Fair enough. But then please just admit it's a houserule preference to define it as such. And thus quit preaching that it's "an area" when in fact that's merely your interpretation or preference without any 'rules as written' to support it. On the other hand, I thought using house rules was what you had been so adamantly against in the first place.
You mean my opposition to houserules that completely change how the spell operates? Right. Totally the same.
I'm not opposed to houserules. I'm opposed to making significant changes to the game that change its balance that screw over players.
Searching for a suitable mate on singles.com isn't necessarily going to locate you your perfect mate, either. I don't think we should use the functionality of a digital search engine as evidence that something doesn't exist.
It does exist. Their search engine is broken. That's the point.
You're right except for the fact that locate is part of the title of the spell and in the body. Locate is the root word of location. An English teacher taught me that years ago.
Locate is the name of the spell. Fun fact: the word LOCATE is NOT in the description of the spell "Locate Object." You don't actually "locate" anything with either spell. If you want to be technical, which you certainly will because that makes you feel better I guess, the spell locates the creature but does not impart that information to you. All you are informed of, as the caster, is the direction of the creature from yourself. With that information, you are able to "locate" a creature down to the smallest area defined by the game - a 5' cube. That makes a 5' cube a "location," right?
The spell locates the strongest aura within the 60' cone. It doesn't narrow down the cone to a single 5' area; it narrow it down to the aura of the item in question. It's location. Whether floating over someones head, embedded in a alter, hidden in a chest, or carried in a bag.
Which is a failure to define location.
Anyone who wants to spam detect magic in my games are free to do so. I will assume that unless they say otherwise, their standard action every round is spent concentrating on the spell, which is going to cause problems for them if they ever have to interact with an NPC, or have a shot at acting in a surprise round, or need to do anything else that requires concentration and effort. Therefore, good bye knowledge rolls and spellcraft rolls, good bye surprise rounds, NPCs are going to be harder to impress, for the entire party, because the others will have to explain why they have a crazy loon following them around, and the person spamming the spell still won't know any actual details of any auras they discover other than perhaps the school. Seems perfectly balanced to me.Good point. But to be fair a few of these can be done in conjunction w/ a standard action.
Talking/interacting, and knowledge checks are considered "no action" (unless your knowledge check is being done via library research). So long as the interaction isn't trying to use some other skill, ability or spell, it's perfectly fine to do this while concentrating on a spell. Spellcraft checks to ID a spell being cast is also a "no action". (Though obviously using Spellcraft to ID an item, writing/learning a spell or making a magic item would not be possible as these take several rounds. During a surprise rounds, participants can still take a "Standard Action" if they are not themselves surprised - which can be spent on concentrating.
And as for NPCs being "harder to impress", that's a subjective hindrance. Much like a paladins restriction to LG alignment. It's not necessarily a balancing factor since alignment and restrictions are not a hard-fast parameter. Some groups adhere to alignment harshly; while some nearly ignore it. Not to mention you could ask 10 people what LG or CN is defined as, and get 20 different answers. The interpretation varies from group to group; so it's not really fair to...
They would at least get penalties to knowledge rolls and spellcraft rolls not associated with the use of detect magic if they decided to constantly focus on spamming that spell; even if it's not enough to stop them completely, a constant focus like that is going to be hard to break away from to think about other things. That or go with how rage handles such skills, since the end result is basically the same, even if the path is different.
|
They would at least get penalties to knowledge rolls and spellcraft rolls not associated with the use of detect magic if they decided to constantly focus on spamming that spell; even if it's not enough to stop them completely, a constant focus like that is going to be hard to break away from to think about other things. That or go with how rage handles such skills, since the end result is basically the same, even if the path is different.
Trust me I don't disagree with you. I think that makes absolute sense.
However you can't argue that this is how the rules are written.
By adding ad hoc restrictions or penalities for someone doing what is allowed - it implies a level of disapproval of the rules as written that allows players to cast the spell ad nauseum.
Some of us have added restrictions of casting time, or range or Caster Level checks. That's just splitting hairs. They are all as a result of DMs being comfortable allowing the rules to be used as written.
Robert
|
|
Fun fact: the word LOCATE is NOT in the description of the spell "Locate Object."
Page 305 - Locate Object
You can search for general items, in which case you locate the nearest of its kind if more than one is within range.Fun Fact about Facts:
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
I'm opposed to making significant changes to the game
Our difference in definitions of word "significant" is equally contrasted as our understanding of the word "fact".
A change that alters Detect Magic to be "line of Sight" or "5' range" is not in my opinion even close to being significant.
Removing the spell from the game is not even significant. Removing Magic from the game would be significant.
It does exist. Their search engine is broken. That's the point.
That was my point exactly. Detect Magic spell does exist even though you couldn't find it with that search engine.
If you want to be technical, which you certainly will because that makes you feel better I guess, the spell locates the creature but does not impart that information to you.
Well to be technical the spell you quoted finds objects, not creatures. Unlike "Location", there is a specific difference between the two as it relates to the rules.
And I won't say that I am particularly fond of being technical, but I have found continually correcting you to be at least mildly entertaining.
Robert
With that information, you are able to "locate" a creature down to the smallest area defined by the game - a 5' cube. That makes a 5' cube a "location," right?
The smallest area defined by the game is much smaller then a 5 ft cube. Scoop defines it's area of effect as a 6 inch cube of force. I suppose targeting a diminutive familiar with a personal spell or a single target spell would also effect a much smaller area then 5 ft. Saying that nothing exists that is smaller then 5 ft is silly.
They would at least get penalties to knowledge rolls and spellcraft rolls not associated with the use of detect magic if they decided to constantly focus on spamming that spell; even if it's not enough to stop them completely, a constant focus like that is going to be hard to break away from to think about other things. That or go with how rage handles such skills, since the end result is basically the same, even if the path is different.Trust me I don't disagree with you. I think that makes absolute sense.
However you can't argue that this is how the rules are written.
By adding ad hoc restrictions or penalities for someone doing what is allowed - it implies a level of disapproval of the rules as written that allows players to cast the spell ad nauseum.
Some of us have added restrictions of casting time, or range or Caster Level checks. That's just splitting hairs. They are all as a result of DMs being comfortable allowing the rules to be used as written.
Robert
For me it's not really disapproval, as I don't mind the unlimited cantrips, and indeed quite like them. It's simply applying an equal reaction to their action, which can be done with any of the cantrips in some way, shape or form. It does venture beyond RAW in that RAW doesn't cover a specific penalty, but I think that's a good thing because that leaves it in the hands of individual DMs to come up with their own; adding on to the existing rules is not the same as trying to void them out.
A change that alters Detect Magic to be "line of Sight" or "5' range" is not in my opinion even close to being significant.
Identify the school of a spell or an item's properties IS line of sight. 5' range reduces the spell significantly. You've lost the ability to search for multiple magical auras.
Removing the spell from the game is not even significant.
Yes, it is. The entire ability to identify magic items has been predicated on using Detect Magic.
That was my point exactly. Detect Magic spell does exist even though you couldn't find it with that search engine.
I don't think you even remotely understand what I am saying.
Well to be technical the spell you quoted finds objects, not creatures.
You cited Locate Objects. I cited both Locate Objects AND Locate Creatures. Nice try though.
I suppose targeting a diminutive familiar with a personal spell or a single target spell would also effect a much smaller area then 5 ft. Saying that nothing exists that is smaller then 5 ft is silly.
Even a diminutive creature is a creature located in a 5' square. That's why they state how many smaller than small creatures you can fit in a 5' square. Not that a creature is an area.
Also, what the hell is "Scoop?"
Even a diminutive creature is a creature located in a 5' square. That's why they state how many smaller than small creatures you can fit in a 5' square. Not that a creature is an area.
Also, what the hell is "Scoop?"
Identify claims it works like Detect Magic, with the added caveat that you can identify items on your person, not in the same 5 foot square as you. Saying that no spell allows you to differentiate what is in a 5 ft square is silly.
I am actually flabbergasted by people claiming that knowing the illusion is there is tantamount to disbelieving it. The comment about throwing rocks at a wall until you make the save is the most metagame thing I have ever read in my entire life.
If you throw the first rock and fail the save, you don't see the rock hit the wall, but you're pretty sure it bounced off. If you walk up to an illusion that mimics touch and touch it looking for a way through and fail the save, you touch the wall. You could also probably lean on it. In neither case do you go "WELL I WILL TRY AGAIN"-- you believe the illusion. You don't think its an illusion. It's not until a friend walks up and puts his hand through it or realizes that the grain of the bricks looks 'wrong' that you can make another save and see what he's seeing. You really thought that there was a wall here.
This argument is like... bluff is useless because sense motive exists. We should nerf sense motive so that bluff-using characters, the weakest of all characters, can be more powerful. You roll sense motive when someone bluffs you, so you know they're lying and can just re-roll sense motive over and over until you get it.
|
|
Yes, it is. The entire ability to identify magic items has been predicated on using Detect Magic.
Nah - Identify could do that just fine without Detect Magic - if Detect Magic wasn't a part of the game.
Still even if removing the spell does constitute a significant change in your opinion, I imagine not everyone would agree and you didn't argue that changing it to be line of sight for all such aspects of the spell is significant changing.
It's a small tweak at best to make spammers of the spell less omnipotent
You cited Locate Objects. I cited both Locate Objects AND Locate Creatures. Nice try though.
It was a nice success. You stated "Locate isnt' in the description of Locate Objects but that it may help you find creatures."
It did have the word locate, and it does find objects not creatures.
I noticed you didn't bother to address the real point I made there - that is does contain Locate in its descriptions. You continue to try to defect the conversation when I point our inconsistencies in your posts.
Bottom line sir, is that I have never seen the spell detect magic proposed to be used in the fashion your dictating in any event or society game i've ever been to.
Detect magic has always allowed (given a few rounds of concentration) to locate a magical aura/item in a given locale.
Using this as basis for logic, it can thus also find the exact spot of an illusionary object, within a space, as well.
To say otherwise is a stretch of the imagination, a stretch of the terminology "location", and a personal interpretation of the word location as to what you feel it means - which is clearly not at all defined as such nor supported within the rules as I have pointed out its use in a variety of other areas that do not define it as a 5' square.
Robert
|
|
I am actually flabbergasted by people claiming that knowing the illusion is there is tantamount to disbelieving it. The comment about throwing rocks at a wall until you make the save is the most metagame thing I have ever read in my entire life.
If you throw the first rock and fail the save, you don't see the rock hit the wall, but you're pretty sure it bounced off. If you walk up to an illusion that mimics touch and touch it looking for a way through and fail the save, you touch the wall. You could also probably lean on it. In neither case do you go "WELL I WILL TRY AGAIN"-- you believe the illusion. You don't think its an illusion. It's not until a friend walks up and puts his hand through it or realizes that the grain of the bricks looks 'wrong' that you can make another save and see what he's seeing. You really thought that there was a wall here.
I agree with you to some degree and it is metagaming to some extent.
but if something tipped me off to show that an illusion could or does exist on a wall an in-character action would be to try to prove or disprove that.
The characters live in a world where magic is known to exist. They know to look for it - it's commonplace enough (at least in most normal settings) to warrant some measure of knowledge that something may or may not be real.
We live in a world where cops exist. Thus when I'm speeding on the freeway I have a tendency to check my mirrors frequently, and look on the off ramps to see if there's patrol units preparing to get on to monitor traffic. I look for them because I have actual knowledge that they exist and how to interact with them to avoid falling prey - it doesn't always work - but if play you pay.
Characters know illusions exist, they know magic exists. If a Detect Magic (or other similar ability) can decipher that a wall is magical, the clear assumption is that it is most likley "trapped" or "illusionary" Sure other situations may apply like a portal, or misdirection spells such as Magical Aura(aka cops in unmarked cars), but the odds favorite is one of the other two.
And while throwing rocks continuously until you make the save is indeed some form of meta-gaming, what I do advocate and support is finding a way of "proving" it is an illusion (or trap for that matter). The rules for illusions cleary state that if a character is faced with "proof" that the object is not real, no saving throw is required: thus instead of just continuing to throw rocks until you roll a 20, I gave the scenario of something hot or giving off light through the wall which could then lead to 'proof' that it does not exist. Granted this example is a very simple basic poor illusion in general, but 'illusionary wall' spell does exist. It's a illusion of a wall blocking off a big passage. If it was an illusionary wall covering a very small crawlspace - that's a different matter and would be more challenging.
In absence of said proof, in the case of unlit rocks, or darkness on the other side or something to that matter, (given my big opening being veiled scenario) you do still get the saving throw, and yes I agree with you that you'd then be tricked into thinking your rock bounced off. If you leaned on it your mind could trick you into remaining standing - depending on the spell (see below):
However, the spell description of Illusory Wall specifically states that you can clearly see thing pass through it - touching or probing it reveals its true nature.
If you did throw a rock at an illusory wall and failed your save thinking it bounced off, and you went to find your rock.....that could be interesting. What if you marked your rock so you could identify (not identify by the actual definition of the spell identify...) your rock from others. Like how they did an experiement with the tennis balls in Poltergest - before they threw them in the closet to see if it truly would be those balls that emerged from the ceiling.
There's nothing stopping players from trying to be creative in solving such a challenge. The trick is to find a way to implement logical character knowledge to reach a point at which character and player knowledge merge.
"Hey my detect magic says that this section of the building's wall is magical. It may be an illusionary wall....or it could be a trap"
"Okay everyone else go to the end of the alley there in case it's a trap - i'll throw this rock at the wall and see what happens.
[DM has player make Will save or secretly rolls himself]
"Your rock must have bounced off - you didn't clearly see it have any effect on the wall"
[player still not sure if it's an illusion and he just failed his will, or if the wall is really there and just didn't see the rock bounce off.....]
"Okay I look for the rock I threw on the ground"
[DM has player make a pointless Perception check to keep him guessing]
"You survey the ground around the magic wall...you find some rocks of course.....you're not sure if any of them are the same one you threw."
"Okay - I pick up a rock - to the wizard - "would you mind using some of your ink on this rock" (or to the craftsman) "Would you mind taking out your chisel and making a small X on it"
[Player throws the rock - DM knows he already failed the will save - no sense in re-rolling and describes a similar situation]
"I now search for that rock."
"After searching for a couple minutes [taking 20] you're convinced that rock isn't here."
"The wall is either an illusion or some sort of gate. Anyone else have any ideas?"
"Take your chalk and write on it!"
In this case players and characters are using non magical conventional means of overcoming an obstacle. The illusion did it's job at least for a bit - it would have fooled most people - who don't have 0 level spells that is. It kept the heroes busy for a few minutes - meanwhile any number of random encounters, or NPC-based actions could be taking place on the other side etc. It slowed them down - sure they're find a way to disbelieve - but them actively trying to find a way to fool it is a little bit of meta-gaming and whole lot bit of interaction and roleplay.
The only difference is each DMs toleration of what is meta-gaming and what is going too far.
As I said previously - illusions are something of a specialty of mine. I know very little about druids and their animal companions and wildshaping; but illusions are something I've studied alot in this game; my pathfinder society character uses them extensively. I know exactly how they are foiled.
Robert
|
|
Robert, I doubt this is RAW, but I've always told my players that illusions, as mind effecting spells, actively work on your mind. If the illusion is of a non-magical wall, then casting detect magic will not reveal a magical wall, or a magical spell period. The spell isn't in the air - its inside the skulls of the people in the area who have a shared hallucination.
You're right its not in the rules. But that's okay because in some ways I agree with you.
Here is the criteria and resonings that I agree:
It used to be that Detect Magic and Detect Illusion were two seperate spells.
It used to be that Detect Magic was not unilimited uses per day.
It used to be that you needed to cast detect illusions to do do.
Now in a system where Detect Magic is zero level spell, and is unlimited in its uses per day, and Detect Illusion no longer exists, then IMO it makes it too easy to detect the uses of illusions.
So in this regard I agree with you. However to make Detect Magic NOT be able to detect the illusions, and and there is no Detect Illusion alternative, and True Seeing is not avaialable until 11th level, there still needs to be a middle ground to protect illusions from being TOO powerful.
In the current system, they're too weak, in the other - they're too powerful. To close this gap you can make Detect Magic NOT be 0 level unlimited use. Which is a good idea in my opinion.
You can make Identify needed to identify Illusions I suppose; but that would the same as making Detect Magic 1st level and not unlimited.
I personally suggest combining the two spells together as a 1st level spell that CAN detect illusions; but it isn't at will ability.
Another suggestion is allow for "caster level" checks when Detect Magic is detecting illusions.
So again while not rules as written, I see your use of them very justified and certainly understandable in how they're explained.
When I'm doing society play however, I have to abide by rules as written I'm afraid - so Kharnaks illusions are still detected by Detect Magic - luckily NPCs dont make a habit of spamming that like players do.
Robert
Identify claims it works like Detect Magic, with the added caveat that you can identify items on your person, not in the same 5 foot square as you. Saying that no spell allows you to differentiate what is in a 5 ft square is silly.
Even a diminutive creature is a creature located in a 5' square. That's why they state how many smaller than small creatures you can fit in a 5' square. Not that a creature is an area.
Also, what the hell is "Scoop?"
That's not what Identify says and not what I said.
It was a nice success. You stated "Locate isnt' in the description of Locate Objects but that it may help you find creatures."
...What? That's isn't related to what you were replying to.
It did have the word locate, and it does find objects not creatures.
Yes it did, I skipped that sentence on accident.
I noticed you didn't bother to address the real point I made there - that is does contain Locate in its descriptions. You continue to try to defect the conversation when I point our inconsistencies in your posts.
Says some one making arguments against unrelated counterarguments to try make your argument look valid. Based on that, this farce isn't worth continuing.
Well, the writers' desire to sell figurines caused them to suffer severe and debilitating lapses in reasoning. The whole idea of not letting more than one person in a five foot square, no facing, mirror image completely being occupied in a single five foot square - it is like they weren't even trying to visualize what they were talking about when they wrote the rules. I take all of it with a grain of salt.
You see how many people in armor and with weapons that you can fit in a 5' square who are able to move and fight freely without interfering with each other. Go ahead, I'll wait.
And facing has nothing to do with miniatures. It has everything to do with the game. It increases the complexity of the rules without any benefit.And how does selling miniatures in 3.5 have to do with the changes to Mirror Image in Pathfinder.
Why do they have to move freely and not interfere with each other?
That's the very basic idea of a group fight. Even though I think the SCA is dumb as anything, they do a pretty good demonstration of fitting 3-4 guys with weapons and armor into a five foot box. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-CpcwpI3gE
So how many penalties are those people taking for being squeezed into a 5' square? They can't even move. The ones on the outside are just waving a free arm around and everyone else is just smushed together.
Pathfinder sells figures.
No, Reaper sells figures with a license or support or something of Pathfinder.
The change to Mirror Image reflects the general lack of thinking about the game while writing about the game combined with a desire to use five foot grids.
No, the change to Mirror Image reflects an attempt to nerf the spell. It's entirely a game balance thing.
Coming late to the party, as usual. But I just wanted to throw out that while I think the GM, as described by the OP, is acting a bit like a baby, it certainly is still very easy for a party to run the novelty of a thing into the ground.
Though detect magic is sometimes necessary, it can easily become as annoying as is checking every five-foot-square for traps, and the like.
I have a player who is fond of playing wizards who make it permanent upon themselves. He has, in the past, stopped every ten seconds to use it, cast it on anything that looks unusual, etc. Since I have always worked unusual dungeon features into the story, or used them in riddles or puzzles, his constant casting doesn't have much effect other than to piss the other players off, so they eventually muzzled him. The GM in this case, might consider keeping his players occupied with mundane puzzles for awhile to break them of the detecting habit.
The players, in the meantime, might consider holding off using the spell on things that seem non-essential, until they can gather them all into one pile. Surely, stopping the game constantly has to wear on the players as well, yes?
|
|
Says some one making arguments against unrelated counterarguments to try make your argument look valid. Based on that, this farce isn't worth continuing.
Says someone who has already illustrated on a number of occasions that you simply continue to make unsupported statements, erroneously present them as facts, dismiss it as not valid, and then look to put everyone else down for not agreeing with you.
That's called denial. Defense Mechanism 101.
It's only a farce to you because up to this point, you still haven't proven anything, the foundations you lay your claims on are weak, you have barely a leg to stand on, and most of what you espouse as fact are anything but - on a number of issues.
Whether related to topic or not - it's merely one more instance in which you are not accurate in your vehement testimony; and it merely discredits your believability even further on all counts.
If instead you readily accepted that you mispoke when you did and conceded those points with a bit of humility, gave room for others to possibly have a point, displayed tolerance for others styles of play (which NONE are "wrong" btw despite possbily feeling otherwise), and gave constructive criticism on others opinions instead of illustrating a "I know everything cuz I'm an english teacher Schtick" then I assure you I wouldn't be so gung-ho in busting you all the time. Since this thread began you've acted like a bully, and I just don't tolerate that mentality very well. And apparently all the schooling you had towards becoming a teacher hasn't provided the education to know how to admit when you're wrong. Not everyone will always agree with you, you're not always right, and it's time to accept that and move on. I accept that I'm not always right, that my style of gaming is not always to everyones liking - but i don't expect them to and I don't expect to force others to my style. I use these threads to share my own experieces and learn from others how to do it differently.
I know the OP didn't ask for all of this and the discussion has gotten way off the original thread - I apologize for my part in that. It's become nothing but a circular arguement at this point rehashing the same rhetoric. The horse is not only dead, but its head is completely bashed in and the brains are spilling everywhere. I feel I've said all I need to about this issue. However any further assistance needed from the OP I will be willing to throw in my copper for.
Robert
Hmm... inspired by this thread I took a hard look at the spell descriptions, and think I discovered something topical:
By RAW, detect magic doesn't even let you know if figments like minor image have an aura of illusion. I think a lot of people were arguing a mute point. Explanation:
The only part of the spell description that mentions any ability to determine the school of magic of an aura, only specifies auras that an Item or Creature 'bear'. An illusionary figment isn't an item or a creature, so I'm not sure there's anything at all to 'bear' the aura of the illusion spell, and if there is something that 'bears' its certainly not a creature or an item, as the stated effect of these spells is the figment itself.
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).
So as far as I can tell, if you cast detect magic on a statue that is really an illusion created with minor image, it goes something like this:
Round 1: You detect the presence of atleast 1 magical aura in your cone
Round 2: There is 1 faint magical aura in your cone
Round 3: There is 1 faint magical aura located in the same space as the statue.
Now let's say that instead it is a real statue with a small object fixed to the back of the statue, outside of your line of site, and this small object has had a Glyph of Warding with a Blindness spellglyph cast upon it. It goes something like this:
Round 1: You detect the presence of atleast 1 magical aura in your cone
Round 2: There is 1 faint magical aura in your cone
Round 3: There is 1 faint magical aura located in the same space as the statue.
Both situations should appear just the same to the caster, but when they send in their rogue to investigate, he could be discovering an illusion covering a hidden passage, or he could just lose his eye site.
If I can sum up the issues causing all this rancor: The OP and others have insinuated that Detect Magic is broken, that it's too powerful in some ways. Others have posited that Detect Magic is not broken, that the overpowered aspects the first group refer to are symptoms of lack of imagination or willingness to counter it.
I'll just focus on one aspect of this -- the idea that DM makes illusion spells depowered. I think a point that has yet to be made is that illusion spells are SUPPOSED to be more easily defeatable/detectable than their real counterparts. If a Silent Image of a wall of stone was supposed to be as effective at keeping people away from something as a wall of stone, then it would have been Wall of Stone and it would be a 5th level spell. Phantasmal Killer creates a mental image of the most fearsome creature the subject can imagine. If it were not supposed to be more possible to defeat it than the actual most fearsome creature the subject can imagine, it would be the 13th level spell Summon Terrasque.
But basically DM's have different ways of dealing with players using Detect Magic to invalidate their traps, illusions, etc. One way is to say "that's too powerful" and severely depower the spell. Many other ways have been suggested. Use what you want, but you can't just say nothing works when you're obviously unwilling to try other things. Just admit "I don't want to put that much thought into defeating a 0 level spell, so I'm going to make a simple drastic change and make it 1st level." It's not wrong, but stop denying that there are other ways to deal with it.
I don't understand why all the hubbub at all. If Detect Magic can be used to detect magical auras, and you don't want your players to find a particular [wall | keyhole | item], just make it NOT MAGICAL. Or MORE MAGICAL. Seriously, why all the hate for something that has so many counters already?
"I don't want players to find the secret entrance to X's lair!" =
1. make it a regular (mundanely) hidden door - give your rogue something to do since stealth doesn't work [much | well | yet]
2. make it an illusionary wall with magic aura on it so it doesn't have an aura to be detected
3. make it ethereal or astral, accessed by speaking a particular command word in the vicinity which causes the actual entrance to phase into the prime material (or only on the full moon, or something)
4. put a bunch of decoy illusionary walls in front of nothing at all, maybe with magic aura scattered around to generate magic auras where no illusionary wall exists
5. make it a mechanical door with the actuation mechanism in a different location
6. have the party see an npc casting something (magic aura maybe) on the area - when they make the spellcraft check to see what spell it was they may ignore the magical aura in that area
Nerfing Detect Magic is NOT the only option, or even the best one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why all the hubbub at all. If Detect Magic can be used to detect magical auras, and you don't want your players to find a particular [wall | keyhole | item], just make it NOT MAGICAL. Or MORE MAGICAL. Seriously, why all the hate for something that has so many counters already?
I can only speak for myself, but having used most if not all of the counters you listed on more than one occasion, I start feeling that they get REALLY stale if I keep receycling them. So I have to keep expanding the list, coming up with more and more novel approaches, some of which start to seem rather forced. And eventually it occurs to me that one zero-level spell is creating a lot more trouble for me (and presumably for all of the dungeon-contructors in game land) than it's really worth.
I don't understand why all the hubbub at all. If Detect Magic can be used to detect magical auras, and you don't want your players to find a particular [wall | keyhole | item], just make it NOT MAGICAL. Or MORE MAGICAL. Seriously, why all the hate for something that has so many counters already?I can only speak for myself, but having used most if not all of the counters you listed on more than one occasion, I start feeling that they get REALLY stale if I keep receycling them. So I have to keep expanding the list, coming up with more and more novel approaches, some of which start to seem rather forced. And eventually it occurs to me that one zero-level spell is creating a lot more trouble for me (and presumably for all of the dungeon-contructors in game land) than it's really worth.
No, YOU are creating a lot more trouble for you than it's really worth to neuter a 0th level spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, YOU are creating a lot more trouble for you than it's really worth to neuter a 0th level spell.
No, YOU can only speak for yourself. Not for everyone else. Get used to 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 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.
Heh, Joana you stirred up a real hornets nest eh.
I tried to put this rule into play in my existing PbP's, but my players had a bit of a fit in every one. I eventually made the following compromise and listed it in my house rules-
Detect Magic Changes-
1. You must make a will save against an illusions DC+2 to realise it is an illusion and have its magical aura register while using Detect Magic. The increase in DC is to represent that your not really interacting with it in any sensory way (close inspection, using hands/hearing) as well as balancing a cantrip against higher level spells. This will save will be made by me in secret.
2. You will no longer be able to detect magic auras that are part of a trap until the trap is triggered. In the process of making a magical trap, part of the creation includes a permanent Magic Aura spell masking the aura. Resetting such a trap includes a re-activation of the Magic Aura spell.
No, YOU are creating a lot more trouble for you than it's really worth to neuter a 0th level spell.No, YOU can only speak for yourself. Not for everyone else. Get used to that.
I wasn't aware I was speaking for you by assessing your making your game more difficult for yourself by trying to avoid making Detect Magic useful.
And as far as speaking for other people, aren't you on the side of nerfing the spell for the entire game because it is "too powerful?"
And as far as speaking for other people, aren't you on the side of nerfing the spell for the entire game because it is "too powerful?"
You're badly confused; in point of fact I'm on the side of nerfing the spell for my home game. You obviously forgot the words "house rule" that I came into the thread with, which is odd since you immediately (and as sarcastically as possible) declared the house rule to be stupid based on some kind of no-save cursed ring example (which to me sounded "too powerful").
|
No, YOU are creating a lot more trouble for you than it's really worth to neuter a 0th level spell.I don't understand why all the hubbub at all. If Detect Magic can be used to detect magical auras, and you don't want your players to find a particular [wall | keyhole | item], just make it NOT MAGICAL. Or MORE MAGICAL. Seriously, why all the hate for something that has so many counters already?I can only speak for myself, but having used most if not all of the counters you listed on more than one occasion, I start feeling that they get REALLY stale if I keep receycling them. So I have to keep expanding the list, coming up with more and more novel approaches, some of which start to seem rather forced. And eventually it occurs to me that one zero-level spell is creating a lot more trouble for me (and presumably for all of the dungeon-contructors in game land) than it's really worth.
The fact that it's that much trouble to weaken a CANTRIP is part of the problem.
I think most people that have any problem with the spell as written are happy with the Range: Touch solution. It's just too bad you have to show disgust and condescension towards anyone who doesn't follow a strict "Rules as Written" regimen.
The fact that it's that much trouble to weaken a CANTRIP is part of the problem.No, YOU are creating a lot more trouble for you than it's really worth to neuter a 0th level spell.I don't understand why all the hubbub at all. If Detect Magic can be used to detect magical auras, and you don't want your players to find a particular [wall | keyhole | item], just make it NOT MAGICAL. Or MORE MAGICAL. Seriously, why all the hate for something that has so many counters already?I can only speak for myself, but having used most if not all of the counters you listed on more than one occasion, I start feeling that they get REALLY stale if I keep receycling them. So I have to keep expanding the list, coming up with more and more novel approaches, some of which start to seem rather forced. And eventually it occurs to me that one zero-level spell is creating a lot more trouble for me (and presumably for all of the dungeon-contructors in game land) than it's really worth.
If I want to go out of my way to make something weaker, it is on me how far out of my way I go. I can make swinging a bloody sword look so difficult that I could argue swords should be removed from the game.
I think most people that have any problem with the spell as written are happy with the Range: Touch solution.
Those people are also failing miserably to take into consideration every single factor that makes that a bad idea. Even a 5' range is immensely better than Range: Touch. What is this? Politics? Where one side proposes blatantly asinine solutions to non-problems just so the other side will have to go ridiculously far out of their comfort zone to reach a "compromise?"
My proposal: Detect Magic is a 200' radius emanation that moves with the caster and automatically tells you the exact location down to the inch of every single magical aura and tells you their schools and subschools.
Counter proposal.
|
I don't understand why all the hubbub at all. If Detect Magic can be used to detect magical auras, and you don't want your players to find a particular [wall | keyhole | item], just make it NOT MAGICAL. Or MORE MAGICAL. Seriously, why all the hate for something that has so many counters already?I can only speak for myself, but having used most if not all of the counters you listed on more than one occasion, I start feeling that they get REALLY stale if I keep receycling them. So I have to keep expanding the list, coming up with more and more novel approaches, some of which start to seem rather forced. And eventually it occurs to me that one zero-level spell is creating a lot more trouble for me (and presumably for all of the dungeon-constructors in game land) than it's really worth.
Kirth is 100% right. Not only does it become forced it also becomes overly convoluted in an attempt for one wizard to counter another’s wizards 0 level power. Multiple layers/uses of higher level illusion spells to justify a counter to 0 level detection is piss-poor spell design. Breaks immersion and the level of power afforded to the player is due for removal.
At this point any house rule is better than the garbage as written (GAW); touch, limited use, cannot detect illusions, 1st level spell, et al, anything is better than this dried up turd of spell design.These and a few other spells deserve a good back ally curb stomp makeover; summoning, scry, teleport, gate - pretty much anything made into "Timmy" spell via overly soft 3rd ed devs.
Counter proposal.
Stop Posting
Counter proposal.Stop Posting
That's what she said. Go.
This is almost exactly like the Create Water 'debate.' And is in fact the same faces here as there. In what was is Creating Water infinitely unbalanced? It isn't. You create water once a round. That eventually goes away.
The problem is NOT that the spell exists, the problem is that the spell is able to be cast infinitely. This group of people is taking issue with the fact that ANY spell, regardless of how mundane or "powerful," can be cast an infinite number of times per day. They are then going out of their way to try and make this appear to be a bad thing and explain how it hurts their game.
"If you can cast water infinitely, then my long, hard trek across the desert where people scuttle from oasis to oasis is useless!"
Of course it is, welcome to Golarian.
If you sincerely don't want a player to use an ability available to them to do something, like use Detect Magic to, oh I dunno, find magic. Then the onus is on you to create some way for that not to work. Reading the spell is a good place to start. Once you understand the spell, and still don't like it, well too bad. Go out of your way to make everything difficult for both your players and yourself or accept the paradigm shift.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth is 100% right. Not only does it become forced it also becomes overly convoluted in an attempt for one wizard to counter another’s wizards 0 level power. Multiple layers/uses of higher level illusion spells to justify a counter to 0 level detection is piss-poor spell design. Breaks immersion and the level of power afforded to the player is due for removal.
Except that really most wizards would have something like those multiple layers of illusions spells anyway to defeat scrying and other divination attempts from spells of all levels. And not just wizards, but pretty much anyone who could afford them, which would be a lot of folks since Magic Aura is just a 1st level spell. I have a hard time understanding why people think that such defenses would be so rare in a world where divination magic of all kinds is so prevalent. If they are getting stale in your games, than after a few sessions, simply brush over the use of constant detect magic and the resultant defenses, and treat those things as going on in the background. This allows those defenses to be there, but means you don't have to bog yourself down with the details of them except in particularly extraordinary circumstances.
The problem with most people's solutions to Detect Magic is that they don't look at the bigger picture. Nerfing one cantrip or even the entire divination school doesn't fix the problem, it just causes even more difficulties in other ways. If you just accept that divination magic in general is good at what it's supposed to do, and work with it instead of against it, the solutions tend to be a lot cleaner and easier. You don't have to highlight every single defense mechanism the party comes across in order for it to be there.
Go out of your way to make everything difficult for both your players and yourself or accept the paradigm shift.
Or implement a simple solution for your group that seems to be working quite well so far, and ignore the posturings of some guy on the internet who claims that solution is "asinine" based on invoking a unique scenario so problematic that it probably deserves a thread of its own.
Except that really most wizards would have something like those multiple layers of illusions spells anyway to defeat scrying and other divination attempts from spells of all levels. And not just wizards, but pretty much anyone who could afford them, which would be a lot of folks since Magic Aura is just a 1st level spell. I have a hard time understanding why people think that such defenses would be so rare in a world where divination magic of all kinds is so prevalent. If they are getting stale in your games, than after a few sessions, simply brush over the use of constant detect magic and the resultant defenses, and treat those things as going on in the background. This allows those defenses to be there, but means you don't have to bog yourself down with the details of them except in particularly extraordinary circumstances.
The problem with most people's solutions to Detect Magic is that they don't look at the bigger picture. Nerfing one cantrip or even the entire divination school doesn't fix the problem, it just causes even more difficulties in other ways. If you just accept that divination magic in general is good at what it's supposed to do, and work with it instead of against it, the solutions tend to be a lot cleaner and easier. You don't have to highlight every single defense mechanism the party comes across in order for it to be there.
I addressed that point earlier: the simplest thing that wizards would realistically start doing, once they realized that detecting all their magic was so easy, would be to paint everything in lead-based paint. Certainly if I were a wizard setting magic traps in detect-magic-at-will land, that's what I would do. Scraping off the paint to detect magic would then require you to touch the said objects. Changing the range to touch is nothing more than a verbiage-saving way of describing your whole post.
|
|
Reading the spell is a good place to start. Once you understand the spell, and still don't like it, well too bad. Go out of your way to make everything difficult for both your players and yourself or accept the paradigm shift.
Or limit the use of the spell to 4/day, change it to 1st level, change it to touch, require a caster check to detect illusions, etc. I've read many good options here. It's all very simple actually.
Only mindless idiots accept the "pardigm shift", if the pardigm shift is a series of bad rules or spell design.
And the only one that has to accept "well too bad" here is you. The DMs with the brains can make all the proper adjustments and need not worry about the 3.5 committee coming after them - since no one cares what they have to say.
Edit: what he said
That's what she said. Go.
This is almost exactly like the Create Water 'debate.' And is in fact the same faces here as there. In what was is Creating Water infinitely unbalanced? It isn't. You create water once a round. That eventually goes away.
The problem is NOT that the spell exists, the problem is that the spell is able to be cast infinitely. This group of people is taking issue with the fact that ANY spell, regardless of how mundane or "powerful," can be cast an infinite number of times per day. They are then going out of their way to try and make this appear to be a bad thing and explain how it hurts their game."If you can cast water infinitely, then my long, hard trek across the desert where people scuttle from oasis to oasis is useless!"
Of course it is, welcome to Golarian.
If you sincerely don't want a player to use an ability available to them to do something, like use Detect Magic to, oh I dunno, find magic. Then the onus is on you to create some way for that not to work. Reading the spell is a good place to start. Once you understand the spell, and still don't like it, well too bad. Go out of your way to make everything difficult for both your players and yourself or accept the paradigm shift.
I don't always agree with you, but this time, I do. Unlimited cantrips require a slight change in how you run your game, but it doesn't break the game. Neither unlimited create water, detect magic, or any other cantrip is going to hurt immersion if you set the world up correctly in the first place, with appropriate counter measures, defenses, and the use of the fact that any regular spamming of cantrips at the level people complain about is going to mark you as a crazy loon, and get you mocked by any serious spell caster. You don't have to specifically highlight every single countermeasure taken, and if the player insists on constantly abusing cantrips, if you can use the tediousness of the defenses to drive home the point that this routine enough of an occurance that they aren't going to get very far doing it. The world as a whole doesn't always have to be a hyperfun place even if you strive to make your adventures so.
Neither unlimited create water, detect magic, or any other cantrip is going to hurt immersion if you set the world up correctly in the first place...
See above. Please. The most obvious countermeasure is one that effectively changes the range of detect magic to touch. Or you can just change the range to touch. In either case, the end result is pretty well the same.
I addressed that point earlier: the simplest thing that wizards would realistically start doing, once they realized that detecting all their magic was so easy, would be to paint everything in lead-based paint. Certainly if I were a wizard setting magic traps in detect-magic-at-will land, that's what I would do. Scraping off the paint to detect magic would then require you to touch the said objects. Changing the range to touch is nothing more than a verbiage-saving way of describing your whole post.
So how do you handle linger auras? That's a point no one who makes changes to detect magic seem willing to answer. You can't touch them, and many people's adjustments would make them basically impossible to identify anything about even when they can be detected, so do you just throw that section of the spell out? You may simplify the spell itself, but you do nothing to deal with the greater problem of how divination magic at all levels interacts with the world and other magic, especially illusion magic, which seems to involve a lot of complicated fixes on top of already existing mechanisms to deal with that issue.
|
|
"If you can cast water infinitely, then my long, hard trek across the desert where people scuttle from oasis to oasis is useless!"Of course it is, welcome to Golarian.
If you sincerely don't want a player to use an ability available to them to do something, like use Detect Magic to, oh I dunno, find magic. Then the onus is on you to create some way for that not to work. Reading the spell is a good place to start. Once you understand the spell, and still don't like it, well too bad. Go out of your way to make everything difficult for both your players and yourself or accept the paradigm shift.
Again you're failing to acknowledge that there is a responsibility on the part of the game's designers to account for these kinds of changes.
I submit that in a world where water is a limitless resource there would be no deserts at all. Just have your acolytes work in shifts watering everything infinitely. And why not? THERE IS NO LIMIT.
It is perfectly acceptable to make these kinds of things happen in a game. To then try and draw parallels to any form of common fantasy setting is where we run into problems.
So, I'll say again, do we think that Pathfinder represents a setting where people have adapted to the facts that illusions have less value and water is not a resource?
So how do you handle linger auras? That's a point no one who makes changes to detect magic seem willing to answer.
Only because it hasn't been asked. And I'd say that just because a lingering aura isn't tangible doesn't mean you can't stick your hand where it was. Touch the floor and detect the lingering aura of the imprisonment spell that used to be active at that location.
Again you're failing to acknowledge that there is a responsibility on the part of the game's designers to account for these kinds of changes.
I submit that in a world where water is a limitless resource there would be no deserts at all. Just have your acolytes work in shifts watering everything infinitely. And why not? THERE IS NO LIMIT.
It is perfectly acceptable to make these kinds of things happen in a game. To then try and draw parallels to any form of common fantasy setting is where we run into problems.
So, I'll say again, do we think that Pathfinder represents a setting where people have adapted to the facts that illusions have less value and water is not a resource?
There are plenty of limits; many people's proposals for create water would basically turn acolytes into slaves, not something that would fit most religions well, and assume more a great deal more acolytes than are actually available. Not to mention, it's pretty easy to kill the acolytes and break up anything built on the assumption that the acolytes will be there. Also, infighting between the acolytes and those who would use them would limit effectiveness of the strategy, as would the constant presence of outside enemies preventing the full deployment of said acolytes.
D&D and PF already aren't like any other common fantasy setting and never has been. Making that kind of comparison is pointless.
Illusions don't have less value because you still have to be able to identify which illusion, if any, is being used at any given time. Given the large number of illusions, that means that instead of asking if an illusion is being used, you simply change the question to which one and how. Water is still a resource, since simply generating it doesn't help if you can't get it to where it is needed, which is often the bigger task even in the real world. Add on top of this, the fact that in Golarion, the assumption is that magic users of any kind, even adepts, are relatively rare, and it doesn't become that hard to handle.
So how do you handle linger auras? That's a point no one who makes changes to detect magic seem willing to answer.Only because it hasn't been asked. And I'd say that just because a lingering aura isn't tangible doesn't mean you can't stick your hand where it was. Touch the floor and detect the lingering aura of the imprisonment spell that used to be active at that location.
Actually I asked that very question in a couple of threads on this topic and got completely ignored. On the broader topic, I personally like the fact that the fact that cantrips are unlimited, because it never made sense that the little tricks you used to learn magic could only be fully used 4 time a day the second you start adventuring when you probably did them 100 times or more per day while training. Does it change certain assumptions? Sure, but nothing all that big; the defenses should already be there for the higher level spells, they just come into play at level 1 instead of level 10. Economic and political realities would balance out the rest of the cantrips, just as they do spells of every other level; they just become more apparent earlier.
Neither unlimited create water, detect magic, or any other cantrip is going to hurt immersion if you set the world up correctly in the first place...See above. Please. The most obvious countermeasure is one that effectively changes the range of detect magic to touch. Or you can just change the range to touch. In either case, the end result is pretty well the same.
Why touch? Why not 5'? Touch is patently absurd. You touch something poisoned. You die. You touch something cursed. You die. You touch a trap. You set it off and die. Touch is not less absurd than a 200' radius emanation from the caster.