|
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."
So only if they HAVE to find it for the plot to progress?
I'm just satisfying my curiousity. I run illusion spells and traps as automatically having their auras hidden, so I wanted to get a different perspective on it.
|
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 throwIt'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.
I'm not running a Pathfinder Society Game. Its not disregard for the system, because the system can be used however myself and the players decide it can be used. There is a trust agreement between players and GM when you sit down to play the game, as long as that isn't broken there isnt a problem. I talked to my players at the beginning and told them the style of campaign I was running. If anyone had a major problem with those limitations, I would have found an alternative method of protecting those who needed it from divination spells.
The point was to help create the gameplay that allowed a nine player party to all have a hand in what happens rather than just the wizard and cleric. What is the point of things like having a spymaster if you are going to allow the wizard to walk in somewhere cast a few spells and take away a big chunk of his role?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't understand why any DM would hide something in-game without, on some level, actually wanting it to be found. I can understand why the in-game Wizard casting, say, an Illusionary Wall spell wants to keep the secret passage behind it hidden, sure... but why on earth would any DM put such stuff in a game except to have it found? It'd be like hiding a bunch of Easter eggs and prefering it if the kids don't find them and they instead go all moldy behind the sofa...
Detect Magic, as a cantrip in the hands of the PCs, is a great tool for the DM to use to advance the plot... why be a hater? ;)
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."So only if they HAVE to find it for the plot to progress?
I'm just satisfying my curiousity. I run illusion spells and traps as automatically having their auras hidden, so I wanted to get a different perspective on it.
If they don't find it because they didn't look for it, they don't find it. That is wholly different from fiating them to make them unfindable.
The point was to help create the gameplay that allowed a nine player party to all have a hand in what happens rather than just the wizard and cleric. What is the point of things like having a spymaster if you are going to allow the wizard to walk in somewhere cast a few spells and take away a big chunk of his role?
A more appropriate question is why YOU thought there is a point in a mundane "spymaster" when one could hire a Wizard to do it for you - both spying and protection.
There ISN'T a point in having something like a spymaster, at least not a mundane one. That is my point. All your attempts at rhetorical questions always just keep begging the question of why you think they are rhetorical in the way you are using them. The answer is "Of course not." Which makes it rhetorical. However, the rest of the answer is "But why would there be?" You are trying to shoe-horn non-magical sensibilities into a world shrouded with magic.I'm just not getting it. At all. Why are you playing a game system where magic is the backbone?
|
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.
So the purpose of Detect Magic is to give you knowledge that something is an illusion, thus defeating the purpose of tricking someone into thinking otherwise – got it. Detect Magic = Illusions Useless
If you can't get this then the argument is going to be impossible. If you cannot differentiate between why keeping illusions as mechanically covert as possible (not saying impossible to detect, just shouldn't be done by a 0 level at-will ability) then you are beyond help.
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.
Wow, clueless on the rules and talking trash. Mending does 1d4 points of repair per use. So multiple uses on an applicable item with the broken condition and once at half hp it loses that condition. You can even repair magic items with this spell. Try to be more informed before you spew ignorant attacks at others.
All of the pieces of an object must be present for this spell to function.
Magic items can be repaired by this spell, but you must have a caster level equal to or higher than that of the object. Magic items that are destroyed (at 0 hit points or less) can be repaired with this spell, but this spell does not restore their magic abilities. This spell does not affect creatures (including constructs). This spell has no effect on objects that have been warped or otherwise transmuted, but it can still repair damage done to such items.
Done
So the purpose of Detect Magic is to give you knowledge that something is an illusion, thus defeating the purpose of tricking someone into thinking otherwise – got it. Detect Magic = Illusions Useless
Detect Magic doesn't even remotely tell you something is an illusion. You are informed that something in a 5' square is an illusion.
If you can't get this then the argument is going to be impossible. If you cannot differentiate between why keeping illusions as mechanically covert as possible (not saying impossible to detect, just shouldn't be done by a 0 level at-will ability) then you are beyond help.
As are those nerfing Detect Magic because their own houserules make it over powerful by making it an "interaction" with an Illusion spell.
Or making Detect Magic automatically tell you what is an Illusion as opposed to telling you an Illusion exists.You all realize that an ally telling you SPECIFICALLY that a SPECIFIC THING is not real only gives you a BONUS to your saving throw to disbelieve it? Why the hell is Detect Magic doing all this crazy powerful crap you people are letting it do solely so you can nerf it for being too powerful?
|
One of the problems with cantrips is that Paizo really didn't bother to change them much, but added the ability to spam them all day long. Detect Magic wasn't overpowered in 3.X, because you could only cast it a few times a day. Now you can cast it every time you see something vaguely suspicious and/or unfamiliar.
I'm just satisfying my curiousity. I run illusion spells and traps as automatically having their auras hidden, so I wanted to get a different perspective on it.
From my perspective, the idea seems perfectly reasonable to me. Hidden traps and illusions are intended to hide their true nature. I'd consider both hiding their magic auras in a world with detect magic spells to be appropriate.
I would consider giving the caster using detect magic to be making a perception check against the trap's detection DC to detect it, though. That seems reasonable to me as well.
One of the problems with cantrips is that Paizo really didn't bother to change them much, but added the ability to spam them all day long. Detect Magic wasn't overpowered in 3.X, because you could only cast it a few times a day. Now you can cast it every time you see something vaguely suspicious and/or unfamiliar.
I don't really think this is a bad thing. If you're tossing something at them that gets any deception blown away with a simple detect magic, you couldn't count on them not blowing it in 3x either just because the resource wasn't at will. Simply put, this just encourages the DM to raise the bar on his deceptions so they're not vulnerable to weak detection attempts.
|
I don't really think this is a bad thing. If you're tossing something at them that gets any deception blown away with a simple detect magic, you couldn't count on them not blowing it in 3x either just because the resource wasn't at will. Simply put, this just encourages the DM to raise the bar on his deceptions so they're not vulnerable to weak detection attempts.
True. And as someone point out a while ago - many DMs just haven't acclimated to that level yet since the rule switch.
Robert
|
|
You all realize that an ally telling you SPECIFICALLY that a SPECIFIC THING is not real only gives you a BONUS to your saving throw to disbelieve it? Why the hell is Detect Magic doing all this crazy powerful crap you people are letting it do solely so you can nerf it for being too powerful?
The nature of illusion is wholly different than other types of magic.
Something you are not getting here - and tbh I am not sure if you can get it.The bolded part – your statement – just reinforces the vulnerability the school of illusionary magic has over other types. Someone detects/interacts then everyone else gets a bonus to bypass. What other schools of magic need to deal with that? None.
Illusion often creates false reality/dangers which in turn are mitigated by belief - or knowledge that an illusion even exists. By revealing the fact that an illusion is in a 5ft area you have borked the illusion far more than any other school of magic. Just that little bit of knowledge alone has reduced the usefulness of the illusion spell used.
In other words it's too much of a tell, especially for a crap 0 level spell like Detect Magic.
I don't run DM hitting an illusion as interaction. If DM hits an illusion that is higher than DM (almost all illusions) then he gets nothing or whatever the original caster wants it to ping. All other detection spells require a caster check in addition to a Spellcraft DC when interacting with illusions. Failed caster check = false ping.
|
|
The point was to help create the gameplay that allowed a nine player party to all have a hand in what happens rather than just the wizard and cleric. What is the point of things like having a spymaster if you are going to allow the wizard to walk in somewhere cast a few spells and take away a big chunk of his role?
A more appropriate question is why YOU thought there is a point in a mundane "spymaster" when one could hire a Wizard to do it for you - both spying and protection.
There ISN'T a point in having something like a spymaster, at least not a mundane one. That is my point. All your attempts at rhetorical questions always just keep begging the question of why you think they are rhetorical in the way you are using them. The answer is "Of course not." Which makes it rhetorical. However, the rest of the answer is "But why would there be?" You are trying to shoe-horn non-magical sensibilities into a world shrouded with magic.I'm just not getting it. At all. Why are you playing a game system where magic is the backbone?
Kingmaker, the designers put it in there. So I'm not shoehorning anything. I already stated that these aren't our normal rules we play by. They were created specifically for this one game, because of the nature of it.
I am playing in a game system where everyone enjoying themselves and having fun is the backbone. If you were a player in my world and didnt like these changes, I would have just proliferated rings of non-detection to nobles/officials I wanted protected, or added several NPCs to travel with them blocking divination, or soemthing along those lines. Same thing is accomplished. I just chose a different method. My players are okay with it, because they understand why those changes were made specifically for this story.
Cartigan, I am really surprised that you seem to have this my belief that your idea of Pathfinder(whether its raw or otherwise)= the only "right way" to play the game. At least that is what gets conveyed to me through your posts.
One of the problems with cantrips is that Paizo really didn't bother to change them much, but added the ability to spam them all day long. Detect Magic wasn't overpowered in 3.X, because you could only cast it a few times a day. Now you can cast it every time you see something vaguely suspicious and/or unfamiliar.
Given how much power is attributed to it, even casting it a limited number of times per day wouldn't be a limiter. A single casting could ruin a DM's entire day!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The nature of illusion is wholly different than other types of magic.
Something you are not getting here - and tbh I am not sure if you can get it.
You are failing to realize my argument is "No, it's not."
The bolded part – your statement – just reinforces the vulnerability the school of illusionary magic has over other types.
...what
Someone detects/interacts then everyone else gets a bonus to bypass. What other schools of magic need to deal with that? None.
How many schools have to deal with Evasion? Evocation
How many schools have to deal with piercing SR and Spell Resistance? Evocation almost universally.Clearly Evocation sucks more than Illusion.
Illusion spells are imaginary spells. Deal with it. "Wahh, I can't make my illusion spells undetectable!" So what? You are working with a school of magic immensely more versatile than any other than maybe Conjuration. And even Conjuration doesn't get spells that lets you mimic other schools of magic.
Illusion often creates false reality/dangers which in turn are mitigated by belief - or knowledge that an illusion even exists.
Yes, that is the balancing factor of illusions. Just like the best divinations need you to know what you are looking for.
By revealing the fact that an illusion is in a 5ft area you have borked the illusion far more than any other school of magic.
What.
Just that little bit of knowledge alone has reduced the usefulness of the illusion spell used.
No. It hasn't. Knowing an illusion spell exists is not tantamount to knowing something is an illusion. That's what you don't understand and I don't think I can make you, and a surprising number of other people, understand.
In other words it's too much of a tell, especially for a crap 0 level spell like Detect Magic.
I throw a bag of flour at an invisible creature. I have negated its invisibility. That's not even a spell! I vote we nerf bags of flour.
Kingmaker, the designers put it in there. So I'm not shoehorning anything.
Don't even get me started on the designers.
|
|
So the purpose of Detect Magic is to give you knowledge that something is an illusion, thus defeating the purpose of tricking someone into thinking otherwise – got it. Detect Magic = Illusions UselessDetect Magic doesn't even remotely tell you something is an illusion. You are informed that something in a 5' square is an illusion.
If you can't get this then the argument is going to be impossible. If you cannot differentiate between why keeping illusions as mechanically covert as possible (not saying impossible to detect, just shouldn't be done by a 0 level at-will ability) then you are beyond help.As are those nerfing Detect Magic because their own houserules make it over powerful by making it an "interaction" with an Illusion spell.
Or making Detect Magic automatically tell you what is an Illusion as opposed to telling you an Illusion exists.
I think the point that may or may not be being missed or possibly ignored is that Detect Magic allows for an illusion to found so easily. Now that in and of itself is not the issue - illusions are obviously a source of befuddlement that is meant to increase the challenges facing heroes.
The problem that many have with the issue is that not that Detect Magic helps to significantly diminish the effect of illusions; it's that having it in a limitless supply means that these obstacles are no longer the challenge that they once created.
This thread has been greatly helpful for those who feel this way by giving some additional ways to make detect magic not interfere as easily or improve the usefulness of illusion spells (i.e. ruling that "illusions include within them a built-in means to masking their magical emanation; or aura.)
Page 211 of Core Rules states:
Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened.
Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation.
There's nothing indicating that a DM can or cant include the senses of magical detection as those being deceived.
However the book also says about figments:
"Figments cannot make something seem to be something else"
So while you could theoretically rule that an illusion deceives the the magical detection as well, you couldn't for instance make the illusion aura read as evocation.
Why the hell is Detect Magic doing all this crazy powerful crap you people are letting it do solely so you can nerf it for being too powerful?
As was explained earlier it's the fact that the unlimited use of Detect Magic makes it far simply via 60ft cone to search an area without even having to truly enter or search or express any level of roleplaying interaction with scene or setting to learn that something is 'amiss'. It can eliminate or at least greatly diminishes a great deal of party searching, teamwork, roleplaying opportunities, and encounter based challenges - at least many that haven't been previously doctored with a bunch of ad hoc counter-measures.
The truth of the matter is that once a character group is given that measure of info 'that something is amiss' that the Players will now not stop searching or doing anything in their power until they figure it out - which in many instances may have been overlooked instead, increasing the challenge or difficulty and adding back the level of mystery and intrigue that wouldn't be there otherwise.
You've specifically said you're not opposed to the notion that it's okay if PCs don't find a hidden passage etc 'so long as it's not story-dependant' (which makes some sense), but having the unlimited detect magic makes it nearly impossible to have this even as an option for those NOT dependant on story progression.
You all realize that an ally telling you SPECIFICALLY that a SPECIFIC THING is not real only gives you a BONUS to your saving throw to disbelieve it?
While this is true, in the same paragraph that stipulates this, also says:
So with that in mind, it's completely commonplace now for "detect magic" to detect something is amiss, determine it's an illusion, and viola - "proof that it's an illusion"; the only allowing a +4 saving throw modifier (which is already a decent benefit) isn't so much of a balancer any longer. Interaction isn't even a prerequisite any longer.
I don't think this all is a problem for everyone. For some if not many, it is. Some people feel like it's important to keep track of material components, or rations, or weather conditions and effects. Others prefer that it's not in their style to worry about them. I don't think disparriging others for their preference in style is good form. For those who feel Detect Magic ruins alot of the fun, by all means should feel encouraged to find a more comforatable fashion with which to have it employed.
For me - in earlier editions of D&D, I never had a problem as DM with having my magic traps and/or illusions be foiled by Detect Magic because it was a very limited daily resource. In this era of D&D the at will takes alot of that fun away - fun where players were instead forced to rely on their own creative cleverness in figuring things out. So I altered the spell instead of removing the ability to have unlimited 0 level spells.
Someone pointed out that since making cantrip unlimited, their descriptions didn't really change - which is true with the exception of Daze; which can now only affect a single target once.
Robert
|
|
The bolded part – your statement – just reinforces the vulnerability the school of illusionary magic has over other types. Someone detects/interacts then everyone else gets a bonus to bypass. What other schools of magic need to deal with that? None.
It's not just a +4 bonus in many cases, it's an automatic ability to 'disbelieve' as I pointed out in my previous post.
"Look - this wall is an illusion."
[pushes hand through wall]
"I see!"
[proof of it being an illusion]
"Clever wizard wasn't smart enough to mask the magical aura."
[walks through wall]
I know a thing or two about illusions. My Pathfinder Society character Kharnak is a wizard who is a Diviniation Specialist wizard, but most of his daily spells daily that aren't divination are conjuration or illusion. He uses more illusions daily than any other type of spell. I am forced to be creative with them for them to be effective.
Regardless I know the rules on thwarting them all too well.
Robert
As was explained earlier it's the fact that the unlimited use of Detect Magic makes it far simply via 60ft cone to search an area without even having to truly enter or search or express any level of roleplaying interaction with scene or setting to learn that something is 'amiss'. It can eliminate or at least greatly diminishes a great deal of party searching, teamwork, roleplaying opportunities, and encounter based challenges - at least many that haven't been previously doctored with a bunch of ad hoc counter-measures.
Really? Detect Magic makes it so the players don't have to play the game? Perhaps you should dispense with using so much illusions/magic traps in your game?
Does away with party searching? What do you think Detect Magic is?Team work? The Wizard finds the magic trap for the Rogue to disarm.
Role-playing opportunities? Surrounding illusory walls and magic traps? You people will shoe-horn role-playing into anything.
Encounter based challenges? The Wizard finds the illusory wall being used as by a DM who thinks himself clever to hide the switch to turn off the electrical grid floor then pulls the lever to turn it off. Encounter overcome. Congratulations, you get exp.
The truth of the matter is that once a character group is given that measure of info 'that something is amiss' that the Players will now not stop searching or doing anything in their power until they figure it out
Great. If they fail to find what the illusion is or fail the save to disbelieve it, they can search all day and still won't find anything.
It's not just a +4 bonus in many cases, it's an automatic ability to 'disbelieve' as I pointed out in my previous post.
"Look - this wall is an illusion."
[pushes hand through wall]
"I see!"
[proof of it being an illusion]
"Clever wizard wasn't smart enough to mask the magical aura."
[walks through wall]
Why is he pushing his hand through the wall? Presumably because he already made his save to disbelieve it. What does this have to do with Detect Magic?
So with that in mind, it's completely commonplace now for "detect magic" to detect something is amiss, determine it's an illusion, and viola - "proof that it's an illusion";
Oh, I can see why it's too powerful - you are houseruling it to make it too powerful. You reaffirm my argument.
|
|
I throw a bag of flour at an invisible creature. I have negated its invisibility. That's not even a spell! I vote...
AHA~! PERFECT! That's exactly what I and others have lobbied for. That is a player thinking outside the box, finding alternate means of troubleshooting. That's clever, creative, roleplaying 101.
It requires the flour to be in inventory or easily acquired, but it also allowed a player to be inventive, and have a non unlimited and conventional resource to overcome the challenge before them.
During 3rd edition (before 3.5 even), I once played a hobbit rogue sitting in a tavern - we knew we were being followed. Somehow I figured out than an invisible assassin was stalking me in the tavern and would strike soon.
I hailed for the wench to quickly bring me a gallon of milk - I paid for it, tipped her handsomely for her quick response, and then proceeded to pour the milk out on the floor in a circle around me so that I could look for footprints when he approached me - it bought me enough time for my companions to prepare a defense.
This was 10+ years ago, so I can't remember details, but I'm guessing the wizard at that point had used his "detect magic" for the day.
Robert
Back in the day (1st/2nd edition and B/E/C/M versions), the normal standard operating procedure was that first you'd clear out and secure an area of the dungeon, and then you'd move back through with all your detect spells/gems of seeing/etc to make sure you hadn't missed any treasure or secret rooms or other such. Some pc's would supplement this with disintegrate spells and the like as necessarily to 'remodel' the dungeon. Running detect magic all the time simply wasn't done.One of the problems with cantrips is that Paizo really didn't bother to change them much, but added the ability to spam them all day long. Detect Magic wasn't overpowered in 3.X, because you could only cast it a few times a day. Now you can cast it every time you see something vaguely suspicious and/or unfamiliar.Given how much power is attributed to it, even casting it a limited number of times per day wouldn't be a limiter. A single casting could ruin a DM's entire day!
I don't even know what your argument is.
AHA~! PERFECT! That's exactly what I and others have lobbied for. That is a player thinking outside the box, finding alternate means of troubleshooting. That's clever, creative, roleplaying 101.
I throw a bag of flour at an invisible creature. I have negated its invisibility. That's not even a spell! I vote...
Using Detect Magic to hunt down an invisible creature is thinking outside the box. Is Detect Magic "See Invisible?" No? Then using the spell to even try to hunt down something invisible is a non-standard solution. Not only is it thinking outside the box, it is immensely more difficult than winging a round a bag of flour.
It requires the flour to be in inventory or easily acquired, but it also allowed a player to be inventive, and have a non unlimited and conventional resource to overcome the challenge before them.
Or instead, you can use create water and throw a few gallons of water around and reveal them that way. Rain on your parade any? (Pun intended)
|
|
Why is he pushing his hand through the wall? Presumably because he already made his save to disbelieve it. What does this have to do with Detect Magic?
As I said - Detect Magic allowed the easy find of the wall.
"Something is magical over here"
"What is it?"
"I don't know but there's not much here it's just a wall."
"Perhaps the wall itself is magical. It may be an illusion. Toss this stone with "light spell on it" to find out."
[Stone goes through, light now spills from the other side creating shadows of yourselves on the wall behind you]
"See! Illusion"
[everyone walks through]
Like I said - in previous editions, this could happen maybe once a game - and I had no problem w/ players discovering this in this way once in a while.
Now it's not as viable of an option as all such instances can be discovered so easily.
Oh, I can see why it's too powerful - you are houseruling it to make it too powerful. You reaffirm my argument.
Wrong. See above.
Unless something in my narrative indicated that I used Detect Magic via houserules.
Robert
Or instead, you can use create water and throw a few gallons of water around and reveal them that way. Rain on your parade any? (Pun intended)Once again - another unlimited resource that is an extension of the pros and cons discussion of this thread.
You could not have possibly made a better case for my argument than that simple statement even if you had said "Cantrips bad, everything else good."
This generally left your various magical tricks and traps and such effective and inobvious during the active phase of the adventure. That's what a lot of the posters here are annoyed by.
No, that's really not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just not getting it. At all. Why are you playing a game system where magic is the backbone?
It's very myopic to consider using the D&D or Pathfinder rules in one catch-all campaign setting style.
They are intended to be compatible with a number of styles, flavors, and settings. They are designed to be adjustable when the setting of the campaing is counter-intuitive to the rules as written.
Ravenloft, Planescape, Dark Sun, Midnight, Eberron, Birthright to name a few are vastly different than the default cookie-cutter Golarion type realm. But they are no less viable, certainly just as entertaining to those that favor them; but each has a certain style and flavor of their own that does not necessarily interact well with the high level of magic use you are preaching about.
If someone wanted to run a "Game of Thrones" esque setting, a la Birthright campaign setting, then the otherwise high level of magic that is rampant in other campaigns would be counter-intuitive and certain stretches of the rules, alterations, modifications, additions, deletions etc would be paramount towards it being a successful campaing.
Published alternate settings do this for you. Ravenloft greatly alters a number of spells - especially Divine. Midnight setting removed divine spellcasting. Thus there is a precendence set that certiain default rulings need be changed to move away from the default setting style.
I personally do not assume that the way I play is the way that everyone does, and I certainly do not feel that my way is the only right way to play the game. Most RPGs, and the fun within is very subjective to the player/DM and their group as a whole. If you're lucky you find others with similar preferences, or at least the ability to compromise and accept what your style is.
Robert
As I said - Detect Magic allowed the easy find of the wall.
"Something is magical over here"
"What is it?"
"I don't know but there's not much here it's just a wall."
"Perhaps the wall itself is magical. It may be an illusion. Toss this stone with "light spell on it" to find out."
[Stone goes through, light now spills from the other side creating shadows of yourselves on the wall behind you]
"See! Illusion"
[everyone walks through]
I kind of see what you're getting at with this, but in this case, I still say that even though the wall itself was found to be magical, the party still had to overcome a challenge. Maybe in this case, the wall was real and the illusion was actually a stone floor covering up a hole leading 50' down to doom; perhaps the wall was real but the illusion was in concealing a hidden lever. Even in this case when the wall wasn't real, the party came up with a way to test their theory safely (instead of just walking over and sticking their hand up against it, etc.) resulting in a manner of overcoming the challenge.
Was it as difficult as the DM wanted it to be? No, but Detect Magic in this case didn't result in a "You Win" button, either.
All that said, although it's totally not RAW, I don't see an issue with having an illusion actually fool the person using detect magic (after all, overriding the senses they are employing while detecting magic) unless they do either a perception or caster level check against it during their scan.
I'm just not getting it. At all. Why are you playing a game system where magic is the backbone?
It's very myopic to consider using the D&D or Pathfinder rules in one catch-all campaign setting style.
They are intended to be compatible with a number of styles, flavors, and settings. They are designed to be adjustable when the setting of the campaing is counter-intuitive to the rules as written.
Ravenloft, Planescape, Dark Sun, Midnight, Eberron, Birthright to name a few are vastly different than the default cookie-cutter Golarion type realm. But they are no less viable, certainly just as entertaining to those that favor them; but each has a certain style and flavor of their own that does not necessarily interact well with the high level of magic use you are preaching about.
If someone wanted to run a "Game of Thrones" esque setting, a la Birthright campaign setting, then the otherwise high level of magic that is rampant in other campaigns would be counter-intuitive and certain stretches of the rules, alterations, modifications, additions, deletions etc would be paramount towards it being a successful campaing.
Published alternate settings do this for you. Ravenloft greatly alters a number of spells - especially Divine. Midnight setting removed divine spellcasting. Thus there is a precendence set that certiain default rulings need be changed to move away from the default setting style.
I personally do not assume that the way I play is the way that everyone does, and I certainly do not feel that my way is the only right way to play the game. Most RPGs, and the fun within is very subjective to the player/DM and their group as a whole. If you're lucky you find others with similar preferences, or at least the ability to compromise and accept what your style is.
Except most people aren't playing any of those settings or any other sort of fairly expansive system change. Either they are snipping one thing or other here and there for short-sighted reasons or they are altering the system to be something it isn't designed as, like low magic. People want to take cookie-cutter Golarion and then drill holes in it and see if it stays together.
|
OK, can the person that made the thread go such way that Cartigan is one of more sensible posters please stand up?Why don't you quote it so you can show us all how smart you are?
He is right...everyone here is whining about how "overpowered" Detect Magic is, and is doing nothing to work with the fact that it is now different then it was in 3.5, instead choosing to whine about it and nerf the spell.
That is lame.That is very lame.
Cantrips by RAW are unlimited uses per day. Get. Over. That. Fact.
Or, as Evil Lincoln said it, houserule it and get over it.
Houserule it back to 3.5 days and everyone is happy.
Don't whine about it.
Cartigan made the most sensible argument here.
|
|
You could not have possibly made a better case for my argument than that simple statement even if you had said "Cantrips bad, everything else good."
Or instead, you can use create water and throw a few gallons of water around and reveal them that way. Rain on your parade any? (Pun intended)Once again - another unlimited resource that is an extension of the pros and cons discussion of this thread.
No, you're putting words in my post.
I didn't say Cantrips are bad. I said "unlimited use" is the problem -not bad per se - just challenging. And only in certain cases. It's really not bad in all cases. Certain spells when used unlimited have a tendency to be overly useful. Daze is unlimited - but the very spell only allows it to be used vs humanoids, and only once per target. It was well-thought out and altered to fit into the new style of "unlimited" access to it.
[Side bar off topic converstaion]
I had this player a while ago that that fell in love with 3rd edition; he thought that Haste allowing two spells to be cast each round was a wonderful improvement to the game.
Every other person that we came into contact with said 'that is way too powerful for Haste spell to do.'
Not Mike though - he argued till he was blue in the face, he slung insults, rhetoric, truly bad examples of play, put people down for not agreeing with him, etc, all in the name of defending how he felt. '
By now I'm sure it would be no surprise to learn that Mike was playing: a sorcerer! A halfling sorcerer that cast haste nearly every combat.
I'm sure none of his staunch support of this spell had anything to do with being self-serving, right?
In truth, he was truly afraid that if enough people made noise and objected to it that his "fair and balanced 3rd level spell" would suddenly leave him unable to take advantage and nearly abuse an obvious glaring over-powered aspect of the game.
He stopped playing when 3.5 was released. Havn't seen him since. Has hated the designers ever since and complains that they have ruined the game and don't know what they're doing. Dont get him started about the designers. Of course his vehement defense of the previous setting was very self-serving. We all knew that. Didn't take a psychology major or detect magic spell to see past that illusion.
[/Side bar off topic converstaion]
Really? Detect Magic makes it so the players don't have to play the game?
Hyperbole and rhetoric at best. No one said that. It was said that it does make certain elements of the game less challenging and allows for a lot more laziness in creativity. But only a small portion of the game; as a whole it's still a wonderful game full of fun and entertainment and Paizo has improved it a great deal from its predecessors.
Encounter based challenges? The Wizard finds the illusory wall being used as by a DM who thinks himself clever to hide the switch to turn off the electrical grid floor then pulls the lever to turn it off. Encounter overcome. Congratulations, you get exp.
Now THAT is a very clever ingenuitive trap and set up. Well done. And in previous editions, that MAY have been triggered more than 10% of the time. And so long as it's not storyline dependant to flip that switch, it shouldn't be a horrible tragedy to the campaign that characters failed to notice that one in time.
I would have had no problem if in previous editions a player just happened to be very paranoid about a specific hallway - perhaps he had heard rumors, or clues of other scorched corpses, or knew who's lair he was entering was known for clever traps - and just to be cautious opted to burn his 1 or even 2 times a day he could detect magic to help find anything out of the norm.
The way I have seen players utilize the spell lately begs the question "why even both introducing such a trap?"
I'm willing to be that the DM in question of the OP, was such a DM. Perhaps he isn't experienced enough (yet) to find a way to circumnavigate the nuances of the spell. Perhaps he lacks the creativity to do so. Perhaps he was caught off guard and made a poor decision to thwart it ad-hoc style because it spoiled an important moment for him. Perhaps he just prefers a different and less magical style of play.
Regardless of why, it doesn't change the fact that if what detect magic can do was not unlimited in the game, he may not have had to deal with making that questionable choice.
Role-playing opportunities? Surrounding illusory walls and magic traps? You people will shoe-horn role-playing into anything.
Uh, yeah. I do like roleplaying to go with my roleplaying games. Then again I prefer cheese on my cheesburgers. I'm eccentric that way.
Robert
|
|
A question? Do your players actualy go around dungeons constanlty having DM active? That is lame. When one of my players suggested that, others shut him up immediately. Also, they mostly use DM when they identify magic items, or when they cannot bypass a barrier by mundane means.
A wizard or sorcerer going around constantly spamming detect magic is a badly played character.
|
|
Except most people aren't playing any of those settings or any other sort of fairly expansive system change. Either they are snipping one thing or other here and People want to take cookie-cutter Golarion and then drill holes in it and see if it stays together....
We're not talking about Golarion.
We're talking about Detect Magic as it applies in the Core Rules of the game - which is universal to all worlds.
You asked why someone would want to pigeon hole the "magical rules" into a campaign that are clearly designed to be of high magic.
But in truth they don't have to be.
And even if they are snipping facets of Ravenloft and placing them in Golarion (a la Ustalav) or vice versus or whatever - that's well within their rights a DM to create the setting they want to convey to their players.
There's no wrong way to play the game. So long as the participants are enjoying themselves; that's what matters. It's a game. Games were designed to be entertaining and fun.
Robert
|
|
All that said, although it's totally not RAW, I don't see an issue with having an illusion actually fool the person using detect magic (after all, overriding the senses they are employing while detecting magic) unless they do either a perception or caster level check against it during their scan.
And this is precisely what has been recommended (among other ideas).
Robert
Or relatedly, why not roll up a Magic Aura Metamagic for +1 spell-level: any spell can have it`s Aura modified as cast?
|
|
Or, as Evil Lincoln said it, houserule it and get over it.
Houserule it back to 3.5 days and everyone is happy.
Don't whine about it.
Cartigan made the most sensible argument here.
That is precisely what has been being offered by many here - however in doing so getting rapped for it.
The DM in the case of the OP did make an unwise ad hoc decision that frustrated the player.
Our advice was to ask the DM who is unhappy with it to house rule it into something that he is happy with.
Robert
I didn't say Cantrips are bad. I said "unlimited use" is the problem
If we cease pretending Pathfinder should be 3.5 when convenient to us, then "cantrips" and "unlimited uses" cannot be separated from each other.
And only in certain cases.
Like problem solving. Like trying to find an invisible character.
It's really not bad in all cases.
Like when the spells are useless in the situation. Like throwing acid at people during a friendly meet & greet.
Daze is unlimited - but the very spell only allows it to be used vs humanoids, and only once per target. It was well-thought out and altered to fit into the new style of "unlimited" access to it.
So we can only have unlimited use spells that have a limit built in. Ingenious.
[Side bar off topic converstaion]
[Irrelevant anecdote trying to present itself as an argument]
Now THAT is a very clever ingenuitive trap and set up. Well done. And in previous editions, that MAY have been triggered more than 10% of the time. And so long as it's not storyline dependant to flip that switch, it shouldn't be a horrible tragedy to the campaign that characters failed to notice that one in time.
I would have had no problem if in previous editions a player just happened to be very paranoid about a specific hallway - perhaps he had heard rumors, or clues of other scorched corpses, or knew who's lair he was entering was known for clever traps - and just to be cautious opted to burn his 1 or even 2 times a day he could detect magic to help find anything out of the norm.
I'm afraid flattery will get you nowhere. I have no problem in them walking around shooting detect magic rays everywhere and solving the trap. The trap is meant to be solved. How it's solved is only relevant to overbearing DMs
The way I have seen players utilize the spell lately begs the question "why even both introducing such a trap?"
That's a good question too. My answer is do it and don't complain or make a different trap. But the point still stands that knowing an illusion exists does not impart knowledge of what the illusion is.
|
|
You are failing to realize my argument is "No, it's not."The nature of illusion is wholly different than other types of magic.
Something you are not getting here - and tbh I am not sure if you can get it.
Like I said, you seem to lack the basic knowledge that illusion spells are handled differently in the game.
The bolded part – your statement – just reinforces the vulnerability the school of illusionary magic has over other types....what
What? Yes what. Illusions require no save if there proof that it’s an illusion. Extra gimp via a +4 to saves if detected as such and communicated. If that isn’t clear enough then you’ll need some remedial Engrish to get the point.
Someone detects/interacts then everyone else gets a bonus to bypass. What other schools of magic need to deal with that? None.How many schools have to deal with Evasion? Evocation
How many schools have to deal with piercing SR and Spell Resistance? Evocation almost universally.
Clearly Evocation sucks more than Illusion.
Well, you and I both know that in 3rd edition Evocation sucks. Reinforcing bad with evidence of some other poor design doesn’t change the original bad. Good try though.
"Wahh,
This is pretty much all I see when I read your posts. “Wahh, no one wants to play hardcore gamist/caster edition anymore, Wahh!!!!”
By revealing the fact that an illusion is in a 5ft area you have borked the illusion far more than any other school of magic.What.
One more time
By revealing the fact that an illusion is in a 5ft area you have borked the illusion far more than any other school of magic.Let me know when to stop repeating that FACT.
Just that little bit of knowledge alone has reduced the usefulness of the illusion spell used.No. It hasn't. Knowing an illusion spell exists is not tantamount to knowing something is an illusion.
All of a sudden the players become idiots? So once something negative happens with the source and someone makes their save you are telling me that they won’t be shouting out “it’s an illusion!”. DM just helps to circumvent steps and take the steam and potential of illusionary magic by providing that knowledge out from 60 ft, unlimited use.
In other words it's too much of a tell, especially for a crap 0 level spell like Detect Magic.I throw a bag of flour at an invisible creature. I have negated its invisibility. That's not even a spell! I vote we nerf bags of flour.
Well that wouldn’t be your style, It doesn’t involve a spell to solve the problem or replace thinking! Plus it isn't explicitly covered in the RULES.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard or sorcerer going around constantly spamming detect magic is a badly played character.
Then why is the spell a cantrip, specifically meant to be spammable all day? That's bad game design leading to what you're calling bad playing. I know you and Cartigan believe that every word that Jason Bulmahn writes actually comes directly from God and is therefore perfect in all regards, but not everyone else in the community shares this belief.
Which is why people make houserules.
|
|
A wizard or sorcerer going around constantly spamming detect magic is a badly played character.Then why is the spell a cantrip, specifically meant to be spammable all day? That's bad game design leading to what you're calling bad playing. I know you and Cartigan believe that every word that Jason Bulmahn writes actually comes directly from God and is therefore perfect in all regards, but not everyone else in the community shares this belief.
Which is why people make houserules.
Just because something can be done all day does not mean that it should. Paizo made cantrips spammable, mostly to remove problems like having to rest for an entire day in front of a door in order to find a magically hidden keyhole that cannot be found through mundane means.
People abusing that are the problem, not the spell itself.
|
|
I know you and Cartigan believe that every word that Jason Bulmahn writes actually comes directly from God and is therefore perfect in all regards, but not everyone else in the community shares this belief.
Which is why people make houserules.
The supreme irony is that the detractor is conflicted - he hates PFRPG and is a 3.5 purist, but he is offended if anyone disagrees with the RULES as a reflex, even if he hates the rules (PF version) and the thought process that went into creating them.
Very bizarre, but good for a lol.
Just because something can be done all day does not mean that it should. People abusing that are the problem, not the spell itself.
Good rules should be structured in such a way to limit that abuse -- rather be tailor-made to encourage it as much as possible. If a group spends most of their time telling each other not to do things that the rules specifically encourage them to do, then that to me is a system issue first and foremost, and only secondarily a player-quality issue.
A referee should not have to specifically tell people to not follow the rules in order to get the rules to work. That's a hallmark of bad game design.
It's true that no game is perfect, but in a major revision, one would expect the system to work better (i.e., the rules more closely fit the way the play is envisioned), rather than worse (i.e., you have to actively tell players not to do certain things that are not only logical, but that the rules seem meant to do).
This is pretty much all I see when I read your posts. “Wahh, no one wants to play hardcore gamist/caster edition anymore, Wahh!!!!”
The irony burns my eyes.
All of a sudden the players become idiots?
Yes and no.
Yes) Isn't "All of a sudden the players become idiots" the entire point of a role-playing game? Didn't just accuse me of being gamist but now you are asserting that players, not characters, use their personal knowledge to make character decisions?No) Players don't have to be idiots. I would much like the DM to not be an idiot though. Knowing an illusion exists in a 5' square in no way conveys knowledge of WHAT that illusion is. I fail to see how that is in anyway hard to comprehend.
So once something negative happens with the source and someone makes their save you are telling me that they won’t be shouting out “it’s an illusion!”
People can shout "It's an illusion!" all they want. It really doesn't mean anything. Especially when you don't know WHAT is an illusion.
I know you and Cartigan believe that every word that Jason Bulmahn writes actually comes directly from God
As opposed to worshiping myself? Does that make me a pagan and you a satanist?
And that I think everything the development team has come up with is perfect and without question is certainly news to them.
I know you and Cartigan believe that every word that Jason Bulmahn writes actually comes directly from God and is therefore perfect in all regards, but not everyone else in the community shares this belief.
Which is why people make houserules.
The supreme irony is that the detractor is conflicted - he hates PFRPG and is a 3.5 purist, but he is offended if anyone disagrees with the RULES as a reflex, even if he hates the rules (PF version) and the thought process that went into creating them.
Very bizarre, but good for a lol.
I don't even understand the logical contortions you made to reach that conclusion. Especially since it is your position in this thread that they did it better in 3.5.
|
|
Just because something can be done all day does not mean that it should. People abusing that are the problem, not the spell itself.Good rules should be structured in such a way to limit that abuse -- rather be tailor-made to encourage it as much as possible. If a group spends most of their time telling each other not to do things that the rules specifically encourage them to do, then that to me is a system issue first and foremost, and only secondarily a player-quality issue.
A referee should not have to specifically tell people to not follow the rules in order to get the rules to work. That's a hallmark of bad game design.
It's true that no game is perfect, but in a major revision, one would expect the system to work better (i.e., the rules more closely fit the way the play is envisioned), rather than worse (i.e., you have to actively tell players not to do certain things that are not only logical, but that the rules seem meant to do).
I disagree...only idiots cannot reign themselves in and help the GM make a game a good one. I don't actively seek to abuse every single rule that can be abused. And if i do it by accident, i don't do it again. It ruins everyone's fun. Especially the GM's.