|
At least as DM, that's how I've always played. I ran a campaign in Midnight for 3 years, Ravenloft for 3 years, and Planescape for 2. The rules change to match the flavor needs.
Clearly this is true. A different setting means different rules. But that's not RAW. I'm close to certain that RAW is Golarion in Paizo-town.
|
|
Well, it's Houseruling, but I wouldn't have a problem with modifying cantrips, requiring a scaling difficulty (say 10+number of cantrips already performed that day) Spellcraft check.
That's pretty solid, actually. In fact, I'd even be happy with 'zero plus number of cantrips' because this wouldn't impact my perception of the RAI and would be decently compatible with the material.
It would also mean that the cantrips get used when needed, but not on an 'at will' basis.
Excellent idea, BigJohn.
Unfortunately, I think the spd on that table refers only to the number of cantrips PREPARED, not cast. Notice how cleric has the exact same notation on it's chart.
Also, adepts get only 3 cantrips per day, not unlimited.
Clerics also have an ability called orisons:
Orisons: Clerics can prepare a number of orisons, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table: Cleric under “Spells per Day.” These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again.
Adepts do not have this ability.
Good insights into d20 RAI
Sorry if I mirepresented, but that's basically what I meant - the rules are there to prevent people from fudging it, making a more simulationist model and less narrativist one.
... we're both residents of the same old folks home.
I'm 39 ...
Nnnnnnnoooooooooooooo! Ten years my senior! You're so ooooooooooolllllllllllld*!
*No.
You've completely missed my point. I'm not asking whether or not enterprising GM's can imagine a counter to this strategy. Not at all. I'm saying, what if a church wanted their land to not be a desert? What's to stop them? And in such a world, why are there any deserts at all?
20th level wizards may be uncommon, but 1st level adepts probably aren't.
Well, in addition to sunshadow21's reply, there's the fact that Create Water doesn't work that way. It really, really doesn't. Because it goes away after 24 hours, if not consumed. Dumping it into the ground, channeling it into reservoirs, and even spraying crops with it isn't consuming it. Most of the summoned water eventually just returns from whence it came... no terraforming allowed. Unless of course you're talking about getting characters to drink the stuff and... er... produce substance thereafter. In which case nothing is really supported by the game rules and besides it's too acidic then.
Hmm, interesting. Conceded, then. Doesn't much matter in the example (swap in cleric, repeat same point), but I'll need to modify my table game just a bit. Thanks!
Well, in your previous point you indicated that adpets weren't too uncommon. The game specifies, however, that clerics are distinctly less common than adepts.
While absolutely true, this is completely irrelevant. 'Unconsumed water' means that it is no longer a desert. I do stipulate that the arid conditions would mean that shifts would be required to keep it going, but at these figures it really doesn't amount to nearly as much workforce as would be required to build even a single canal.
I'm really not sure what you mean by "unconsumed water = "not a desert"? The link Joanna described pretty much explains this outright - it's not feasible on a pure numbers basis, and deserts are much more than lack of water.
NONTHELESS THIS IS A TOTAL THREAD DERAIL I APOLOGIZE CARRY ON.
|
At least as DM, that's how I've always played. I ran a campaign in Midnight for 3 years, Ravenloft for 3 years, and Planescape for 2. The rules change to match the flavor needs.Clearly this is true. A different setting means different rules. But that's not RAW. I'm close to certain that RAW is Golarion in Paizo-town.
True. Except that we've already talked about Golarion having a myriad of hodgepodge flavors and settings within the setting.
None have truly upped their ante based on the at will cantrips notion (yet) as you have espoused is plausible given that in theory it's the way it's always been (to a Golarionian)
To which I agree with you by the way. If you take Harry Potter for examply - they take the existance of so much magic into account with the world and create and "underground" sub-culture of it that is hidden from view to explain it's existance and non synergistic existance with "muggles."
Robert
I removed some posts and the replies to them. Play nice.
Adepts do not have this ability.Hmm, interesting. Conceded, then. Doesn't much matter in the example (swap in cleric, repeat same point), but I'll need to modify my table game just a bit. Thanks!
This really won't work. The water isn't permanent. Even if it stays around long enough to transform soil and allow plant growth, you would have to maintain significant water output forever to prevent the desert from reclaiming the area. You aren't establishing a water table or changing weather patterns. You can't change one acre and then send the clerics on to the next acre to change. Do you really think any religion on Golarion has the resources to keep all those level 1 clerics fed (and watered, heh) in order to KEEP the desert that way? An oasis for their temple? Sure... that's possible. Transforming trackless miles of desert into forest and keeping it that way... no.
Redirecting some rivers or building permanent irrigation would be a far more efficient and economical means of terraforming rather than a 2 gallon water cantrip. There aren't enough clerics (and probably not enough people you could train to be clerics) to clear an entire desert, let alone enough people to man the support systems those clerics would need.
Also, Create Water has Verbal and Somantic components. How many hours can you make the same gesture(s) and say the same word(s) every 6 seconds before your hands start to cramp or your voice grows hoarse?
Calculations here http://www.virtualsecrets.com/annual-rainfall-water-calculator.html
Daily rainfall needed for 1 tree with a 50' radius root system in an area that does not get any rain: 289.6 gallons
At 5000 gallons/day, a cleric could maintain 17 such trees. Though, I'm not sure if the area of the spell would actually work for this... as long as he moves from tree to tree in sequence, it might work.
There would be 11 such trees per square acre, or 7,102 per square mile. Death Valley is about 4000 square miles, so about 28,411,108 trees. You'd only need about 1,671,241 level 1 clerics to maintain that. Best of luck with that.
|
|
This really won't work. The water isn't permanent.
The water's impact doesn't go away at the end of the spell, or otherwise characters would dehydrate.
Do you really think any religion on Golarion has the resources to keep all those level 1 clerics fed (and watered, heh) in order to KEEP the desert that way? An oasis for their temple? Sure... that's possible. Transforming trackless miles of desert into forest and keeping it that way... no.
5000 gallons a day per person seems like a lot of water to me. Maybe it isn't on that scale. I'm not sure.
There aren't enough clerics (and probably not enough people you could train to be clerics) to clear an entire desert, let alone enough people to man the support systems those clerics would need.
In such a setting, where the end result was a limitless resource, I think you might round up enough people with 10 Wisdom to make it happen. Now, in a common fantasy setting, there's a limit, and this kind of scheme simply isn't an option. But in any 'realistic' setting concept where this avenue exists, SOMEONE would have at least tried it.
Also, Create Water has Verbal and Somantic components. How many hours can you make the same gesture(s) and say the same word(s) every 6 seconds before your hands start to cramp or your voice grows hoarse?
By the rules? None that I am aware of - though admittedly because the system was never designed for infinite use. Which kind of goes back to my original point:
Changing the usage is one thing, but changing that in a vacuum without analyzing the impact to the game world is an entirely different animal.
Changing the usage is one thing, but changing that in a vacuum without analyzing the impact to the game world is an entirely different animal.
Why do you feel Paizo has changed the usage without analyzing the impact? Do you assume they didn't consider the consequences of their decisions?
5000 gallons a day per person seems like a lot of water to me. Maybe it isn't on that scale. I'm not sure.
Please see the spoiler tag I added in my previous post. :)
I'm too magical to detect magic.
Now I understand that detect magic can sometimes ruin a GM's fun. I've run my fair share of games that have had certain plot points ruined with the spell, but I've always accepted it and moved on. I want to talk to my GM and maybe work around the way he has detect magic work. What are ways that you have dealt with the spell? I'd be a little less annoyed if everything had nondetection on it, as that would (at least somewhat) make sense.
Or perhaps should I just shut up and let my GM run it his own way and learn to prepare a different cantrip every day?
At the risk of sounding a bit flamey, and I'm sure after eight pages it's already been addressed BUT: Your GM is a big cheater; and not terribly imaginative about it.
5000 gallons a day per person seems like a lot of water to me. Maybe it isn't on that scale. I'm not sure.
I think you'll find 5000 gallons is less than you think it is. It's less water than you get in most swimming pools. You could sustain a small community of people (and animals) with that, but it's not enough to transform a desert.
Also...
The water's impact doesn't go away at the end of the spell, or otherwise characters would dehydrate.
This really won't work. The water isn't permanent.
It goes away if it is not consumed. Plants will consume it, but a water table will not form. You are not permanently changing the terrain. If you take away the level 1 cleric watering the tree, the tree will wither and die and the desert will return. It might be argued that if you get enough trees growing, that weather changes might occur, but I'm skeptical whether that would indeed be the case, and I'm not a climatologist.
There aren't enough clerics (and probably not enough people you could train to be clerics) to clear an entire desert, let alone enough people to man the support systems those clerics would need.In such a setting, where the end result was a limitless resource, I think you might round up enough people with 10 Wisdom to make it happen. Now, in a common fantasy setting, there's a limit, and this kind of scheme simply isn't an option. But in any 'realistic' setting concept where this avenue exists, SOMEONE would have at least tried it.
Wait, I'm confused, what limitless resource results from stationing millions of clerics in a revitalized forest? Whatever you manage to get out of the new territory will be more than offset by the need to feed and protect all of them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Create Water has Verbal and Somantic components. How many hours can you make the same gesture(s) and say the same word(s) every 6 seconds before your hands start to cramp or your voice grows hoarse?
Oh yeah! I think Darkbridger just helped figure out the cure for the Detect Magic spammers!!!!
"I cast Detect Magic again down this hall....."
"As you go to wave your hand in the same pattern you have for the past hour or so, your fingers cramp up and tendonitis grips you sending you in fits of throbbing pain."
"UGH! Can someone grab my aspercreme balm from my pack again?"
[A couple minutes later after creme applied and hand feeling better.]
"Okay ready. I cast Detect Magic again down the hall..."
"Your hand move through the air, however as you open your mouth to speak, your voice crackles with painful hoarseness from repeated chanting....the spell goes awry...."
"AH crud!"
"uh....need your binaca again???"
Robert
|
|
I just completed a long discussion with our group's co-DM. We're ruling it thusly:
1) Detect Magic is a cantrip and should be similar in power to other cantrips. The at-will, see everything on an invisible foe version of D.M. is pretty close in power to See Invisibility and is thus unbalanced when compared to a spell 2 levels higher. This comparison gets worse when you compare it to high-level illusions like Screen (8th level), which would be thwarted by D.M., if cast in person.
2) Some Glamers, Shadows and Figments allow disbelief saving throws. For these purposes, detect magic counts as "interaction". If the disbelief saving throw is successful, detect magic can identify an active aura, then the number of auras, then the spell as a glamer, shadow or figment as usual. If the disbelief is unsuccessful, detect magic detects nothing.
3) Some Glamers (Invisibility, Displacement etc.) do not allow saving throws. Part of the magic of these spells is that they shield against detection unless the detector can also see invisibility or has true seeing or the like.
I'm saying, what if a church wanted their land to not be a desert? What's to stop them? And in such a world, why are there any deserts at all?
One word Druids
Maybe I've missed something but Dectect lets you see aura's and know what spell school they are it doesn't let me know that i am looking at an invisable person or a illusanary chest just that Illusion magic either was cast is is acitive on an area.
And if your party grinds to a halt everytime they detect something use an old Eberron trick have something kick in the door.
I'm saying, what if a church wanted their land to not be a desert? What's to stop them? And in such a world, why are there any deserts at all?One word Druids
And the fact create water just, you know, goes away.
Of course high level clerics can just summon storms anyway, or is that limited to druids?
I just completed a long discussion with our group's co-DM. We're ruling it thusly:
.
That must be why see invis lets you see every invisible thing clearly, while DM lets you focus on one thing for a couple rounds to make a check to guess what you're looking at. Needless nerf.
|
|
Dectect lets you see aura's and know what spell school they are it .
I know it used to in previous editions. I don't think knowing the school of magic is something it does anymore.
doesn't let me know that i am looking at an invisable person or a illusanary chest just that Illusion magic either was cast is is acitive on an area.
Well it technically doesn't let you see an "invisible" person, but it would detect magic in an area that you see nothing - the logical conclusion is it is something invisible. If it moves, you can logically conclude it is an invisible person/creature.
Robert
Dectect lets you see aura's and know what spell school they are it .I know it used to in previous editions. I don't think knowing the school of magic is something it does anymore.
doesn't let me know that i am looking at an invisable person or a illusanary chest just that Illusion magic either was cast is is acitive on an area.Well it technically doesn't let you see an "invisible" person, but it would detect magic in an area that you see nothing - the logical conclusion is it is something invisible. If it moves, you can logically conclude it is an invisible person/creature.
Robert
It lets you make a know (arcana) roll to identify the school. As for the logical conclusion, that is wrong enough times to not be worth assuming. There are a fair number of active and lingering auras that it could represent. Also, if it's moving, it's probably already attacked you or ran away.
|
|
That must be why see invis lets you see every invisible thing clearly, while DM lets you focus on one thing for a couple rounds to make a check to guess what you're looking at. Needless nerf.
No, the DM description says you detect everything in the cone (even through walls) and after round 3 you get location, strength and an attempt to determine type for every aura in the cone.
It's the location part that matters (i.e. the detector would know the location of every carried magic item plus the invisibility glamer on the person and they would be lit up). If you know that a bunch of auras are standing in that square over there and there's nobody standing there, you know that it's occupied by an invisible person. Similarly, if you know automatically that the features in the room you are standing in is a Figment (after round 3), you've pretty much killed the 8th level illusionist spell Screen. With a cantrip.
There is no cantrip that comes anywhere near to this amount of utility and so it should have been nerfed once it was made infinite castings per day.
No, the DM description says you detect everything in the cone (even through walls) and after round 3 you get location, strength and an attempt to determine type for every aura in the cone.
Wouldn't the area of effect be blocked by walls? You can't stand in front of a closed door, cast detect magic, and tell if someone with a magic item is standing right on the other side of the door.
It's the location part that matters (i.e. the detector would know the location of every carried magic item plus the invisibility glamer on the person and they would be lit up). If you know that a bunch of auras are standing in that square over there and there's nobody standing there, you know that it's occupied by an invisible person.
If an invisible person is still standing in the same square, after 3 rounds of some guy in robes staring intently at them, they deserve to get caught.
Similarly, if you know automatically that the features in the room you are standing in is a Figment (after round 3), you've pretty much killed the 8th level illusionist spell Screen. With a cantrip.
Let's look at Screen, a 8th level spell.
This spell creates a powerful protection from scrying and observation. When casting the spell, you dictate what will and will not be observed in the spell's area. The illusion created must be stated in general terms. Once the conditions are set, they cannot be changed. Attempts to scry the area automatically detect the image stated by you with no save allowed. Sight and sound are appropriate to the illusion created. Direct observation may allow a save (as per a normal illusion), if there is cause to disbelieve what is seen. Even entering the area does not cancel the illusion or necessarily allow a save, assuming that hidden beings take care to stay out of the way of those affected by the illusion.
You could tell, upon observing the area for 3 rounds, that there is a strong illusion spell in place in the area... doesn't tell you what it is. It could be terrain covering a pit, it could be a Mass Invisibility spell covering craploads of ninjas, it could be Shadow Conjuration, it could be a Simulcrum... it could be a number of things.
Illusionists are hard to play well to begin with, because they have to be played REALLY smartly in order to be effective. An Illusionist can't just count on making opponents roll lots of saves.
There is no cantrip that comes anywhere near to this amount of utility and so it should have been nerfed once it was made infinite castings per day.
I submit to you that Prestidigitation is used a LOT more often, and for a lot more varied purposes, than Detect Magic is in my games. The degree of utility of Detect Magic is your opinion.
|
|
Wouldn't the area of effect be blocked by walls? You can't stand in front of a closed door, cast detect magic, and tell if someone with a magic item is standing right on the other side of the door.
To quote the spell, you can: "The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it."
This means that if you're not in a stealth-mode party, someone should be looking through every door and down every corridor for invisible/magic trap/illusion spells all the time. Don't enter the room with the potential invisible ambush, look for it from behind the door every time. When you get to your room in the inn, look around through the walls and see if there are any other magic-item christmas tree people in another room.
This pretty logical line of thinking spawns other consequences where bad guys come up with anti-detect magic defences (spamming the dungeon with arcane marks so as to have thousands of tiny weak emanations) or DMs houseruling that you can't cast the same spell all day long or having every vault guard be a 1st level cleric so he can DM at the door all day long or whatever. I don't like it. Unlimited DM as per the book creates a significant change in tactics and feel from previous editions and it makes magic traps pretty much useless.
Like you said, Illusionists are hard to play well. I don't see the need to make them even harder by making the majority of their spells be automatically thwarted by an infinite use cantrip. The solution my group came up with allows for invisibility to be countered by see invis, true seeing, scent and the like and it allows someone using the cantrip to be fooled by a figment (just like they would be fooled when using their other senses by interaction) if they fail their disbelief saving throw.
Another alternative that I liked was shortening the range to 5' (or so) and keeping the effects the same, which I felt is more reasonable when compared to the likes of Resistance or Flare. Prestidigitaion is another matter as I lean to fairly strict interpretations of the "you can't make anything that is a tool" clause but YMMV.
While I agree that it can require different tactics, you should already have most of those tactics in your toolkit anyway to deal with the higher level spells. There are so many ways to get around unlimited detect magic that illusion spells or magic traps aren't hurt anymore than any other kind of spell or trap. A lot of people seem to be unwilling to bring those measures into play at level 1, but its best to accept that the world is a magical one, and defenses against magical threats would realistically be present from the very first adventure, not something just reserved for high levels.
I think part of the problem is that many people seem to think that illusion spells and magic traps are going to stop a party of low level adventurers dead in their tracks. Passive protections like spells and traps are there to buy time and convince casual thrill seekers to stay away. If you are trying to use them by themselves, without anything, or anyone to back them up, they will always fail to have the impact you want. Doing this will also virtually guarantee someone will be frustrated; either the DM will be frustrated because the players figured out how to bypass them, or the players are going to get frustrated when they are faced with a problem and not even allowed a chance to solve it before being pushed on the the next area that the DM wants them to go. This kind of frustration is why traps have consistently gotten nerfed from edition to edition, and illusion spells are generally undervalued; too many DM's try to use them as an encounter unto themselves, when they are best used to complement, and complicate, other challenges.
Three rounds to determine actual auras is a long time in typical D&D scenarios and still requires a successful check, plenty of time for a party standing still to either get into trouble or time that can be used by defenders who thanks to the alarm spell triggered by the use of detect magic can make their own preparations. The classes most capable of standing up front that long on a regular basis are also the classes that aren't going to have knowledge (arcane) as a class skill usually, decreasing their chances of successfully identifying the aura.
Don't forget that an adventuring party may well have enough magical auras on them to distort any auras in their immediate vicinity. Also, you can tell the strength of the aura, but since that is based on caster level, not spell level, knowing the school doesn't really help in determining exactly what they are seeing, especially when they see many auras in the same space, which would get muddled together. Anyone who is invisible that lets someone else pinpoint them with detect magic without interrupting the caster deserves their fate. Lastly, don't forget about lingering auras; proper use of these can cancel out the automatic response of "there's a lot of auras in that square, but nothing visible; someone must have invisibility up right now."
|
Good point, Tacticslion.But to be fair, most of the contention with Detect Magic isn't with the spell itself - it's is only that the spell can be cast at will.
For those who have problems with this synergistic combo, it seems more pragmatic to re-work the spell slightly than to remove unlimited 0 level spell-casting.
That's what most of the solution discussion has been regarding.
Robert
Spammable? Only at the expense of slowing adventuring down to a crawl...
Wizard.: I cast detect magic as we move down the hall.
GM:okay, so how fats are you moving? Remember, DM requires concentration so you can only take one move action.
Rest of the Party: We move on ahead while he shuffles along.
Adnd yes, I stopped a spammer by playing up just how slow he was going. He afterward only cast it when he had a reason to.
|
|
Deserts are defined by how much annual rain they have, not by how much water is contained within them. Some deserts get flooded every year. Some have tons of water sitting a few 100 feet below the surface.
While absolutely true, this is completely irrelevant. 'Unconsumed water' means that it is no longer a desert.Even the south Pole, which is buried under hundreds of feet of ice, is a dessert in Meteorological teerms. As it gets less than 1" of rain (or 10" of snow a year.
To quote the spell, you can: "The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it."
Okay, fair enough. A character can walk up and down an inn's hallway, looking intently at each door for 18 seconds before deciding if it's worth breaking into...
Now try telling me that a BBEG, who has the same amount of knowledge, isn't going to put a thin sheet of lead on the inside of each door?
Yes, things have changed from previous editions, and that means that tactics have to change. It is what it is.
This means that if you're not in a stealth-mode party, someone should be looking through every door and down every corridor for invisible/magic trap/illusion spells all the time. Don't enter the room with the potential invisible ambush, look for it from behind the door every time. When you get to your room in the inn, look around through the walls and see if there are any other magic-item christmas tree people in another room.
That assumes that your christmas tree isn't standing 65' away from the door.
This pretty logical line of thinking spawns other consequences where bad guys come up with anti-detect magic defences (spamming the dungeon with arcane marks so as to have thousands of tiny weak emanations) or DMs houseruling that you can't cast the same spell all day long or having every vault guard be a 1st level cleric so he can DM at the door all day long or whatever. I don't like it. Unlimited DM as per the book creates a significant change in tactics and feel from previous editions and it makes magic traps pretty much useless.
Arcane Mark, another 0-level spell (and therefore spammable) is the perfect counter for this. Why complain? I'd love to see a BBEG use Arcane Mark to talk trash to incoming adventurers.
Like you said, Illusionists are hard to play well. I don't see the need to make them even harder by making the majority of their spells be automatically thwarted by an infinite use cantrip. The solution my group came up with allows for invisibility to be countered by see invis, true seeing, scent and the like and it allows someone using the cantrip to be fooled by a figment (just like they would be fooled when using their other senses by interaction) if they fail their disbelief saving throw.
You miss the point. Playing an Illusionist IS specifically harder than playing an Invoker, or a Conjurer, or a Diviner... because the things they create aren't real. It's going to take extra creativity, and a reliance on non-magical solutions in order to make them effective.
Another alternative that I liked was shortening the range to 5' (or so) and keeping the effects the same, which I felt is more reasonable when compared to the likes of Resistance or Flare. Prestidigitaion is another matter as I lean to fairly strict interpretations of the "you can't make anything that is a tool" clause but YMMV.
I wouldn't be opposed to a 5'-15' range, or (more ideally) that it be limited by line of sight, but that's not RAW... and I have yet to see a compelling reason to change RAW.
You also didn't address anything beyond my first sentence.
|
|
Now try telling me that a BBEG, who has the same amount of knowledge, isn't going to put a thin sheet of lead on the inside of each door?Yes, things have changed from previous editions, and that means that tactics have to change. It is what it is.
I'm not aware of the in-game statistics for a lead-lined door. Is this or is this not something that might have been included in development, since they're assumed to be common.
I'll say AGAIN, Golarion didn't magically get transformed when the Pathfinder ruleset was christened. It's always had unlimited 0's. Why hasn't it adapted?
|
|
Now try telling me that a BBEG, who has the same amount of knowledge, isn't going to put a thin sheet of lead on the inside of each door?Yes, things have changed from previous editions, and that means that tactics have to change. It is what it is.
I'm not aware of the in-game statistics for a lead-lined door. Is this or is this not something that might have been included in development, since they're assumed to be common.
I'll say AGAIN, Golarion didn't magically get transformed when the Pathfinder ruleset was christened. It's always had unlimited 0's. Why hasn't it adapted?
Golarion isn't the only campaign setting, and not the mostly played one anyway. Plus, most people play in homebrews. Oh, because something doesn't exist in the core rulebook, it doesn't exist? If you're a GM use your imagination.
|
|
You also didn't address anything beyond my first sentence.
That was by design. I read every word you wrote and agree with some of the points so I understand where you are coming from. I didn't really mean to change your mind - I just wanted to share what my co-DM and I decided with our combined 50 years of D&D experience.
When Detect Magic was a rounds/day for most casters kinda thing, it wasn't used to test every hallway for magic traps and illusions, it wasn't used to investigate every patron in the inn (even from the safety of their room or through a window, looking through wooden walls to do so) and it wasn't even really viable as a counter-invisibility tactic.
I don't like when a change like this (unlimited Detect Magic) has unexpectedly big ripples that change how the game is played tactically and I don't like that it downgrades the functionality of illusionists because every figment can be tested and known 100% to be magic without expending any resources to do so.
I do like unlimited cantrips though, I just think that a little nerfing (along the lines of the Cure Minor Wound-Stabilize) is warranted, either by changing the effect or by drastically reducing the range.
When Detect Magic was a rounds/day for most casters kinda thing, it wasn't used to test every hallway for magic traps and illusions, it wasn't used to investigate every patron in the inn (even from the safety of their room or through a window, looking through wooden walls to do so) and it wasn't even really viable as a counter-invisibility tactic.
I don't like when a change like this (unlimited Detect Magic) has unexpectedly big ripples that change how the game is played tactically and I don't like that it downgrades the functionality of illusionists because every figment can be tested and known 100% to be magic without expending any resources to do so.
You have a valid point, up to a certain point. Detect Magic still isn't that great at countering invisibility nor does it decrease the functionality of illusionists. It allows low level casters to defeat illusions when they really couldn't before, but you undervalue the resource that is used. Time can be a huge resource if utilized properly, especially in a dungeon. It means you can't allow the party all day to traipse through your trap filled dungeon, but why would you do so anyway?
|
|
You have a valid point, up to a certain point. Detect Magic still isn't that great at countering invisibility nor does it decrease the functionality of illusionists. It allows low level casters to defeat illusions when they really couldn't before, but you undervalue the resource that is used. Time can be a huge resource if utilized properly, especially in a dungeon. It means you can't allow the party all day to traipse through your trap filled dungeon, but why would you do so anyway?
Thinking about it, another good countermeasure is the fact that the Verbal part of the spell components requires the caster to "be able to speak in a strong voice", which could be interpreted as a DC 0 (or lower) perception check for every critter in the dungeon, every time the spell is cast.
Thinking about it, another good countermeasure is the fact that the Verbal part of the spell components requires the caster to "be able to speak in a strong voice", which could be interpreted as a DC 0 (or lower) perception check for every critter in the dungeon, every time the spell is cast.
I would tend to agree with that. Anyone spamming the spell like that is going to draw attention to themselves, where ever they are.
You also didn't address anything beyond my first sentence.That was by design. I read every word you wrote and agree with some of the points so I understand where you are coming from. I didn't really mean to change your mind - I just wanted to share what my co-DM and I decided with our combined 50 years of D&D experience.
Fair enough. People on message boards often ignore the stronger parts of an argument, and attack only the weaker points of a posting. I just wanted to make sure that valid points weren't being ignored.
I don't like when a change like this (unlimited Detect Magic) has unexpectedly big ripples that change how the game is played tactically and I don't like that it downgrades the functionality of illusionists because every figment can be tested and known 100% to be magic without expending any resources to do so.
That's not what Detect Magic does, though. It determines that there is magic within the area of effect. It eventually tells you where it is and what school it is.
Illusion magic could come from:
- Terrain spell, covering a trap
- Invisible character (who really should be moving if someone is looking at them).
- Arcane Marks
- Magical items like Deck of Illusions, Dust of Illusion, or any magical item with an illusion spell used in its creation.
|
|
Golarion isn't the only campaign setting, and not the mostly played one anyway. Plus, most people play in homebrews. Oh, because something doesn't exist in the core rulebook, it doesn't exist? If you're a GM use your imagination.
Hama, you've simply set your expectations too low. You didn't change the zero-level spells, nor did I. Why then should it fall to us to compensate for that decision?
It simply shouldn't.
This remains true whether you impugn my imagination or not.
|
|
I'm saying, what if a church wanted their land to not be a desert? What's to stop them? And in such a world, why are there any deserts at all?
I am surprised that no one else offered the proper (and only) answer : Gods created the deserts to test the believers. And you cannot go against the will of Gods (freely adapted from Frank Herbert's Dune).
I'm saying, what if a church wanted their land to not be a desert? What's to stop them? And in such a world, why are there any deserts at all?I am surprised that no one else offered the proper (and only) answer : Gods created the deserts to test the believers. And you cannot go against the will of Gods (freely adapted from Frank Herbert's Dune).
+1, but given in a non-rhythmic fashion.
|
|
Hama, you've simply set your expectations too low. You didn't change the zero-level spells, nor did I. Why then should it fall to us to compensate for that decision?
It simply shouldn't.
This remains true whether you impugn my imagination or not.
How did i set my expectations too low?
Pathfinder is not D&D 3.5 It is based on d20 rules and borrows heavily from D&D 3.5, but It. Is. Not. That. Game.Zero level spells are unlimited now. Get over it or do it like it was done in 3.5.
I do not see any compensating. Only people who are stuck on 3.5 rules see the need for compensation. I see functioning rules that are different from the previous ones.
So you want something magical hidden, and you live in a pathfinder supporting setting? Line the insides of the container with lead, or put it in a cavity hidden by at least a foot of stone or three feet of wood. Voila.
The problem is that everyone wants to play Pathfinder because it's awesome, but wants to play it like 3.5. Not. Gonna. Happen. Cooking chocolate and milk chocolate taste different. very similar but different.
|
|
Pathfinder is not D&D 3.5 It is based on d20 rules and borrows heavily from D&D 3.5, but It. Is. Not. That. Game.
That's precisely MY point, in fact. If it isn't 3.5 then the world containing it should have adapted. As far as I can see, it hasn't.
The way I see it, Pathfinder took 3.5 and 3.5's world, changed some of the core assumptions (such as magic having limits) and DID NOT THEN change the world.
I want more milk chocolate. Not less.
That's precisely MY point, in fact. If it isn't 3.5 then the world containing it should have adapted. As far as I can see, it hasn't.
Pathfinder is not D&D 3.5 It is based on d20 rules and borrows heavily from D&D 3.5, but It. Is. Not. That. Game.
Which isn't Pathfinder's fault.
I could extrapolate on whose fault it is and why, but that's its own very long and very ranty topic.However, it is largely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Unless playing in PFS, the number of PF games played specifically in Golarian is far less than 100%.
|
|
My main issue with DM isn't that it's too powerful, it's that it's just plain tedious and boring. Any caster with half a brain quickly realizes, that aside from extraordinary or contrived circumstances, that it is generally best just to have it on constantly. There nothing "clever" about this once it becomes standard operating procedure.
As a fairly experienced GM, I know this, and as a resort I just chuck magic auras, nondetection spells, thin sheets of lead, mind blanks etc. on magical traps, items, and NPCs. I also don't generally bother with a lot of illusion spells unless it is to be really sneaky and exploit the fact that everyone is always using DM. (Like placing on illusion of nothing in particular on the safe area of the floor to trick to party into walking into a mechanical pit trap right next to it.) I figure anyone capable of creating an illusion would know of its limitations and would avoid obvious uses of them.
So it's not difficult to stop, but it just seems like it just generates a lot of contrived effort just to go right back to where we started (other than the magic item identification which I am fine with). I haven't house ruled it in my game yet but if I did I would change the detection time from rounds to minutes. That way the spell wouldn't lose effectiveness, but keeping it constantly up while exploring a dungeon would have a significant cost in time.
I house-ruled it into not detecting illusions and abjurations; that makes it useful for fusing magic items, but not illusions, invisible people, and magic traps.I play this way too. A 0th level spell should not be able to duplicate the effect of a 2nd (detect invis) or 6th (true seeing) level spell.
It doesn't really. It can approximate part of the effects of those spells after 3 times as much time, that is all.
|
|
Alot of posters indicate the time required to successfully use Detect Magic as a detractor - because it gives time for random encounters etc. Adventuring parties being vulnerable to so many attracted creatures etc.
I for one, and many other GMs I know, find repeated use of random monsters to be a catch 22 and often not worth the time invested in resolving the conflict.
Arbitrarily (or randomly rolling every round) a chance for an encounter brings with it it's own series of challenges in a meta-gaming sense.
It balloons the xp, causing characters to advance too quickly, hell some munchkin players might use DM just to attact them to GET the xp; not that I would allow this - but I know similar strategies have been tried. Frequent random encounters slows the game to a crawl, DMs are not nearly as prepared for them, and in the end, nothing is really resolved towards the actual story/quest that they're on. Players are merely forced into that 15 minute adventuring day schtick; only to return the next day to pick up where they were, detecting magic at will and bringing forth more random encounters. Rinse repeat.
And please dont reposte with: "Well I don't use XP charts - i just advance them when I feel like it so random encounters don't effect that." Cuz that in and of itself is a "house rule" deviation from RAW. So one way or the other - something is changed - whether it's the xp and advancement (for any number of reasons) or that spell and possibly a few others) for a number of different reasons.
For some, there are enough valid reasons to change the XP advancement regimen. For some the relative power level of Detect Magic and other spells is enough of a reason to alter it. For some the frequent inconviences of frequent random encounters is enough to prefer some changes. Personally I changed Detect Magic, I strongly limit my number of "random encounters" I instead spend a lot of time on plot-driving story based important ones, and I do not use xp charts; advancing characters as the story requires it.
Robert