| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a relatively new GM, I'm running into people using the 0 level spell detect magic in all sorts of ways I've never seen before. Some things are obvious such as enchanted items but others I'm not sure about.
Here are a few:
1. Detect the presence of a hidden magical beast or creature
2. Detect someone who is under an invisibility spell or is invisible but carrying magical items.
3. Detect if someone is under the effect of an enchantment or compulsion.
4. Find a spellcaster who casting from a hidden location.
5. Determine whether an effect (such as ghost sound) is magical or mundane.
Morag
Dot
Keep in mind the 3rds necessary to locate specific auras in the 60 foot cone. Even if the answer is yes, it's not necessarily useful.
The answer for #1,2, &4 is yes, but if they are just going to sit there for 3 rounds while you search they deserve to be found.
#3 I think technically yes if you examine them for three rounds then roll spellcraft to identify the type of magic and deduce it's purpose. Again, this requires them cooperate or be restrained.
#5) if you're at the source of the spell, sure, but not the sound itself. However, again if it's a person casting they've got to sit there for three rounds while you examine them and make spellcraft rolls.
As a relatively new GM, I'm running into people using the 0 level spell detect magic in all sorts of ways I've never seen before. Some things are obvious such as enchanted items but others I'm not sure about.
Here are a few:
1. Detect the presence of a hidden magical beast or creature
2. Detect someone who is under an invisibility spell or is invisible but carrying magical items.
3. Detect if someone is under the effect of an enchantment or compulsion.
4. Find a spellcaster who casting from a hidden location.
5. Determine whether an effect (such as ghost sound) is magical or mundane.Morag
1) No. Detect Magic detects functioning spells and magic items. Magical beasts are neither. It would detect summons, however.
2) Yes3) Yes
4) Yes
5) Only if examining the source.
1 - no. Detect Magic detects magic items and active spells (or the lingering aura of destroyed magic items and expired spells). Not "magical creatures". Not Supernatural abilities. Just items and spells.
2 - yes, but. Concentrating on Detect Magic requires a standard action each round, and it takes 3 rounds of detecting in the same 60' cone to pinpoint it; plenty of time for an aware invisible creature to move out of the area.
3 - Yes, with a succesful Knowledge:Arcana you can learn that they're under a spell from the Enchantment school and the approximate spell level.
4 - IF he has magic items and/or active spells on himself, subject to the same limitations as 2). Spellcasting in itself is not detectable.
5 - If done quickly enough (within 1d6 rounds), it can find a dim aura where the effect happened.
Yeah, the big problem is the three rounds of not moving, so there are many situations it isn't useful.
For #3, keep in mind there are many spells in the enchantment school. They could just be under a Heroism spell rather then dominated or charmed.
I seem to recall an old thread where Detect Magic vs Invisiblity was specifically in question, and the answer was along the lines of "No, you can't find an invisible person with detect magic." I don't recall the specifics but I want to say it was along the lines of, Detect Magic is the 'normal' rule and Invisiblity was the exception to the norm. The spell does what it says it does and hides you.
A magical beast is a type of creature, but unless it was under the effect of an ongoing spell or effect, there is no reason that it would register (similar to how outsiders and elementals don't, as mentioned in the Detect Magic write up).
Being under the effects of a spell/spell like is pretty much exactly what using the spell and the Spellcraft skill was designed to do. You just need to observe them long enough to get the reading.
A spell caster who is casting from a hidden area is probably behind some cover, as well as casting the spell faster than could be detected (1 standard action usually vs 3 rounds of concentration) assuming the cover allows detection (1' stone wall for example).
There are a few ways to approach the magical vs mundane thing. Most are not 100% fool proof but, intelligent play should be rewarded as this is a table top game. The other side of that is, you shouldn't let the players get more than they could out of it. It is a balancing act, but you should be aware of what you do at times and once you make that choice, be consistent for the group. Better to error on the side of caution and later be more allowing once you have a better grasp of the game, then to allow too much and "take it away" from them. Was the creature seen (perception) or known to be in the area (knowledge)?
3. Sense motive seems more useful for that- sure, DC 25, but it is less likely to get thrown off if the person just enjoys a nice heroism buff (or if they were 'told' it was heroism by the mysterious stranger that just showed by BUT HE JUST SEEMS SO DARN TRUSTWORTHY FOR SOME REASON)
Also, it is DC 15 if it is something strong, like dominate, since they just go a bit robotic.
Overall- detect magic might seem useful in this role for low level, but eventually there are enough factors floating about (access to high level buffs that just happen to be enchantment, enough skill ranks in sense motive that you can reliably get the DC, etc.) that it isn't as useful.
I seem to recall an old thread where Detect Magic vs Invisiblity was specifically in question, and the answer was along the lines of "No, you can't find an invisible person with detect magic." I don't recall the specifics but I want to say it was along the lines of, Detect Magic is the 'normal' rule and Invisiblity was the exception to the norm. The spell does what it says it does and hides you.
That may have been the consensus of that thread, but it was incorrect. Detect magic absolutely will reveal the presence of an invisible creature... if said invisible creature stands still for 3 rounds. This requires concentration on the part of the caster, who can only pass this information on. The creature remains invisible, benefitting from all that invisibility has to offer (+2 AC, 50% miss chance, etc.) and has only to move out of the radius of the detect magic effect to start the whole process over again.
EDIT: Also, detect magic doesn't automatically reveal what spell the caster is looking at. They can make a Knowledge (arcana) check to see that they're looking at an illusion spell and make a very educated guess, but it's not automatic.
Detect magic also shoots through many materials.
3 feet of wood. So if someone is invisible on the other side of the closed door. You may find out they have an illusion glamer school going on in a specific spot, and when they open the door nothing is there. Leave huge hints.
It also detect magical traps easily and such.
I seem to recall an old thread where Detect Magic vs Invisiblity was specifically in question, and the answer was along the lines of "No, you can't find an invisible person with detect magic." I don't recall the specifics but I want to say it was along the lines of, Detect Magic is the 'normal' rule and Invisiblity was the exception to the norm. The spell does what it says it does and hides you.That may have been the consensus of that thread, but it was incorrect. Detect magic absolutely will reveal the presence of an invisible creature... if said invisible creature stands still for 3 rounds. This requires concentration on the part of the caster, who can only pass this information on. The creature remains invisible, benefitting from all that invisibility has to offer (+2 AC, 50% miss chance, etc.) and has only to move out of the radius of the detect magic effect to start the whole process over again.
EDIT: Also, detect magic doesn't automatically reveal what spell the caster is looking at. They can make a Knowledge (arcana) check to see that they're looking at an illusion spell and make a very educated guess, but it's not automatic.
Much the same as an invisible object with Light cast upon it is described as shedding light without an obvious source, I would say the magical aura of an Invisibility spell would be visible with Detect Magic, but it would not have an obvious source.
"You see an aura of magic in that area from the Illusion school" will suffice.
The best you would get is the square they're in, but it's quite likely they would've moved out of your cone by then. And at that point, your back to "round one" of detect magic (in a new area).
Not to mention all the other potential magical auras (allies and enemies) giving you "false positives" every time you check an arc for magic.
As a relatively new GM, I'm running into people using the 0 level spell detect magic in all sorts of ways I've never seen before. Some things are obvious such as enchanted items but others I'm not sure about.
Here are a few:
1. Detect the presence of a hidden magical beast or creature
2. Detect someone who is under an invisibility spell or is invisible but carrying magical items.
3. Detect if someone is under the effect of an enchantment or compulsion.
4. Find a spellcaster who casting from a hidden location.
5. Determine whether an effect (such as ghost sound) is magical or mundane.Morag
It detects magical spells, lingering auras of magic, magical items, magical traps, SLA's and their auras and that might not even be a complete list.
Just remember it takes 3 round to pinpoint the location of the aura, and even then it only tells you the school of magic, not which spell is being used.
I seem to recall an old thread where Detect Magic vs Invisiblity was specifically in question, and the answer was along the lines of "No, you can't find an invisible person with detect magic." I don't recall the specifics but I want to say it was along the lines of, Detect Magic is the 'normal' rule and Invisiblity was the exception to the norm. The spell does what it says it does and hides you.
There have been many threads on that topic, and if that was the concensus on that one then it was incorrect. Illusion based spells have no protection from detect magic. What you can do is find the square the invisible person is in, but they are still invisible and get the benefits. If the invisible person leaves the cone then the caster has to start over.
I seem to recall an old thread where Detect Magic vs Invisiblity was specifically in question, and the answer was along the lines of "No, you can't find an invisible person with detect magic." I don't recall the specifics but I want to say it was along the lines of, Detect Magic is the 'normal' rule and Invisiblity was the exception to the norm. The spell does what it says it does and hides you.
There have been many threads on that topic, and if that was the concensus on that one then it was incorrect. Illusion based spells have no protection from detect magic. What you can do is find the square the invisible person is in, but they are still invisible and get the benefits. If the invisible person leaves the cone then the caster has to start over.
well at that extent it also gives a chance for people to perceive the creature. Also if you detect magic from an area where it does nto notice you detecting magic like behind a door it still provides benefits. Also if the creature does not have spellcraft it may not know what the PC is doing.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
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 emanates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).
Question: Does invisibility break line of sight?
If so, you can't detect the school of magic, only the number of auras in the area.EDIT: Though the part about knowing the strength and location comes first, so you'd know the aura was coming from a particular square, but not the school of magic involved.
Question: Does invisibility break line of sight?
That's a rather interesting question.
well at that extent it also gives a chance for people to perceive the creature. Also if you detect magic from an area where it does nto notice you detecting magic like behind a door it still provides benefits. Also if the creature does not have spellcraft it may not know what the PC is doing.I seem to recall an old thread where Detect Magic vs Invisiblity was specifically in question, and the answer was along the lines of "No, you can't find an invisible person with detect magic." I don't recall the specifics but I want to say it was along the lines of, Detect Magic is the 'normal' rule and Invisiblity was the exception to the norm. The spell does what it says it does and hides you.
There have been many threads on that topic, and if that was the concensus on that one then it was incorrect. Illusion based spells have no protection from detect magic. What you can do is find the square the invisible person is in, but they are still invisible and get the benefits. If the invisible person leaves the cone then the caster has to start over.
You don't need spellcraft to know someone is casting. I guess a GM could say that, but magic is so common that if someone is waving their hands, holding strange things, and talking crazy they are casting.
You also get a perception check without detect magic. However it might make someone make a 2nd intentional check if they are suspicious.
Sometimes the illusion aura is of an illusionary wall or creature.
I do agree that if someone is one the other side of a wall they don't know you are using detect magic, but you also have no idea why that aura is there.
PS: Just to be clear I am not trying to downplay detect magic. I am just saying what it does and does not do.
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 emanates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).Question: Does invisibility break line of sight?
If so, you can't detect the school of magic, only the number of auras in the area.EDIT: Though the part about knowing the strength and location comes first, so you'd know the aura was coming from a particular square, but not the school of magic involved.
No, it does not break line of sight. Walls break line of sight because you can not see past the wall, unless of course it is an invisible wall. That fact that making a wall invisible allows you to see past it means that invis does not break line of sight. It actually increases line of sight.
|
|
No, it does not break line of sight. Walls break line of sight because you can not see past the wall, unless of course it is an invisible wall. That fact that making a wall invisible allows you to see past it means that invis does not break line of sight. It actually increases line of sight.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 emanates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).Question: Does invisibility break line of sight?
If so, you can't detect the school of magic, only the number of auras in the area.EDIT: Though the part about knowing the strength and location comes first, so you'd know the aura was coming from a particular square, but not the school of magic involved.
But against a person who is invisible, would you count as having line of sight? Or would seeing through them negate that?
But against a person who is invisible, would you count as having line of sight? Or would seeing through them negate that?No, it does not break line of sight. Walls break line of sight because you can not see past the wall, unless of course it is an invisible wall. That fact that making a wall invisible allows you to see past it means that invis does not break line of sight. It actually increases line of sight.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 emanates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).Question: Does invisibility break line of sight?
If so, you can't detect the school of magic, only the number of auras in the area.EDIT: Though the part about knowing the strength and location comes first, so you'd know the aura was coming from a particular square, but not the school of magic involved.
If you are asking if you can target them with a "target" aim spell the answer is no, but yes you have line of sight.
Line of sight does not mean you have to be able to see them. It just means that there can't be anything obstructing your view to them.
edit: You need to have something blocking your vision to have line of sight blocked.
Solid barriers(like walls), fog spells, and other things that actually limit how far you can see block line of sight. If I can see to you and past you my line of sight is not blocked.
