| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree...
Fair enough -- those two words are probably the most honest and decent reply so far to anything in this thread. Sincere thanks, Hama.
|
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.
Fair enough.
I'm willing to agree to some degree that it's primarily problem players that abuse this.
Are you at least willing to agree that it's easier to change the verbiage on one zero level spell than it is to change a persons behavior or finding replacement players or DM all the time?
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!
Don't bother. Cartigan has utter contempt for anyone who would dare to suggest that a pre-d20 system could possibly be better in any way than something more modern. Which, given how much he often seems to hate Pathfinder itself, must make his loathing of such games pretty epic.
|
|
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.
You keep making this assertion that we should all be under the premise that "magic detected in a 5x5x5 cube cannot be pinpointed."
As if that is a balancing act for the unlimited use in finding them.
I fail to see anywehere in the description of Detect Magic that says "the magic cannot be pinpointed - only the "sqare" in which it is in"
Detect Magic
You detect magical auras. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
1st Round: Presence or absence of magical auras.
2nd Round: Number of different magical auras and the power of the most potent aura.
3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura: DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + 1/2 caster level for a nonspell effect.) If the aura eminates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).
Fluff text = You detect magic auras.
Very straight forward. No limitations on where or how precise.
Round 3: Strength and location of each aura.
Very straight forward. Location does not state "limited to a 5x5x5 foot cube. It says 'location'.
It goes on to say:
If the aura emanated from a magic item.....
Of course how would you know that the magic emanates from an item at all if you only detect the presence of magic in a 125 cubic foot area?
Nothing at all seems to indicate the detector has to guess what it is that is magical in the area. The spell locates it for you.
It also says:
"Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical manations may distort or conceal weaker auras."
So the OP talking about his DM having made some indications that the spell works cuz of all the other magical items in the area does have some part of the rules supporting his ruling - even if he overestimated its impact, it's at least stated that it is possible.
Regardless - i have never played that the magic is somewhere in this box theme and does not appear that I should not have. My take is that having this capability unlimited is indeed too beneficial.
Robert
|
|
So we can only have unlimited use spells that have a limit built in. Ingenious.
Correct! We finally agree. Unless you really do feel that we should have unlimited spell use of unlimited capabilities?
All spells have limits; Even Wish. So of course I feel we should have spells with limits built in; especially those that can be cast limitlessly.
It would make no sense to have a spell have unlimited capabilities, and even more ridiculous to allow it to be used a limitless number of times per game.
The bone of contention shared by many on Detect Magic in specific, is that the limitations of the spell are not enough to make us comfortable for it to be used an unlimited number of times.
In constrast the limitations of Daze IMO make it a far more balanced spell for it's level (and by level that assumes the inclusion of the allowance for 0 level spells to be used ceaselessly throughout the day).
Robert
|
|
Don't bother. Cartigan has utter contempt for anyone who would dare to suggest that a pre-d20 system could possibly be better in any way than something more modern. Which, given how much he often seems to hate Pathfinder itself, must make his loathing of such games pretty epic.
Well consider me to be someone in the camp that doesn't buy into the notion that this then makes his ideas right.
That being said - I saw that same M.O. for dungeon stomping in 3rd edition as well. Detect magic spell use was not 'at will' then either.
Robert
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.
I think Cartigan's right in this case. While yes, the mere knowledge that an illusion is present defeats some of the purpose of an illusion (which is to pass itself off as legitimate), the actual nature of the illusion is key. Is something invisible there, such as treasure or a monster? Or is the illusion portraying something that actually isn't there, such as a solid ground underneath, a false wall, or a torch that isn't there, the holder of which is part of an elaborate door-opening mechanism. A particularly fiendish foe (or GM) might have several illusions in the area, most of which are inconsequential, such as a half dozen illusions of grains of sand on the floor, giving off a confusing array of auras that make it difficult for PCs to discern.
Knowledge that an illusion is present is a hint to characters, however all but the simplest of illusions will still require them to figure out what the illusion is and how to overcome it, and doing so could prove to be dangerous. An illusionary altar placed on top of an illusionary floor covering up an acid-filled pit is an example; anyone lured by the promise of checking out the altar as an illusion would fall through the pit. Maybe not the best example, but it really shouldn't take much to make illusion a force to be reckoned with, even against Detect Magic.
Edit: After reading another post, depending on the interpretation of Detect Magic, with enough time spent, one could in theory overcome any illusion, even the grain of sand option above. Perhaps we'll never have an answer to this after all.
Are you guys serious?
You know what throwing a stone to an illusionary wall is (even after a detect magic)? interaction with it, you get to roll a save when you do it in order to disbelieve an illusion, you don't get to bypass the saving throw, it's like saying that if char A sees char B casting mirror image and char A makes his spellcraft check to identify the spell then he is unafected by mirror image, so i ask again. Are you serious?
Cartigan is right on this one (although i believe that you don't get the +4 to the save by using detect magic), usually i don't agree with what he is saying but on this he is right.
Are you guys serious?
You know what throwing a stone to an illusionary wall is (even after a detect magic)? interaction with it, you get to roll a save when you do it in order to disbelieve an illusion, you don't get to bypass the saving throw,
Correct. You throw a rock at it and get a saving throw. Then you throw a second rock at it and get a second saving throw. Then you throw a third rock at it and get a third saving throw. To speed things up, if you have 20 rocks the DM should just let you take 20 and pass the save.
|
|
Are you guys serious?
You know what throwing a stone to an illusionary wall is (even after a detect magic)? interaction with it, you get to roll a save when you do it in order to disbelieve an illusion, you don't get to bypass the saving throw, it's like saying that if char A sees char B casting mirror image and char A makes his spellcraft check to identify the spell then he is unafected by mirror image, so i ask again. Are you serious?
I'm not sure I agree with you.
The rules on illusions are very specific - if you can prove an illusion isn't real, the saving throw requirement is waived.
Most illusions do not adjust with stimuli.
How would you suggest then that it would work in my previous example of throwing the 'light' stone at the illusionary wall?
The rock isn't going to appear to bounce off. The illusion isn't going to prevent light from spilling in.
[unless the creater of said illusion is currently concentrating on it, and able to witness the stimuli]
In such a case, the stone went through, and though you cannot see the rock on the other side, the light given off is not blocked by the illusion - thus your bodies are now casting enlogated creepy shadows on the other wall.
You can also accomplish this by throwing something hot on the other side and see if you can feel the heat.
In such a case, the players are able to create unequivicol proof that the wall is a fake.
These are in game creative ways that players can cleverly roleplay out the interactions thereof - providing either the basis of interaction and grounds for a save, the bonus to a save once it's established by one, or simply waive the save altogther - based on the DMs discretion at the time if the players proved the illusion to be such.
If you shot an arrow at an illusionary bird, it would go through - but that doens't mean it's an illusion per se - it could be incorporeal. There are other explanations based that limited stimuli.
If on the other hand, it's as simple as a the rock of light spell vs wall scenario I purposed above, then it should be enough 'proof' to allow the illusion to be 'beaten.'
On the other hand you could be in a very well lit corridor; the other side of the illusionary wall could be an area of darkness; or a portal or portable hole that swallowed up the thrown stone, thus throwing the stone in makes it dissapear through the wall, but no light spills through. Possibly an illusion? Magical wall yes...maybe a portal. Maybe the stone was disintigrated.
This certainly allows for the saving throw as it's been "interacted" with - but did not establish "proof" of the specific illusion.
A failure of the save leaves the players still unsure. A success means the character sees through the illusion, can see the faint outline of the wall and what is behind (barring aforementioned magical darkness), and can then convey his findings to the others granting them a +4 to their save. If they still can't make the save then the players are forced with having to come up with another creative plan to guarantee success by providing substantial proof that the wall is an illusion.
What I had narrated was an example of roleplaying interaction with an illusion to support the rules, as opposed to just using the rules and saying from a gamists perspective:
"I interact with it."
"You get a saving throw"
"I get a 19 on my Will Save."
"You made it - it's an illusion."
"I walk through the wall."
In this case you get the save attmept as opposed to the auto waiving of the save that you would earn as a benefit of good creative roleplaying and figuring out how to beat it.
Its the same as the difference between
"I bluff the guard"
"Make a bluff check"
vs.
"I look scared, i widen my eyes and beg the guard not to arrest me for pick pocketing. I spin a tale of how my sick and ailing father is at home on his death-bed in need of a good brew to numb his unending pain. I only took this as I was too scattered in thoughts over the greif that I failed to retrieve my coinpurse before rushing out into the night to help him. I beg him to please not make my father suffer any longer. I promise him to return money to the vendor in the morning."
"Wow - that was quite creative and convincing, I'll rule that the guard wants to believe you - perhas he recently lost his father as well to a painful disease; this should lower your DC a bit. You were convincing, roll a bluff check with a +4 bonus."
"booyah! 27 with your generous bonus."
"Wow....the guard seems moved by your words. Not only does he think he's doing right by his dead father in letting you go, he tells you, "keep the ale. Your father needs it more than the vendor - And keep your money too, no sense in returning tomorrow and sullying your name - use the money for the funeral at the temple."
It's about rewarding creative play with in-game incentives. Both the interaction with the illusion played out, and the bluffing of the guard played out provide more entertainment for most people involved; most good DMs reward such player behavior with greater in game successes and benefits. The story dictates the rules in these cases.
Robert
@Robert Brambley
On the illusion thing:
If you had mentioned the word saving throw in your example i wouldn't say a word but you didn't. In the case of throwing the lit stone through the wall and not making the save, your character sees the stone going through there but he doesn't disbelieve the illusion, simple as that. if i wasn't all sleepy now i would have given a better answer on what happens but the result would be the same, you don't make the save you don't ignore the effect.
On the bluff example:
In my group we do both, for example:
Me: "I bluff the guard"
DM: "Ok what do you say to him?"
Me: here is where i tell a big fat lie
And i would never give such a big bonus (+4) unless your roleplay was a masterpiece, with what you said a +1 maybe a +2 tops.
I don't care how good you can roleplay it, if your character can't do itm he can't do it period.
Don't get me wrong, i know i am hard on that but after playing for years with a GM who didn't pay any attention whatsoever on mental or social abilities of the character*, i am really set on not allowing characters do stuff just because the player can do it, sure i may give a small bonus but that's it. Doing otherwise leads to actually limiting the concepts players wanted to play and on top allows players to ignore mental and social stuff and buff up the physical ones.
if the player can think or say it then the character also can, and no i don't care that your character is one of the greatest programmers of his nation or one of the greatest (by mortal standards) occultists, if you, the player, can't tell me how you do you can't do it.
Correct. You throw a rock at it and get a saving throw. Then you throw a second rock at it and get a second saving throw. Then you throw a third rock at it and get a third saving throw. To speed things up, if you have 20 rocks the DM should just let you take 20 and pass the save.Are you guys serious?
You know what throwing a stone to an illusionary wall is (even after a detect magic)? interaction with it, you get to roll a save when you do it in order to disbelieve an illusion, you don't get to bypass the saving throw,
Sure you can do it, i don't deny that. But if you do that then you have spent a good bunch of turns, the illusion has delayed you, it succeed to doing something, that means that it wasn't useless and wasn't made obsolete by detect magic.
Round 3: Strength and location of each aura.Very straight forward. Location does not state "limited to a 5x5x5 foot cube. It says 'location'.
Locations in the game are defined by 5' cubes.
If the aura emanated from a magic item.....
Of course how would you know that the magic emanates from an item at all if you only detect the presence of magic in a 125 cubic foot area?
Because you can see the item.
If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight,
Correct! We finally agree. Unless you really do feel that we should have unlimited spell use of unlimited capabilities?
I feel an unlimited spell should be able to perform its function unlimited times. It makes sense to limit Daze simply because ALL spells like that either already worked like that or were limited to work like that.
|
|
@Robert Brambley
On the illusion thing:
If you had mentioned the word saving throw in your example i wouldn't say a word but you didn't. In the case of throwing the lit stone through the wall and not making the save, your character sees the stone going through there but he doesn't disbelieve the illusion, simple as that. if i wasn't all sleepy now i would have given a better answer on what happens but the result would be the same, you don't make the save you don't ignore the effect.
I still disagree.
The wording of illusions in the magic chapter states that you can attempt to 'disbelieve' an illusion by interacting with this - which grants you a saving throw.
If you provide proof that you're interacting with an illusion (it isn't real) you do not have to make a saving throw.
It's all circumstantial and scenario based. A DM just has to have enough common sense and confidence that he's making the right call.
Did the players just interact, or did they prove it can't possibly be real. The imagination is important here - imagine what the stimuli would create or alter....
i.e. the light coming through the wall and casting shadows.
If you don't buy into my scenario as 'proof' and waiving the need to attempt to save (disbelieve), out of curiosity, how and when do you see such a notion coming in to play.
In other words, if not that, then what kind of scenario would you foresee that rule applying?
I had a guy once that argued "well in a world full of magic - ANYTHING is possible, so nothing stands to be "not real" even if all physical evidence proves otherwise, so you should never get an auto-disbelief - anything no matter how far-fetched can exist in magic...."
Which I think is utterly ridiculous.
And i would never give such a big bonus (+4) unless your roleplay was a masterpiece, with what you said a +1 maybe a +2 tops.
I don't care how good you can roleplay it, if your character can't do itm he can't do it period.
Fair enough - everyone's preferences are little different. I'll admit I'm a bit permissive when it comes to creative roleoplaying - as a way to encourage and reward it.
But I'm very restrictive when it comes to what you can play. I only allow Core Rule book for choices for character classes, feats, spells, etc.
So I think that I keep power curve from ballooning by restricting the original choices, but allow the character they do choose to flourish and succeed when they can.
Doing otherwise leads to actually limiting the concepts players wanted to play and on top allows players to ignore mental and social stuff and buff up the physical ones.
I won't deny that either.
Players should embrace their shortcomings as well. Even a +4 isn't an auto win - so a player with a curmudgeon for a character would probably still fail. And I too agree that DMs have to sometimes ensure players aren't making up for the characters lack of social graces; when I feel a player is overstepping that, I will usually just nudge them with a "how well does that really sound coming from an 8 charisma dwarf and no bluff skill" Most players I have and have had would reword it a bit or at least laugh and say - "well.....he probably wasn't very convincing!"
But I've also seen players roleplay characters w/ poor charisma and bluff scores with purposefully lacking grace.
Those are classic moments!
Not unlike Han Solo on the Com in the detention center "Everything's fine, we're all fine here......uh....how are you?"
And getting back to that 8 Charisma dwarf, just pull the Han Solo and blast the Com instead. Or in the dwarf's case, after fumbling with a few words just say 'ah confound it!' And whip out the axe.
Robert
Sure you can do it, i don't deny that. But if you do that then you have spent a good bunch of turns, the illusion has delayed you, it succeed to doing something, that means that it wasn't useless and wasn't made obsolete by detect magic.Correct. You throw a rock at it and get a saving throw. Then you throw a second rock at it and get a second saving throw. Then you throw a third rock at it and get a third saving throw. To speed things up, if you have 20 rocks the DM should just let you take 20 and pass the save.Are you guys serious?
You know what throwing a stone to an illusionary wall is (even after a detect magic)? interaction with it, you get to roll a save when you do it in order to disbelieve an illusion, you don't get to bypass the saving throw,
First, illusionary walls often exist to keep something hidden not to delay an adventuring party. But let's say the purpose is to cause a delay. Which is faster, a) searching the walls and ceiling of a 100ft x 10ft corridor one 5ft section at a time and hoping to pass the will save when the illusion is interacted with or b) using DM to find the illusion then have all 4 party members interact with it until someone passes allowing everyone through 2 turns later?
|
|
Locations in the game are defined by 5' cubes.
Hogwash. Not buying it.
Where in the core rule book does it list this as a term of reference.
For instance, Flat-Footed has a defined explanation. 5' Step has a Defined definition. Shaken has a defined explanation. Creature vs Object has a defined distinction.
Where is "Location" defined as "a specific 5' square."?
Robert
|
Robert, you are SEVERELY limiting yourself in the use of illusions.
GM: Okay, your DM shows that this area of the wall has illusion cast on it.
Player: I throw a rock at it.
GM: It bounces off.
Player: I thouhgt you said the wall was an illusion?
GM: No. I said the wall had an illusion cast on it.
(Yes the section of wall is the corridor. But you have to crawl thru a 3 foot by 3 foot opening at floor level. The wizard being smart (18 Int) disguised more of the wall than he absolutely had to.)
I've used illusions (and have seen the same done in modules) to hid a small non-magical item in the room. The illusion? The room with that one item subtracted. So the whole room glows. And knowing that an illusion is there does not help when everything you interact with is real, unless you pick something up, and the illusionary cover stays behind.
Using DM on either of my examples would not help defeat the illusion, BECAUSE YOU ONLY KNOW THERE IS AN ILLUSION IN A CERTAIN AREA. NOT WHAT IT IS>
|
|
Robert, you are SEVERELY limiting yourself in the use of illusions.
GM: Okay, your DM shows that this area of the wall has illusion cast on it.
Player: I throw a rock at it.
GM: It bounces off.
Player: I thouhgt you said the wall was an illusion?
GM: No. I said the wall had an illusion cast on it.(Yes the section of wall is the corridor. But you have to crawl thru a 3 foot by 3 foot opening at floor level. The wizard being smart (18 Int) disguised more of the wall than he absolutely had to.)
I've used illusions (and have seen the same done in modules) to hid a small non-magical item in the room. The illusion? The room with that one item subtracted. So the whole room glows. And knowing that an illusion is there does not help when everything you interact with is real, unless you pick something up, and the illusionary cover stays behind.
I'm not limiting it at all.
I was illustrating a very basic form of illusions and how such a basic illusion can and should be beatable just by clever interactions by astute players.
I in no way implied this is the extent of what can be accomplished by an illusion or indeed one employed or created by myself.
I was merely showcasing how certain instances can provide means of proving things don't exist and waiving the need for a saving throw.
Obviously more elaborate forms of illusions are possible. They are as elaborate as one's imagination can concoct.
Using DM on either of my examples would not help defeat the illusion, BECAUSE YOU ONLY KNOW THERE IS AN ILLUSION IN A CERTAIN AREA. NOT WHAT IT IS>
Impressive. But still, this would be an exception of what is usually done w/ illusions; not the rule.
Most modules do not elaborate that much. And if every illusion players come into contact with is truly that elaboratly designed, then it really pushes the cheese factor, I think.
Great for a truly epic notion (not the epic as defined by level of play in D&D, but epic as defined in the dictionary) but a tad overkill if every dungeon has it.
Robert
|
|
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 agree. 1st level spell slots are judiciously used for most of the game.
Cartigan: True or false, such a Pathfinder world would have no WORD for 'spymaster'.
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.
True and false. There is more to spying than scrying someone's stronghold.
|
|
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.
You can't make me understand because it simply doesn't make sense. Knowing that an illusion is in use means knowing that an illusion is in use. Conversely, not knowing that an illusion is in use brings the inherit assumption that an illusion is NOT in use.
Basic psychology.
Unless you live in a world where illusions are more common than reality, your suspicions WILL be aroused by the presence of an illusion.
Full stop.
|
|
True and false. There is more to spying than scrying someone's stronghold.Cartigan: True or false, such a Pathfinder world would have no WORD for 'spymaster'.
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.
Don't be coy.
Does it irrevocably alter the world or not? Please do bear in mind that there was never a period in Pathfinder where cantrips were not infinite.
You can't make me understand because it simply doesn't make sense. Knowing that an illusion is in use means knowing that an illusion is in use. Conversely, not knowing that an illusion is in use brings the inherit assumption that an illusion is NOT in use.
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.
Ironically, that's not what I said. Yes, knowing an illusion is in use means knowledge an illusion is in use. It does not however convey knowledge of WHAT the illusion is.
True and false. There is more to spying than scrying someone's stronghold.Cartigan: True or false, such a Pathfinder world would have no WORD for 'spymaster'.
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.Don't be coy.
Does it irrevocably alter the world or not? Please do bear in mind that there was never a period in Pathfinder where cantrips were not infinite.
Like infinite cantrips matter in the argument. No one is throwing Adepts at each other. They are going to be using higher level spells than Detect Magic.
No. In no world where magic is commonplace will there exist a rich or royal person devoid of magical protection from a decently leveled court Wizard.|
|
So because your strawman wizard cannot be bothered to be creative. The players are not allowed to be creative and use the resources available to them.
Got it.
No. What I'm saying is that I've run several Pathfinder Society scenarios. I've playing in at least a dozen more.
I have every single Adventure Path issue so far, and every Pathfinder module released (previously those under Gamemastery logo as well).
I have every Dungeon Crawl Classic by Goodman games, most of Necromancer game material, and every Dungeon Magazine dating back to 1998.
I can't recall ever seeing that much of an illusion placed within an adventure. And I've read alot of adventures. Even Age of Worms adventure Path which most people will agree was a HUGE powergamers feast of a campaign still didn't have anything that outrageous. It did have a scene where you had to invade a giants stronghold while it was under assault by a dragon army and you had to avoid BOTH sides of the conflict. There was a colossal carrion crawler monster of legend with like 700 hit points. But there was no dozens of multi-layered illusions of an entire room to mask one object.
Like I said - your example while plausible is extreme. It is the exception and not the rule.
The norm is FAR less grandiose.
In contrast, player character spellcasters who have access to unlimited use of 0 level spells are the rule - and not the exception.
Robert
|
|
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.
Fair enough.
I'm willing to agree to some degree that it's primarily problem players that abuse this.
Are you at least willing to agree that it's easier to change the verbiage on one zero level spell than it is to change a persons behavior or finding replacement players or DM all the time?
Robert
Of course it is easier, but i wouldn't out of pure principle. I do not play this game with rules abusing players, and would always rather change a player or a GM then houserule something that works ok.
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.
|
|
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 leave that as a "balance" for the class; just as it wouldn't be a fair means to balance a spell with "it makes you awkward in social situations to continually concentrate on spells." Some groups would make a big deal about a character in la-la land spending conversation time 'studying' for magic; others would gloss over it. Ultimately that restriction is not "RAW"; there's nothing saying that you have to apply a roleplaying penalty to a person doing this. It's subjective at best.
Though I personally would apply some roleplaying disadvantaes during some sort of interaction, and I applaud you for your efforts to add a bit of flavor and realism to combat the cheese-factor. But it would mostly just be for flavor during the flow of the conversation. It's like players who want to have a weapon of each type of metal and damage type to prepare for whatever creature you run in to and is armed like WWII Germany; but aesthetically some DMs are left to wonder "How are you carrying all of this? How do you even manuever down a hallway?" Some DMs gloss over it; some want a little sharp realism to cut the cheese.
Robert
You can hit anything and everything within those 5' cubes but nothing in 5' cubes beyond what you can reach.Unless you have a miss chance, like you can't see where exactly in the 5' x 5' x 5' cube your opponent is...
But you can still hit him. You said nothing contrary to what I said.
|
|
That's a sizable departure from the material as presented, though.
If the world is inconsistent, that isn't my fault - I didn't write it.
The same can be said for your grammatical use or dismissal of the term: location.
I posted yesterday asking for you to show me in the rule book where that term is defined. If it is not specifically defined to mean something else, then we must rely on the grammatical use of it.
For example "dying". Dying is term that could feasibly anyone with a terminal illness, to someone in an ICU crisis. From a fatalism perspective we're all dying from the moment we're conceived.
However in D&D 3rd edition, 3.5, and Pathfinder, "Dying" has a specified IN GAME definition:
A dying creature is unconscious and near death. Creatures that have negative hit points and have not stabilized are dying. A dying creature can take no actions. On the character’s next turn, after being reduced to negative hit points (but not dead), and on all subsequent turns, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check to become stable. The character takes a penalty on this roll equal to his negative hit point total. A character that is stable does not need to make this check. A natural 20 on this check is an automatic success. If the character fails this check, he loses 1 hit point. If a dying creature has an amount of negative hit points equal to its Constitution score, it dies.
"Large" has a grammatical meaning.
Andre the Giant was large.
John Holmes was Large
Seoni has large......pouches.
The cut of prime rib I had for dinner was large
My tax return was large
In the game however "large" has a specified meaning. It defines a templated size of creature (or object suited for similar sized creature). Such creatures take up a specified amount of room, and usually have a specified amount of reach.
Which brings us to "reach"; it too has a specific definition in the game. So does object and creature, and so does "stablilized" in the previous example.
Where is location defined in the rules that illustrates it is specifically always geared or even usually geared towards "A solitary 5' cube"
Without this specification from the game developers, i think people - even English teachers, should use the dictionary to define any uncertain terminology.
Robert
[etc]
I will grant you "location" is not a game term, but that is really beside the point - is or is not a 5' cube smaller than a house? To be more exacting, a 5'x5'x5' cube is the smallest defined area in game terms. A location is an area either huge or tiny. Most reasonably, Detect Magic should use location as the smallest definable area by game terms.
"Large" has a grammatical meaning.Andre the Giant was large.
John Holmes was Large
Seoni has large......pouches.
The cut of prime rib I had for dinner was large
My tax return was largeIn the game however "large" has a specified meaning. It defines a templated size of creature (or object suited for similar sized creature). Such creatures take up a specified amount of room, and usually have a specified amount of reach.
For what it's worth, Andre the Giant would probably have been considered a Large creature.
For what it's worth, Andre the Giant would probably have been considered a Large creature.
"Large" has a grammatical meaning.Andre the Giant was large.
John Holmes was Large
Seoni has large......pouches.
The cut of prime rib I had for dinner was large
My tax return was largeIn the game however "large" has a specified meaning. It defines a templated size of creature (or object suited for similar sized creature). Such creatures take up a specified amount of room, and usually have a specified amount of reach.
Nope, too small. Medium. Bugbears.
|
|
For what it's worth, Andre the Giant would probably have been considered a Large creature.Nope, too small. Medium. Bugbears.
By RAW, it's very close:
space-reach-threatened-area-templates
He meets the weight requirement, but not quite the height...
|
|
That. That is all much more precise than what I was saying, but it boils down to the same thing. The smallest effective exact measurement is a 5' square unless otherwise stated. But to say it is limiting the spell is obtuse. At most it is houseruling a failure to clarify...
Perhaps - but i was merely using your own attention to detail establish my point. Precise is what this discussion has been about - precisely following the RAW that you profess to adhere to. Precise or not, your argument all along has been "it allows the knowledge that magic exists but not precisely where"
Yes it does. I illustrated that earlier.
At most it is houseruling a failure to clarify what "location" means in the spell to mean the smallest defined location division - a 5' cube.
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.
PPS: Interesting factoid, searching "detect magic" in the PRD search tool will NOT find the spell Detect Magic.
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. I did find Detect Magic in my PDF of the core rules however.
PPPS: Neither Locate Object nor Locate Creature say ANYTHING about location. You only know the direction a creature is in. Which inherently allows you to define location by the smallest increment of locations - a 5'x5'x5' cube.
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.
If the rules don't differentiate between Locate and Location the way they differentiate "Large" from describing something as "big" per se, Otherwise, your adherence to the strictest use of the term 'location' is a misnomer and not an accurate use of it in this case without specifying your own interpretion/houserule/preference.
Robert
|
|
[etc]I will grant you "location" is not a game term, but that is really beside the point - is or is not a 5' cube smaller than a house? To be more exacting, a 5'x5'x5' cube is the smallest defined area in game terms. A location is an area either huge or tiny. Most reasonably, Detect Magic should use location as the smallest definable area by game terms.
And I will grant you that "location" probably means a 5' square in many instances.
However when detecting a magic arua it could be a single solitary ioun stone. 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.
Robert