|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Like the title says how would detect magic work with invisibility?
1) Would i clearly see the "magicly shyning outlines" of the invisible creature?
2) Would i "see" that there is something in the corner over there?
3) Would i just "sense" some illusion aura somewhere in the room?
4) else?
Like the title says how would detect magic work with invisibility?
1) Would i clearly see the "magicly shyning outlines" of the invisible creature?
2) Would i "see" that there is something in the corner over there?
3) Would i just "sense" some illusion aura somewhere in the room?
4) else?
All it does is show an aura from the illusion school. You also have to concentrate for 3 rounds to pinpoint(find the square) the aura instead of just detect it. All the invisible creature has to do is keep moving so you can't stay one him for 3 rounds.
Range 60 ft.
Area cone-shaped emanation
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.)
So -
Round 1: You cast the spell and learn "there's magic someplace within my 60' cone-shaped emanation"Round 2: "there x number of magics"
Round 3: "one of them I can't see but it's in that square, and I think it's of the illusion school"
But if the invisible thing moves out of the your cone-shaped emanation, you have to begin studying a new area to try to re-aquire it, meaning you have to start all over again at step 1.
Range 60 ft.
Area cone-shaped emanation
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.)
So -
Round 1: You cast the spell and learn "there's magic someplace within my 60' cone-shaped emanation"
Round 2: "there x number of magics"
Round 3: "one of them I can't see but it's in that square, and I think it's of the illusion school"But if the invisible thing moves out of the your cone-shaped emanation, you have to begin studying a new area to try to re-aquire it, meaning you have to start all over again at step 1.
Two aditions to note.
Detect Magic picks up ALL magic auras, so if one of your party members is standing in front of you with 5 magic items, you get 5 magic auras + all of the magic auras from the invisible person. So round 2 you get X magic auras, and you need to pick a single one to focus on. You do not know the location until you spend another round concentrating on that aura, so it is very possible that you would spends 3 rounds examining an aura only to find out it is the fighters +2 magic sword.
Sometimes, it is enough to get the info from round 1. Round 1, Wizard casts detect magic. Round 2, wizard moves in front of party, they check to see if they still detect magic(move action), they cast cone of cold(which hits rought the same area as detect magic).
Two aditions to note.
Detect Magic picks up ALL magic auras, so if one of your party members is standing in front of you with 5 magic items, you get 5 magic auras + all of the magic auras from the invisible person. So round 2 you get X magic auras, and you need to pick a single one to focus on. You do not know the location until you spend another round concentrating on that aura, so it is very possible that you would spends 3 rounds examining an aura only to find out it is the fighters +2 magic sword.
Sometimes, it is enough to get the info from round 1. Round 1, Wizard casts detect magic. Round 2, wizard moves in front of party, they check to see if they still detect magic(move action), they cast cone of cold(which hits rought the same area as detect magic).
You don't need to focus on a single aura to pinpoint it. You just need to focus on a single area. If you look at the same 60'-cone for three rounds you know the location and strength of every aura in that area.
Also, instead of focusing on an area, you can choose to focus on a single subject or aura (once you've located it). You could then follow this aura even if it moves around. You likely won't be able to detect anything else, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh.
"Everyone get behind me." Detect magic.
Do until Answer = "yes"
"Is there an aura in that direction?"
IF Answer = "yes" then:
AOE spell
Elseif:
End If
Loop
Like the title says how would detect magic work with invisibility?If you can't see the item, you can't see any magic aura radiating from it. So no, you can't defeat a 2nd or 4th level spell with an at-will cantrip.
Um... not true.
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.
In order for your statement to be true this statement would have to be false or you would need a means of seeing through the material in order to detect through it.
******************
EDIT: Now what is funny is that detect magic can be made permanent with the permanency spell -- but if you quit concentrating on the detect magic spell in order to cast the permanency spell the detect magic spell ends.
Meh.
"Everyone get behind me." Detect magic.
Do until Answer = "yes"
"Is there an aura in that direction?"IF Answer = "yes" then:
AOE spell
Elseif:
End If
Loop
Like sonar & depth charges to go after a sub!
Two aditions to note.
Detect Magic picks up ALL magic auras, so if one of your party members is standing in front of you with 5 magic items, you get 5 magic auras + all of the magic auras from the invisible person. So round 2 you get X magic auras, and you need to pick a single one to focus on. You do not know the location until you spend another round concentrating on that aura, so it is very possible that you would spends 3 rounds examining an aura only to find out it is the fighters +2 magic sword.
Sometimes, it is enough to get the info from round 1. Round 1, Wizard casts detect magic. Round 2, wizard moves in front of party, they check to see if they still detect magic(move action), they cast cone of cold(which hits rought the same area as detect magic).
You don't need to focus on a single aura to pinpoint it. You just need to focus on a single area. If you look at the same 60'-cone for three rounds you know the location and strength of every aura in that area.
Also, instead of focusing on an area, you can choose to focus on a single subject or aura (once you've located it). You could then follow this aura even if it moves around. You likely won't be able to detect anything else, though.
You are correct. Maybe I am thinking of an older version of the spell, meh.
There is still this little gem "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." It is up to the DM if the invisibility aura is in line of sight or not. All you would know is that there is an aura you can't see in a square, depending on how the DM rules, you may not know what kind of aura it is.
Meh.
"Everyone get behind me." Detect magic.
Do until Answer = "yes"
"Is there an aura in that direction?"IF Answer = "yes" then:
AOE spell
Elseif:
End If
Loop
Drop a stone with magic aura on it, and watch the party wizard go to town on a section of the room that is empty....
Drop a stone with magic aura on it, and watch the party wizard go to town on a section of the room that is empty....Meh.
"Everyone get behind me." Detect magic.
Do until Answer = "yes"
"Is there an aura in that direction?"IF Answer = "yes" then:
AOE spell
Elseif:
End If
Loop
Yup -- which is why a spell like web, greater dispel magic or glitterdust would be a great start.
However if the wizard chooses to keep going full tilt without checking to see why nothing is happening in response he deserves what he gets!
Drop a stone with magic aura on it, and watch the party wizard go to town on a section of the room that is empty....Meh.
"Everyone get behind me." Detect magic.
Do until Answer = "yes"
"Is there an aura in that direction?"IF Answer = "yes" then:
AOE spell
Elseif:
End If
LoopYup -- which is why a spell like web, greater dispel magic or glitterdust would be a great start.
However if the wizard chooses to keep going full tilt without checking to see why nothing is happening in response he deserves what he gets!
Yeah, it falls into the "A clever idea only works so many times" bucket.
Like the title says how would detect magic work with invisibility?
1) Would i clearly see the "magicly shyning outlines" of the invisible creature?
2) Would i "see" that there is something in the corner over there?
3) Would i just "sense" some illusion aura somewhere in the room?
4) else?
As wraithstrike said, all you'd see would be "There is a faint illusion spell over there." It could be an invisible creature, it could be a magic mouth, it could be any other first level illusion spell. But you would (after three rounds, assuming it stayed put) know that there was something.
There is still this little gem "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." It is up to the DM if the invisibility aura is in line of sight or not. All you would know is that there is an aura you can't see in a square, depending on how the DM rules, you may not know what kind of aura it is.
Well, based on the Line of Sight definition (Common Terms):
Line of Effect
A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight. A line of effect starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its range or until it strikes a barrier that would block it. A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares through which the line passes.
Line of Sight
A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment).
Invisibility does grant Concealment, so (ignoring the recursive definition) Invisibility breaks Line of Sight. (This seems pretty obvious, but I figured I'd mention it anyway.)
Detect magic, in the 3rd round of concentration, says this:
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.
Clearly, the creature bearing the magical aura of Illusion magic is not in line of sight, so the only thing that Detect Magic will let the caster see is that a faint magic aura exists "over there" - identification of the square that the aura is associated with is probably indicated, but subject to GM whimsy. (If the invisible creature is carrying other invisible magical objects or is the subject of additional spell, obviously Detect Magic will allow those auras to be noted but not identified as well.)
Invisibility does grant Concealment, so (ignoring the recursive definition) Invisibility breaks Line of Sight. (This seems pretty obvious, but I figured I'd mention it anyway.)
I'll take that up, not so obvious. Spell auras are normally invisible, the point of detect magic is to make them detectable.
The analogy would be an invisble creature carying a torch. The light is visible even if the torch and the person carrying it isn't.
Detect magic doesn't say it makes the aura detectable by sight, but it does make it observable. So, the line of sight blocker has to be something else (smoke, fog, maybe even darkness, etc.)
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I can't believe we're revisiting this topic again...
Pack it up, guys. There is no right answer that can be accepted by all. Everyone seems to interpret this one differently, so if you're looking for a definitive answer, you probably won't get one.
Basically, it comes to DM fiat.
In my games, you know an aura is present, but it cannot be pinpointed as the observer cannot see the source. Is this the right interpretation? Yes, for my games. Your DM may do it differently. Is he wrong to do so? No, as it works for his game.
Yea, I donno. This comes up again and again. Thinking about it, there's several forums, one for advice, one for suggestions, this one's for rules. Seems how people houserule things should be what the Advice and Suggestions forums are for, trying to figure out exactly what the rules say and mean, to the extent it's possible, is what the rules forum is for. Quibbling sentence construction and word meaning and whatnot (as opposed to just how people houserule things in their home games) is what that's all about.
|
|
Invisibility does grant Concealment, so (ignoring the recursive definition) Invisibility breaks Line of Sight. (This seems pretty obvious, but I figured I'd mention it anyway.)I'll take that up, not so obvious. Spell auras are normally invisible, the point of detect magic is to make them detectable.
The analogy would be an invisble creature carying a torch. The light is visible even if the torch and the person carrying it isn't.
Detect magic doesn't say it makes the aura detectable by sight, but it does make it observable. So, the line of sight blocker has to be something else (smoke, fog, maybe even darkness, etc.)
To play a bit of Devils advocate here, the spell does not state that the aura has to be visible, only "if the items or creatures bearing the auras..." Thus if the item or creature that has the aura on it (aka invisible, in a chest, etc) is not visible, you cannot make the Kn (Arcana) role to figure out what school it is. Sure, you can detect that there is an aura there, but apparently you need to see the item that radiates the aura to find out what kind of aura it is.
To go back to your torch analogy, you may see that there is light over there, but was it created from a torch, ghost light spell, lantern, or x?
Hmm that's a good point, Happler.
If the concealment of invisibility didn't count as blocking for line of sight, then an invisible thing could be a target of targeted spells. And it does specify the item or creature, not the aura itself.
I think RAI it's the aura (since that's the thing you're detecting and examining), but, yea I change my mind, by RAW Doskious Steele's right, you can't get the School of magic of the aura, just it's strength and location.
Like the title says how would detect magic work with invisibility?If you can't see the item, you can't see any magic aura radiating from it. So no, you can't defeat a 2nd or 4th level spell with an at-will cantrip.
+1 to this. That's how I run it. If an illusion can't fool a cantrip it's not much of an illusion.
The way I handle Detect <anything> and illusion spells is that you are interacting with the illusion when the detect spell interacts with it. If you succeed, you disbelieve the illusion. If you fail, you don't notice the spell aura, so you don't know there is an illusion there (you believe the illusion). Simple and keeps illusions being useful, instead of trumping all illusions with a cantrip.
An invisibility spell is an illusion, and thus it can be disbelieved. The issue is, you normally can't interact with an invisibility spell unless you can maybe grapple the invisible guy. However, this allows you to interact with the spell (although it takes using the spell and giving up an action to concentrate). It all happens on the first round, you either disbelieve and notice the aura in the cone, or you fail and don't notice it, because you believed the invisibility.
I find this a neater and easier way to work the detects.
*Sigh*
Please note that you cannot disbelieve invisibility as it doesn't have the Save will(disbelieve) line.
Therefore you cannot save to disbelieve. It wouldn't matter either -- invisibility only affects sight. Detect magic is not sight based -- therefore detect magic isn't stymied by invisibility.
Now the specific part of detect magic that allows you to identify what school of magic is in use requires the person or object to be in line of sight -- which invisibility does affect, but that's the only part.
Please note you can detect things through up to a 1 foot of stone -- which blocks line of sight so it can clearly detect things you cannot see.
*Sigh*
Please note that you cannot disbelieve invisibility as it doesn't have the Save will(disbelieve) line.
Therefore you cannot save to disbelieve. It wouldn't matter either -- invisibility only affects sight. Detect magic is not sight based -- therefore detect magic isn't stymied by invisibility.
Now the specific part of detect magic that allows you to identify what school of magic is in use requires the person or object to be in line of sight -- which invisibility does affect, but that's the only part.
Please note you can detect things through up to a 1 foot of stone -- which blocks line of sight so it can clearly detect things you cannot see.
Ah, I admit to having forgotten about the disbelief portion needing to be there. However, I still hold that a cantrip does not invalidate every illusion spell, and that it interacts with the spell.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, by the 3rd round of concentration, and if the invisible creature/object has not moved since I started concentrating, I will know that there is a magical aura in this specific square and that I cannot even try to identify what school it is. Since I know that the latter means I do not have line of sight to the creature/item bearing the aura, it means that said creature/item is concealed. If I do not see any obvious cause for concealment, I can logically deduce that said aura is an invisibility effect.
I still end up casting Glittering Dust at the square where the oh-so-mysterious aura has been standing for the previous 3 rounds.
Granted, the cantrip forces casters of illusion effects to be a bit smarter than previously. But honestly, it does not make the illusions worthless.
An invisible opponent who just stays in the same square while a caster is staring at it for 3 rounds after casting a spell just asks to be beaten to a pulp after having his invisibility ripped from him.
Granted, the cantrip forces casters of illusion effects to be a bit smarter than previously. But honestly, it does not make the illusions worthless.An invisible opponent who just stays in the same square while a caster is staring at it for 3 rounds after casting a spell just asks to be beaten to a pulp after having his invisibility ripped from him.
It is not the invisibility that it makes worthless (much).
16th level caster : I cast a 6th level illusion of fire on the bridge!
1st level caster : I cast detect magic...
3 rounds later
1st level caster : There's an illusion aura on the bridge, right where that fire is! It's an illusion!
20th level BBEG : I fill my dungeon with illusions to hide the real traps!
1st level follower : I follow the party, concentrating ahead of them.
3 rounds later...
1st level follower : Hey guys, there's an illusion aura there, there, there, there, and there. Oh and that minotaur has an illusion aura on him as well, so he might not be real.
20th level BBEG : DOH!
Note that at 7th level, with followers, you can have your minions follow you around concentrating on Detect Magic for you. One moves up 20 feet and concentrates for 3 rounds. Once he's done, #2 moves up 40 feet and does the same thing. Then #3. After that, they just rotate every third round, one guy moving up and starting his concentrate all over again. Rotating bat radar.
Is it stupid? Yes. Is it cheesy? Yes. Is there any way to stop it? No, short of murdering all followers. Which then get's you lumped into the badwrongfun GM role for destroying a feat's benefits (same as if you sunder a weapon or spell pouch or spell book or witch familiar).
I just really think detect magic should not have been reduced to a cantrip personally.
I don't know why this spell seems to be so unknown:
Hides magical auras from Detect Magic.
Sure, it's a witch-only spell, but only 1st level, has no saving throw or anything (not for Detect Magic anyway) and a duration of day/level.
So your BBEG can easily employ one or two low level witches that periodically go through the dungeon and hide the stuff he wants to keep hidden.
Yes there are ways to detect it still, but not with a cantrip anymore.
"That 10 ft coridor there, I see an aura on the left side, probably a trap. The right side is clear though, lets just walk there."
Well oops, right side is the masked trap, left side is just a stone with some magic cast on it, to make you walk on the right side. :)
Also don't overestimate Detect Magic. In combat it's next to useless. If you really stand around 3 round to pinpoint a location, chances are the invisible target has already pinpointed the location of your kidney's with his daggers in the meantime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Detect Magic can detect invisibility, but people seem to overlook several key points about this.
1st, it takes three rounds to get to where you can identify the school, and even then, it could just be a lingering aura, or something else like silent image, or magic aura. So it's still not 100% certain.
2nd, for it to properly work, the wizard would have to be at the front of the party, usually a bad idea, to avoid the interference from all of their magical stuff, because being at the back, or even middle will give you a nice distorted view. A cleric could do it and stand a slightly better chance of not getting ganked immediately, but it's still not a good suggestion.
3rd, assuming that the caster doing this is still alive, they still have the issue of keeping track of the aura, and if it truly is someone invisible, this is going to be easier said than done.
In the end, it's doable, but it tends to require very specific circumstances to work properly, and is fairly easy to foil, so far from being overpowered. There are plenty of spells that can challenge higher level spells, so I don't buy the whole "but a cantrip shouldn't be able to do that" complaint. Even if detect magic could positively id the exact spell, which it doesn't, you'd still have to deal with the mischance because they are still invisible, or hope that they give you enough time to cast dispel magic before they attack you.
For those who say that invisibility blocks line of sight to the aura, how do you explain it's ability to detect lingering auras whose source may not even be around anymore? It seems like in order to solve one apparent relatively minor problem with the spell, you ended up creating another, bigger one.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
16th level caster : I cast a 6th level illusion of fire on the bridge!
1st level caster : I cast detect magic...
3 rounds later
1st level caster : There's an illusion aura on the bridge, right where that fire is! It's an illusion!
20th level BBEG : I fill my dungeon with illusions to hide the real traps!
1st level follower : I follow the party, concentrating ahead of them.
3 rounds later...
1st level follower : Hey guys, there's an illusion aura there, there, there, there, and there. Oh and that minotaur has an illusion aura on him as well, so he might not be real.
20th level BBEG : DOH!
Note that at 7th level, with followers, you can have your minions follow you around concentrating on Detect Magic for you. One moves up 20 feet and concentrates for 3 rounds. Once he's done, #2 moves up 40 feet and does the same thing. Then #3. After that, they just rotate every third round, one guy moving up and starting his concentrate all over again. Rotating bat radar.
Is it stupid? Yes. Is it cheesy? Yes. Is there any way to stop it? No, short of murdering all followers. Which then get's you lumped into the badwrongfun GM role for destroying a feat's benefits (same as if you sunder a weapon or spell pouch or spell book or witch familiar).
I just really think detect magic should not have been reduced to a cantrip personally.
Sorry, but this is an example of a really stupid illusionist BBEG. "Oh no, my attackers have a way to completely thwart my plan! I'll keep doing the exact same thing!" This is where my 20th level bad guy would start covering real threats with illusions - "Illusion aura on that fire!" "Then I'll just walk through arggghh!" "I guess there was an illusion of a fire over that real fire. Huh."
I also don't get the whole "gentleman's agreement" wrt spellbooks, followers, etc. PCs should take steps to protect things they want to keep. If they don't, and it makes sense for an attacker to go after them, they will be gone after. Someone who brings 1st level followers into an adventure with a 20th level caster BBEG is just asking for them to be toast.
So I guess I come down on the side that detect magic (and, by extension, arcane sight) work just fine on illusions/invisibility. Three rounds is an eternity in a combat situation. A caster who tried this in my game would find it a wholly ineffective tactic except against a really dumb monster (it would probably work against, say, a goblin shaman who thinks he can just hold "real still" and no one will see him).
Yes it is... you can't detect practically anything by spell if you are blind. I rule it this way Invisibility not only hides you, but it also hides the aura the spell gives off. Otherwise there would be no need for higher level spells like Invisibility Purge, and no one would have bothered to invent Greater Invisibility because it would have been made useless by a mere cantrip.
Therefore you cannot save to disbelieve. It wouldn't matter either -- invisibility only affects sight. Detect magic is not sight based -- therefore detect magic isn't stymied by invisibility.
Detect magic foils invisibility less than a bag of flour does. Detect magic you spend three rounds and go "There's either an invisible creature or a magic mouth over there. If I walk over, I'll either be attacked, or spoken to." In fact, major image, invisiblity sphere, and regular invisiblity all detect exactly the same as magic mouth or ghost sound.
In the old days there was even a separate detect invisibility spell that was distinct from detect magic.
You mean See Invisibility, a second level spell which automatically and instantly lets you see through all forms of invisibility (including greater), as well as seeing through ethereal jaunt's pseudo-invisibility?
Detect magic foils invisibility less than a bag of flour does.
Also for illusions, 'interacting' via poking it with a stick.
It's not that detect magic is a cantrip, it's that stuff like invisibility and illusion aren't supposed to be so unfoilable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes it is...
Therefore you cannot save to disbelieve. It wouldn't matter either -- invisibility only affects sight. Detect magic is not sight based -- therefore detect magic isn't stymied by invisibility.
Citation? Because you claim a lot of things that are specifically counter to the actual rules.
It is not the invisibility that it makes worthless (much).16th level caster : I cast a 6th level illusion of fire on the bridge!
1st level caster : I cast detect magic...
3 rounds later
1st level caster : There's an illusion aura on the bridge, right where that fire is! It's an illusion!
20th level BBEG : I fill my dungeon with illusions to hide the real traps!
If your BBEG is dumb enough to allow the party with a 1st level caster 3 rounds to figure out that there is an illusion spell there (and he makes the knowledge check) the GM deserves what he gets. Besides even if you do detect it's an illusion that doesn't mean you automatically disbelieve it.
Same again with the traps -- you do realize that simple skill checks will tell the difference right without trap finding even?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Detect magic foils invisibility less than a bag of flour does.Also for illusions, 'interacting' via poking it with a stick.
It's not that detect magic is a cantrip, it's that stuff like invisibility and illusion aren't supposed to be so unfoilable.
It's that people in this thread are lazy and unwilling to think beyond the 'that's so broken' idiocy.
There are millions of ways to use this both for the players and for the GM without ever destroying balance.
I can't believe we're revisiting this topic again...
Pack it up, guys. There is no right answer that can be accepted by all. Everyone seems to interpret this one differently, so if you're looking for a definitive answer, you probably won't get one.
Basically, it comes to DM fiat.
In my games, you know an aura is present, but it cannot be pinpointed as the observer cannot see the source. Is this the right interpretation? Yes, for my games. Your DM may do it differently. Is he wrong to do so? No, as it works for his game.
There is a right answer. People's inability to understand it does not make the correct answer less correct. The spell is quiet simple, and several thread have the correct answer.
Like the title says how would detect magic work with invisibility?
1) Would i clearly see the "magicly shyning outlines" of the invisible creature?
2) Would i "see" that there is something in the corner over there?
3) Would i just "sense" some illusion aura somewhere in the room?
4) else?
If an Invisible creature stood in 1 place for 3 rounds, you could 100% of the time discover that there is Illusion magic in a 5'x5'x5' cube.
The only real debate revolving around the spell which I have seen nowhere is whether or not you could actually identify the school of magic if it isn't being generated by a person or object.
People's inability to understand it does not make the correct answer less correct.
Boy you said a mouthfull there. Good luck with that, sometimes, though.
Granted, the cantrip forces casters of illusion effects to be a bit smarter than previously. But honestly, it does not make the illusions worthless.An invisible opponent who just stays in the same square while a caster is staring at it for 3 rounds after casting a spell just asks to be beaten to a pulp after having his invisibility ripped from him.
It is not the invisibility that it makes worthless (much).
16th level caster : I cast a 6th level illusion of fire on the bridge!
1st level caster : I cast detect magic...
3 rounds later
1st level caster : There's an illusion aura on the bridge, right where that fire is! It's an illusion!
20th level BBEG : I fill my dungeon with illusions to hide the real traps!
1st level follower : I follow the party, concentrating ahead of them.
3 rounds later...
1st level follower : Hey guys, there's an illusion aura there, there, there, there, and there. Oh and that minotaur has an illusion aura on him as well, so he might not be real.
20th level BBEG : DOH!
Note that at 7th level, with followers, you can have your minions follow you around concentrating on Detect Magic for you. One moves up 20 feet and concentrates for 3 rounds. Once he's done, #2 moves up 40 feet and does the same thing. Then #3. After that, they just rotate every third round, one guy moving up and starting his concentrate all over again. Rotating bat radar.
Is it stupid? Yes. Is it cheesy? Yes. Is there any way to stop it? No, short of murdering all followers. Which then get's you lumped into the badwrongfun GM role for destroying a feat's benefits (same as if you sunder a weapon or spell pouch or spell book or witch familiar).
I just really think detect magic should not have been reduced to a cantrip personally.
There are two spells that hide magical aura though. If the BBEG does not use those every once in a while and/or uses only illusions to try to trick the party I feel no pity for him.
Therefore you cannot save to disbelieve. It wouldn't matter either -- invisibility only affects sight. Detect magic is not sight based -- therefore detect magic isn't stymied by invisibility.Yes it is... you can't detect practically anything by spell if you are blind. I rule it this way Invisibility not only hides you, but it also hides the aura the spell gives off. Otherwise there would be no need for higher level spells like Invisibility Purge, and no one would have bothered to invent Greater Invisibility because it would have been made useless by a mere cantrip.
In the old days there was even a separate detect invisibility spell that was distinct from detect magic. Detect magic got a double boost from Pathfinder as it is, I see no reason to extend it's powers to foiling invisibility as well.
It does not foil invisibility, and you have to see in order to see the aura, but seeing the item/creature is an nonfactor. If it was then it would not work through walls. What you do or do not like has no bearings on the rules.
Detect Magic can detect invisibility, but people seem to overlook several key points about this.
1st, it takes three rounds to get to where you can identify the school, and even then, it could just be a lingering aura, or something else like silent image, or magic aura. So it's still not 100% certain.
2nd, for it to properly work, the wizard would have to be at the front of the party, usually a bad idea, to avoid the interference from all of their magical stuff, because being at the back, or even middle will give you a nice distorted view. A cleric could do it and stand a slightly better chance of not getting ganked immediately, but it's still not a good suggestion.
3rd, assuming that the caster doing this is still alive, they still have the issue of keeping track of the aura, and if it truly is someone invisible, this is going to be easier said than done.
In the end, it's doable, but it tends to require very specific circumstances to work properly, and is fairly easy to foil, so far from being overpowered. There are plenty of spells that can challenge higher level spells, so I don't buy the whole "but a cantrip shouldn't be able to do that" complaint. Even if detect magic could positively id the exact spell, which it doesn't, you'd still have to deal with the mischance because they are still invisible, or hope that they give you enough time to cast dispel magic before they attack you.
It does not detect invisibility. It detects an aura of a certain school.
Well, it's perveive, not specifically see the aura, which I think you mean because yea, that's why you can percieve it through walls.
Point is, you can determine location on the 3rd round (though not necessarily school of magic). Got the location, got the square. Got the square, got the invis thing pinpointed, so can attack the square.
I don't think anyone's arguing the invis thing loses total concealment, it's just a (time consuming and likly impractical in combat) means to pinpoint the square an invisible thing is in, so you can know which square to attack into.
|
|
In home games I used an eclectic take on fantasy gaming to use red herrings to keep detect magic from being what I considered to be an 'overpowered' infinite-use 0 level cantrip.
In a game such as D20/3.5/Pathfinder magic is assumed to be pretty common (if only in comparison to other darker, grittier fantasy settings), and I'd go with that. The orphan NPC's favorite stuffed bear? It registers as magic, due to her special affinity for it ending up imbued with a bit of her aura/soul/psychic energy/whatever-you-want-to-call-it-in-this-setting. As GM I called it my perogative to say it's the most basic, fundamental aspect that the more refined arts of magic item creation and spellcasting are built upon. This example teddy bear doesn't have any magic properties, in game stats, but it would trigger a basic 'magic item' alarm on the 1st turn use of Detect magic.
I've found that as long as I wasn't overtly using such strategies as to simply foil Detect Magic, it ends up being one heck of a useful and even fun way to PROVIDE an information spigot about fluff end even hard, useful clues about NPCs, Places, and Things.
Point is, you can determine location on the 3rd round (though not necessarily school of magic). Got the location, got the square. Got the square, got the invis thing pinpointed, so can attack the square.
I agree, although I'll point out once again (for those who object) that if that's your plan, you're just as likely to be swinging through empty air (because it's not an invisible creature) as actually attacking an invisible creature. And if the GM rolls your percentile chance secretly (which this scenario certainly calls for), all you'll get is a bunch of "You don't hit anything." Since you can't prove a negative, if you swing and miss 100 times, you could have just rolled 100 "05"'s in a row while the creature that is there is silently laughing at you...
If you are a devious DM/BBEG, cast an illusion of a big nasty Red Dragon on your quite real big nasty Red Dragon.
Side topic, but the obscure rules of illusion spells prevents that kind of thing, depending on the kind of illusion you're using. All the 'image' spells are "figments", and figments cannot make something seem to be something else. So, you can't use an Image spell as a poor man's mass invisibility by creating an illusion of the room just minus your party, for example, or use it as a disguise. I think the idea is it's like a hologram, the thing inside of it would interfere with the projected image, not be concealed by it or match up with it perfectly. For that you need to get yourself a Glamer. All that obtuseness is in the Magic chapter of the core book, in the Illusion sub-section of the spell description section.