stupid houserule -- if you just want to fling insults, that is.
Hey, even Dumbledore made that mistake.
|
|
- Stomp on which class abilities?
- Negate which schools of magic?
- Invisibility clearly states that it can only be detected by see invisibility or true seeing.
- Spam item creation?
- It breaks immersion only if players are bad roleplayers and people who don't know when enough is enough.
- It doesn't give away any information except that there is magic and that it is a certain school, and a rough chance of figuring out a spell level...the spell is called Detect Magic...that is what it does...
- Plot escalation? Like i said, only a bad GM, or an inexperienced one will not account for a cantrip, or not have his NPCs prepare contingencies for a cantrip. A spell that a rouge, adept and all other spellcasters can cast. Most of them at will.
Negate the illusionist school of magic, by virtue of knowledge that an illusion (something fake) exists. Invisibility isn't the only illusion spell.
Spam item creation was directed at the stupidity of create water/mending, et al. The bad idea part of of the whole Cantrip issue - make them limited use 0 or make them 1st level spells.
Ah, the "bad role-players" comment - so you would Fiat it away when "enough is enough"? Got it, so you are no better than all the "bad DMs" around here - maybe worse actually.
Talk trash about other DMs, but Fiat it away in your game when "enough is enough", nice bit of hypocrisy there.
As far as plot - no, I don't have infinite hours in the day to worry about every idiotic "win/don't need to think" spell in the game. The system should be robust enough to support a diplomacy/murder mystery without coming up with a chain of spells to protect the antagonist - who of course has to be a CASTER to COUNTER all the detection magic since all things are resolved/countered by spells. SYSTEM FAILURE
See, I can handle the all detection/counter nonsense, I have enough experience to do so - of course it all just becomes a game of escalation that requires magic or stupid tricks but I can do this by RAW. It's annoying and as a GM it breaks any cinematic or literary value and turns it into gamist tripe - but it's easily done if you know your game.
The better question is why should I have to?
This goes back to the old argument of DMs having to find workarounds for the infallible detect evil - it's doable and horribly magic dependant and very counter-ability vs. player intellect and it's also crap; crap game design, crap rules and crap cover for those trying to defend it.
- Stomp on which class abilities?
- Negate which schools of magic?
- Invisibility clearly states that it can only be detected by see invisibility or true seeing.
- Spam item creation?
- It breaks immersion only if players are bad roleplayers and people who don't know when enough is enough.
- It doesn't give away any information except that there is magic and that it is a certain school, and a rough chance of figuring out a spell level...the spell is called Detect Magic...that is what it does...
- Plot escalation? Like i said, only a bad GM, or an inexperienced one will not account for a cantrip, or not have his NPCs prepare contingencies for a cantrip. A spell that a rouge, adept and all other spellcasters can cast. Most of them at will.Negate the illusionist school of magic, by virtue of knowledge that an illusion (something fake) exists. Invisibility isn't the only illusion spell.
That is not true, even if someone tells you that a wall (created by silent image) is an illusion you just get a +4 to the saving throw when you interact with it. The only thing that could be argued is that detect magic gives you that +4 and counts as interaction, i don't believe that either of them is true but i can see how one can argue that this is the case.
Hey, even Dumbledore made that mistake.I believe sarcasm...you touch a cursed ring to check for magic, you die...simple...a very stupid houserule...You find a ring that no one was wearing, and never thought to wonder why, and because you can't be bothered to detect evil or remove curse, and don't feel like casting any of the various higher-level spells that will enable you to detect magic (and school and effects) at range... then you touch it, and maybe die if you fail a save.
Very stupid players, and a molly-coddling GM, rather than a stupid houserule -- if you just want to fling insults, that is.
True.
Another thing about range: touch -- if detect magic works as written, then presumably every bad guy with an Int of 6 or better paints all magic traps and all cursed items in lead-based paint to foil the spell. Which means you need to scrape off the paint to detect magic. Which means the range is, essentially, touch.
Or maybe every bad guy in the world uses magic aura. Which means you need to dispel magic on your loot to detect it as magic. Which means you need a 3rd level spell. Arcane sight happens to be a 3rd level spell.
So even if you don't houserule the range to touch, in-game logic almost defaults it in that direction -- unless all the bad guys "just happen to forget" to do all that, in which case the spell should really be renamed Drawmij's instant plot immunity. Just as Dumbledore often acts like the most inept and stupid wizard on the planet, in order to keep Harry & co. as the heroes of the story.
Regarding at-will cantrips foiling objects that kill with a touch, no save? [Warning: obvious extension of principle]
Good job, I like where that's going.I can't tell if that's sarcasm (in which case your point was lost on me) or honest appreciation.
Let's just make a rule of thumb that if any of my quotation blocks end with "You die," I am being sarcastic and am in the midst of a satirical critique of whatever ridiculous houserule you posited.
Knowing that the illusion exists means that the PCs will absolutely search for it until they find it.
And? I fail to see the problem here. Even knowing a specific illusion exists in X location does not negate the save DC to ignore it, you simply get a bonus. All Detect Magic tells you is that there is an Illusion spells. Seeing as you have no idea WHAT it is, there is no reason you get a bonus to realize it is an illusion upon interacting with it.
Perception checks don't come with any knowledge whether success was possible.
What?
At what DC? You have ample game knowledge to realize that save DCs exist, yes?
The Will save DC on the spell for interaction. Illusion spells come with those.
And your reply is condescending.
Make your argument less silly.
Let's put the wizard at level 20, with an illusionist specialty. Powerful enough? I'm at a loss as to what honest effort caused you to fail to make the same logical leap.
Congratulations, the Wizard has made a secret lair entrance that can be foiled by some bumpkin stumbling around in wherever it is. I don't care if Illusion is his specialty or not - the method of hiding the "secret lair" is both too advanced and not advanced enough. It's too advanced to hide in plain sight because it is magical but not advanced enough because any dumbass could stumble onto it. You are a 20th level Wizard? Why are you on this plane of existence with your "secret lair?" Why are you using an Illusion to cover it? You might as well put an Evil radiating aura on the door handle. You would be BETTER off putting a tarp in front of the entrance. Who's going to check that out? No one that's who.
You may not care that there is a difference. I do. In fact, I'd assume that denizens grown organically in such a world would care as well.
The difference between you and I is I am not asserting an incomprehensible level of stupid upon the denizens of the world. Everyone knows magic exists and the lowliest level mage can find magic but the highest level made in the land attempts to hide his ultra secret base behind a permanent illusion of a wall? Why not just put it behind a real wall with a tiny hole in it? Or on another plane? Or somewhere where you have to use one of those special teleport rings like in Harry Potter to get to?
It would make sense that precautions to hide the magical aura of the illusion were built into the illusion spell.
Maybe at way higher levels - like Screen.
Failing that it might make sense to simply consider the detect magic use an interaction with the illusion.
And THAT is why all the people hate Detect Magic in conjunction with Illusion spells. They themselves are declaring it to count as interaction with the Illusion.
"My players keep dieing when I drop rocks on them. How can I keep my players alive?"
Don't. Drop. Rocks. On. Them.
Let's just make a rule of thumb that if any of my quotation blocks end with "You die," I am being sarcastic and am in the midst of a satirical critique of whatever ridiculous houserule you posited.
Is that a houserule, Cartigan? */heh, heh, heh*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe every bad guy in the world uses magic aura.
The question is WHY would every bad guy do that?
Which means you need to dispel magic on your loot to detect it as magic.
Actually no it doesn't.
If the object bearing magic aura has identify cast on it or is similarly examined, the examiner recognizes that the aura is false and detects the object's actual qualities if he succeeds on a Will save.
You can just go around trying to identify items whether magical or not. "Hey, this weapon looks masterwork. Let's all check to see if it is magical."
Which means you need a 3rd level spell. Arcane sight happens to be a 3rd level spell.
So even if you don't houserule the range to touch, in-game logic almost defaults it in that direction -- unless all the bad guys "just happen to forget" to do all that, in which case the spell should really be renamed Drawmij's instant plot immunity. Just as Dumbledore often acts like the most inept and stupid wizard on the planet, in order to keep Harry & co. as the heroes of the story.
Regarding at-will cantrips foiling objects that kill with a touch, no save?
Then why isn't there an at-will cantrip that does 1,000 hp damage each to multiple opponents? Because fighting them may get you killed, and obviously 0-level spells need to overcome all levels of challenges?
Really? Really? Your counter to Detect Magic being touch screwing people touching cursed - or poisoned, it's a hell of a lot easier to poison something than Magic Aura it - is some fallacious reducto ad absurdum? Clearly, if you don't make Detect Magic touch, even though it ends up being bad in the long run (and making it impossible to identify things that can kill you if you touch them - good luck finding THAT out ahead of time), then you might as well give everyone a cantrip that causes no save death! Totally the same exact thing as finding magic auras! Like Peanut Butter and cars!
Magic traps are an excellent example of how a touch version of Detect Magic actually enhances the game. If you're just pumping out DM scans all over the place it's far too easy for a paranoid party to detect, isolate and deal with the trap. If instead it's is touch then the players have to use good old fashioned OD&D style observation around traps, which actually makes them interesting, rather than just a series of perception rolls, trapfinding rolls, disable device rolls, etc.If you want to figure out if the trap is magic then you've got to touch things, and describe what your touching, which makes the world immersive and interactive, rather than video game like.
You realize that ANYONE can find magic traps through normal, non-tactile Perception checks, right? Once found, you know what the trap is, or rather does - because otherwise how the hell did you find it.
Cartigan, is it better in your opinion for a party that scans a room without entering to detect the illusionary wall hiding a secret passage, or detect no magic in the room?
I don't have a problem with them finding illusion magic on one wall in the room.
Knowing that the illusion exists means that the PCs will absolutely search for it until they find it.And? I fail to see the problem here. Even knowing a specific illusion exists in X location does not negate the save DC to ignore it, you simply get a bonus. All Detect Magic tells you is that there is an Illusion spells. Seeing as you have no idea WHAT it is, there is no reason you get a bonus to realize it is an illusion upon interacting with it.
Emphasis mine.
I (personally) wouldn't go that far and give the +4 for disbelieving an illusion (silent image for example), you know that there is an illusion spell there you don't know that it's an illusion spell that creates illusionary walls, it could very well be a phantasmal killer waiting to happen.
Would you have a problem with them NOT finding it?
I don't understand your line of questioning so I am going to say "Only if it is story relevant that they find it."
|
|
Negate the illusionist school of magic, by virtue of knowledge that an illusion (something fake) exists. Invisibility isn't the only illusion spell.
So? That is the exact purpose of the spell. And, still, they only know that there is an illusion spell of certain strength in a certain location. Like Cartigan said, it gives them a +4 bonus to disbelieve it. They don't automatically succeed at disbelieving it by virtue of DM.
Spam item creation was directed at the stupidity of create water/mending, et al. The bad idea part of of the whole Cantrip issue - make them limited use 0 or make them 1st level spells.
Oh noes, somebody can create several galons of water all the time...unless you wanted to kill your players by thirst, there is no reason this is bad. Mending cannot repair serious damage to an object and multiple mendings do not count. If one can't, no amount can.
Ah, the "bad role-players" comment - so you would Fiat it away when "enough is enough"? Got it, so you are no better than all the "bad DMs" around here - maybe worse actually.
Talk trash about other DMs, but Fiat it away in your game when "enough is enough", nice bit of hypocrisy there.
I wouldn't fiat it anyway. I do not see how anything in my comment produced the conclusion you came to. If a player does not stop doing it and it is annoying me and other players, i will politely ask him to tone it down. if it does not annoy other players, let him be.
Be careful when you accuse people of something bad, and make sure that there is something to accuse them of.As far as plot - no, I don't have infinite hours in the day to worry about every idiotic "win/don't need to think" spell in the game. The system should be robust enough to support a diplomacy/murder mystery without coming up with a chain of spells to protect the antagonist - who of course has to be a CASTER to COUNTER all the detection magic since all things are resolved/countered by spells. SYSTEM FAILURE
Neither do i. I actualy have about an hour a day to devote to RPG work. I find it quite enough. My NPCs are thinking beings, and they know that magic exists. So they will take that into account when they try to conceal something or when they want to pass as someone else. Also, there are numerous magical items that protect from divination spells. Some NPCs are not smart enough and they don't account for magic. Sucks to be them. Don't wave spells away because you don't want to bother with them. That is IMO lazy.
See, I can handle the all detection/counter nonsense, I have enough experience to do so - of course it all just becomes a game of escalation that requires magic or stupid tricks but I can do this by RAW. It's... doable and horribly magic dependant and very counter-ability vs. player intellect and it's also crap; crap game design, crap rules and crap cover for those trying to defend it.
What. It does not become a game of escalation. It can be handled pretty easily.
Lazy GM-ing at it's worst! Poor little GM can't handle detect magic. (Nystul's) magic aura, nondetection, all work wonders against this kind of stuff. A long time ago one of my groups devised a house rule that allows magic users to spend extra components or additives to suppress the auras of the items or area effects they created, the trumping effect was any caster with higher level could detect it with a caster level check.
Saying that "your own magical aura gets in the way of detecting the aura of the sword" is like saying "I cant hear you over my own heartbeat, blood flow and breathing pattern", any one could follow someone's conversation even if there is another group of people talking in the vicinity.
The problem isn't so much that he's house ruling Detect Magic it is that he is either A) unaware of how the the spell works or B) Lying to you by not owning up to it being a house rule. If he wants it to be a house rule that's find BUT he should tell you that it is and how it works.