Detect Magic and finding an illusory wall

[darth_borehd]

Can one use detect magic to find that a dungeon wall is really just an illusion?

[Pizza Lord]

Yes. You would detect that there is magic somewhere withing 60 of you (in the cone-shaped area you are looking).
If you concentrate a 2nd round, you would know that a section of wall is magical and that it is moderate strength (assuming the illusory wall spell, 4th level) if that's the strongest aura in the area.
If you concentrate on the wall's aura, you can make a Spellcraft check to determine that the aura is Illusion.

That doesn't let you disbelieve the wall, though determining that it is Illusion is a reasonable excuse to try and disbelieve it. You still can't see through it, even disbelieving it (this is a special case for illusory wall unlike most other illusions that will let you see through them while still perceiving their faint outlines.)

[quibblemuch]

Well... unless you take "if interacted with" to include magical means of interaction such as detect magic. Which I do, when I GM. Otherwise, detect magic becomes a "get out of illusion free" card that obviates an already woefully inadequate school of magic. If a player is detecting magic and points the cone at an illusion, I give them a Will save, just as if they had interacted with it by non-magical means (like stick pokery, or whatever it is Muggles do).

But that's just me, and I'm sure the internet is teaming with people waiting to explain with acid pedantry how that's wrong...

[Charlie Bell]

quibblemuch, that's a reasonable way to rule it. Detect magic should count as interaction.

Now if you are detecting illusion magic from a wall, and you suspect it's an illusion but still fail your save, you can always try to walk through it. PRD: "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." Walking through a wall is pretty clear proof that it isn't real.

[wraithstrike]

quibblemuch wrote:

Well... unless you take "if interacted with" to include magical means of interaction such as detect magic. Which I do, when I GM. Otherwise, detect magic becomes a "get out of illusion free" card that obviates an already woefully inadequate school of magic. If a player is detecting magic and points the cone at an illusion, I give them a Will save, just as if they had interacted with it by non-magical means (like stick pokery, or whatever it is Muggles do).

But that's just me, and I'm sure the internet is teaming with people waiting to explain with acid pedantry how that's wrong...

There's nothing wrong with changing the rules for your game. Now if you insisted that was the intent...

[Charlie Bell]

It isn't changing the rules to say that detect magic counts as interaction, because the rules for illusions don't define interaction.

[Slithery D]

Ultimate Intrigue provides guidelines for interaction. Spending a standard action scanning, attacking, or persuading an illusion subject counts, so this does.

[Dragonchess Player]

By RAW, no. By itself, detect magic does not automatically allow a character to disbelieve an illusion.

However, knowing "this wall radiates an aura of illusion magic" is a pretty big clue that something is going on...

Of course, it could just mean that that section of wall has an active magic aura effect (or an illusion of a wall covering... a real wall)... Because some BBEG casters are mean and like to play with "meddling adventurers'" minds.

Or even that the BBEG doesn't like the color/decor and uses illusion magic to do some "interior decorating" to suit their tastes ("...green marble is so hard to come by...").

[Diego Rossi]

Charlie Bell wrote:

It isn't changing the rules to say that detect magic counts as interaction, because the rules for illusions don't define interaction.

I think wraithstrike meant the opposite, i.e. that people saying that using detect magic on a illusion isn't interacting are changing the rules of the game.

On the other hand it isn't an automatic successful disbelieve attempt as it can be plenty of other illusions.

[The Raven Black]

quibblemuch wrote:

Well... unless you take "if interacted with" to include magical means of interaction such as detect magic. Which I do, when I GM. Otherwise, detect magic becomes a "get out of illusion free" card that obviates an already woefully inadequate school of magic. If a player is detecting magic and points the cone at an illusion, I give them a Will save, just as if they had interacted with it by non-magical means (like stick pokery, or whatever it is Muggles do).

But that's just me, and I'm sure the internet is teaming with people waiting to explain with acid pedantry how that's wrong...

Do you mean that if they fail the save you do not tell them about the presence of magic ?

[VRMH]

Wouldn't it depend on whatever kind of spell created the illusionary wall?

Detect Magic can't actually detect that the wall isn't real - the spell just detects auras, after all. If an illusion was created with a spell that had a duration of "immediate", I don't think there'd be any sort of aura to detect. The illusion itself doesn't have one, only the spell does (or did).

[quibblemuch]

The Raven Black wrote:

Do you mean that if they fail the save you do not tell them about the presence of magic?

Yes.

My reasoning is thus (using the wall example):

If someone walks up and touches an illusory wall and fails the Will save, they don't get to realize it "feels magicky." It feels like an ordinary wall. Part of being a wall is feeling hard, maybe gritty, maybe slimy, whatever. There are a set of tactile experiences that go along with being a wall, that a successful illusion duplicates.

Part of being an ordinary wall is also NOT radiating magic. If they fail the Will save to interact with it using detect magic that should include the fact that it radiates illusion magic (which, as state, is NOT a quality of a regular wall).

And thanks to Charlie Bell - you're literally the first person I've seen in 15 years agree with the reasonableness of my interpretation.

[shadowkras]

I just had this idea about a caster villain who specializes on illusions and puts silent images on random walls of his dungeon to change their textures, then scries the adventurers who attempts to bash their heads against alls that are "obviously illusions" after spamming detect magic around.

[QuidEst]

quibblemuch wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Do you mean that if they fail the save you do not tell them about the presence of magic?

Yes.

My reasoning is thus (using the wall example):

If someone walks up and touches an illusory wall and fails the Will save, they don't get to realize it "feels magicky." It feels like an ordinary wall. Part of being a wall is feeling hard, maybe gritty, maybe slimy, whatever. There are a set of tactile experiences that go along with being a wall, that a successful illusion duplicates.

Part of being an ordinary wall is also NOT radiating magic. If they fail the Will save to interact with it using detect magic that should include the fact that it radiates illusion magic (which, as state, is NOT a quality of a regular wall).

And thanks to Charlie Bell - you're literally the first person I've seen in 15 years agree with the reasonableness of my interpretation.

Illusory Wall is a non-tactile figment and says right in its description that trying to touch it immediately reveals that the wall is fake. Giving illusions a bit of protection from basic cantrips is still reasonable, though.

[quibblemuch]

QuidEst wrote:

Illusory Wall is a non-tactile figment and says right in its description that trying to touch it immediately reveals that the wall is fake. Giving illusions a bit of protection from basic cantrips is still reasonable, though.

Duly noted. I was thinking more generally, but that specific spell, yes, would yield to touch. That said, it would LOOK like a wall, and I'd rule that it would LOOK like an ordinary, non-magical wall to the magical sense granted by detect magic. Unless the caster made the Will save, of course.

[MeanMutton]

quibblemuch wrote:

Well... unless you take "if interacted with" to include magical means of interaction such as detect magic. Which I do, when I GM. Otherwise, detect magic becomes a "get out of illusion free" card that obviates an already woefully inadequate school of magic. If a player is detecting magic and points the cone at an illusion, I give them a Will save, just as if they had interacted with it by non-magical means (like stick pokery, or whatever it is Muggles do).

But that's just me, and I'm sure the internet is teaming with people waiting to explain with acid pedantry how that's wrong...

Well, then, I'll do it.

Pizza Lord answered the rules question correctly according to the rules. You've provided a really interesting an useful house rule (that failing the will save to disbelieve the illusion fools the detect magic spell). You just did it in the wrong forum.

You appear to know that, though, which is why you tossed out your sarcastic comment at the end.

[quibblemuch]

MeanMutton wrote:

Pizza Lord answered the rules question correctly according to the rules. You've provided a really interesting an useful house rule (that failing the will save to disbelieve the illusion fools the detect magic spell). You just did it in the wrong forum.

You appear to know that, though, which is why you tossed out your sarcastic comment at the end.

I don't believe my interpretation to be a "house rule" - I believe if the spell says "Save: Will (if interacted with)" the rather vague term "interacted with" comprises detect magic as much as any other form of interaction. If the spell creates an illusion that LOOKS like a duck, it should LOOK like a duck to detect magic as well. And ducks aren't usually magic.

If the purpose of "interaction" is to reveal that it is an illusion, then something intended to reveal the duck to be an illusion should trigger a Will save. Detect magic does exactly that, ergo...

If I had intended it to be a house rule, I would have opened my post with "Well, I'm not sure about RAW, but I house rule it thusly..." Or some variant thereupon.

Not much point in elaborating on it further tho. I'm in the minority in this interpretation. Satis verborum and quibble out.

[darth_borehd]

It seems this is up to GM interpretation, rather than actually being RAW addressing it. I agree "interact with" is very vague. Calling detect magic an interaction isn't really a house rule, just a way to adjudicate the vague wording.

[The Raven Black]

quibblemuch wrote:

MeanMutton wrote:

Pizza Lord answered the rules question correctly according to the rules. You've provided a really interesting an useful house rule (that failing the will save to disbelieve the illusion fools the detect magic spell). You just did it in the wrong forum.

You appear to know that, though, which is why you tossed out your sarcastic comment at the end.

I don't believe my interpretation to be a "house rule" - I believe if the spell says "Save: Will (if interacted with)" the rather vague term "interacted with" comprises detect magic as much as any other form of interaction. If the spell creates an illusion that LOOKS like a duck, it should LOOK like a duck to detect magic as well. And ducks aren't usually magic.

If the purpose of "interaction" is to reveal that it is an illusion, then something intended to reveal the duck to be an illusion should trigger a Will save. Detect magic does exactly that, ergo...

If I had intended it to be a house rule, I would have opened my post with "Well, I'm not sure about RAW, but I house rule it thusly..." Or some variant thereupon.

Not much point in elaborating on it further tho. I'm in the minority in this interpretation. Satis verborum and quibble out.

The RAW is pretty clear that Detect Magic will ping on the magic, the aura and the school. You are indeed houseruling that it works differently with some Illusion spells than it does with all other kind of magic.

Ultimate Intrigue clarifies this BTW

[ProfPotts]

Illusion magic usually lists the senses it works against. The Magic Aura spell, for example, specifically works against the 'detection of magic auras' sense (which most of us muggles lack...). Just as you wouldn't let a non-tactile illusion magically fool someone touching it, you shouldn't let a non-aura-fooling illusion magically fool someone who tries to detect its aura. Illusion magic can fool Detect Magic (after all, that's the point of Magic Aura) but it definitely shouldn't do so automatically just 'cos it's illusion magic.

[The Raven Black]

Also Illusion is far from being woefully inadequate. It is a rather strong school in the right hands ;-)

[Charlie Bell]

quibblemuch, I agree with The Raven Black here. Detect magic would count as interaction when determining whether or not you get a Will save to see through the illusion, but that Will save would not determine whether or not detect magic would detect the presence of illusion magic. As ProfPotts mentioned, that's the point of magic aura.

Clever illusionists get around this by obscuring the auras of their illusions with other magical auras; detect magic notes: "Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras."

[Pizza Lord]

Detect magic itself does not count as interacting with an illusion. Magic Aura might be considered an exception, since it's made to confuse or conceal against such detection spells, but despite being an Illusion (glamer) it is not in any way like a typical illusion that we are talking about, it doesn't fool any senses. A +1 flaming longsword is still going to look, feel, sound, smell, and taste like a flaming masterwork longsword (the +1 obviously is not detectable to normal senses) despite whether your detection spells are swearing that he's swinging a white robe of the magi at your head. You can't disbelieve it.

Getting back to illusions however, detect magic isn't necessarily carefully studying the illusory object or creature, it's examining the auras on the (supposed) object or creature. You aren't interacting with it in a way that would reveal any flaws. Otherwise, just looking at an illusion would allow an automatic will save for disbelief (not automatic disbelief, but an automatic check for it,) which we definitely know is not the case.

I get that you want to say that you're spending 3 rounds 'concentrating' on an object so you must be studying it, but you really aren't. You're 'concentrating' on maintaining the spell (usually) and as long as you're keeping it focused in an area, it's giving you information.

You aren't actually concentrating on any object in that area, because you get to attempt a Knowledge (arcana) against every aura in the area on the 3rd round. That means if in your 60 foot cone, there's 20 guys with Illusion spells, half with ventriloquism and the other half with disguise self that makes their hair color blonde instead of brunette, you get to check for the magic school on each and every one, but that's not carefully studying each creature. That doesn't really make a lot of sense and we already know just looking at a creature or aura is not 'interacting' for illusion purposes.

If there's an illusion that affects scent; for instance, makes an intersection smell like a sea-breeze is wafting in from the western passage, then as you approach that intersection, you may detect the illusion in that area. If you concentrate and pass a check, you may note that there's an aura of Illusion in the intersection, but that doesn't suddenly alert you from 60 feet away that 'There's an illusion of a smell up ahead,' only that an aura of illusion is ahead. If you walk into the intersection, you then might be told, 'You smell a salty sea-breeze from the western passage and the smell of decay from the east. Straight ahead, to the north, the faint sound of crying can be heard.' Now, you would get a save (likely in secret) for interacting with the illusion at this point. However, you don't know whether the illusion is the scent of the sea-breeze or the scent of decay or if the illusion is the crying meant to lure you into a trap. The Illusion could be doing all three or even none of them, it could be from a magic mouth that hasn't gone off because your party didn't trigger its conditions. You can take further steps and actions to try and figure out the truth, but detect magic won't help other than telling you there's Illusion magic in play (and make you paranoid).

An additional example would be using detect magic on a creature. If they have disguise self on, you may note an illusion aura on them but you don't get to suddenly disbelieve it, you could use that an excuse to try, but there's plenty of Illusion spells that aren't 'illusions' like glamers or figments. If that creature is instead wearing and utilizing a hat of disguise (an item which does not appear to cast the actual spell on the user, just allow the modifications) you wouldn't detect an aura on the creature, but you would detect an aura of Illusion from the hat (or hairpin or bandana or whatever the hat looks like in the guise).

In the case of the hat of disguise, you would also potentially have a chance to use Spellcraft to determine it's properties, but that is specifically stated as requiring the ability to thoroughly examine the item (ie. not just see it on someone's head or moving about).

Even if you had a spell like greater arcane sight that told you exactly what Illusion spell was on a creature or object you still don't get a free disbelieve. Assuming it was an elf with disguise self to look human, you would just see "a human with the spell disguise self on". If it was an illusory wall you'd see, "a part of the wall ahead has the illusory wall spell on it." What you do with that information is up to you.

[dragonhunterq]

The Raven Black wrote:

Also Illusion is far from being woefully inadequate. It is a rather strong school in the right hands ;-)

I feel that it is more accurate to say it is a rather strong school with the right GM.

I have rarely found a GM (including myself) who strikes the right balance with illusions. They are either ineffective, or too effective.

The worst is when the GMs own illusions are effective, and the players one aren't - yeah! I've played with that GM.

With the difficulty in adjudicating these I find most players avoid them.

[Slithery D]

Pizza Lord wrote:

Detect magic itself does not count as interacting with an illusion.

It does after the guidance in Ultimate Intrigue, which can be summarized as "anything that expends a standard action [like concentrating on Detect Magic] towards an illusion is an interaction."

[Quandary]

Are people discussing this as if any self respecting caster doesn't cast Magic Aura over ANY Illusion they don't want noticed?
I mean, why wouldn't you? What else is that spell good for, besides selling fake magical weapons to rubes?

To add on, I would also mention Know:Arcana's usage to recognize spell effect in place (5 higher than Aura DC),
i.e. ID the specific spell, which should apply to illusions once you recognize there is a spell effect there.
EDIT: Honestly, I see no reason by RAW why you need to wait until Round 3 of Detect Magic to make the "ID Spell Effect" check,
you can already see the spell effect without Detect Magic, knowing there is magic in the area seems reason enough to allow it.
(I don't see requirement to know school of effect before ID'ing specific spell...
requiring Detect Magic/awareness of magic AT ALL before allowing Know:Arcane:SpellID already seems a generous ruling to Illusions)

Although as mentioned, even knowing the specific spell doesn't overcome it directly, even if it may help.

[Quandary]

Slithery D wrote:

Pizza Lord wrote:

Detect magic itself does not count as interacting with an illusion.

It does after the guidance in Ultimate Intrigue, which can be summarized as "anything that expends a standard action [like concentrating on Detect Magic] towards an illusion is an interaction."

But even 3rd round of Detect Magic doesn't specifically target one Aura (illusion), it's just vs. the whole area.

And honestly, I am somewhat dubious of this line of thought in general, because how is 3rd round of Detect Magic different than 1st round?
Both are Standard Actions, both are revealing some info about an area re: magical auras within it.
Are you saying 1st round also counts as interaction? I don't see basis of how it is different than 3rd round re: that rule.

[Slithery D]

You get to save the third round once you know every location of a magical aura. You're looking at them, you know it's magical, your brain is giving it enough attention to notice there's something wrong and possibly see through it.

You also get a chance to see through an illusion like Disguise Self if you attack the target, use Sense Motive against it, use Perception against it, Sleight of Hand, or any other standard action focused on the subject of the illusion.

[dien]

Something I feel like pointing out because I consistently see it played wrong: detect magic does not automatically tell you what schools are there. You actually have to make a Kn: Arcana check to identify the schools of magic that are present.

I believe this usually gets trivialized/forgotten about/handwaved because the usual assumption is that you'll have an INT-based arcane caster with enough ranks in Kn: Arcana to make it an easy take-10 auto success... but parties don't always have that. If you're running with no dedicated arcane caster, and/or your divine caster has never bothered to put skill points into Knowledge: Arcana, then per the explicit description of Detect Magic, you have no way of knowing those auras you're detecting are from the illusion school. You just know numbers, strength, and location of auras-- not what school they are.

[Pizza Lord]

Slithery D wrote:

You get to save the third round once you know every location of a magical aura. You're looking at them, you know it's magical, your brain is giving it enough attention to notice there's something wrong and possibly see through it.

This is not correct. Just because you are detecting that a person ahead of you has an Illusion school aura coming from them is not a reasonable interaction that either they are an illusion or are concealed or glamered by a disbelievable illusion. As a caster you would be even more likely to realize that there are numerous 'non-illusory (disbelievable)' illusions that anyone else. The target need not be an illusion, it could have mirror image or blur or displacement or any number of other spells (granted mirror image and blur also are visibly noticeable but it's still a fair example.) A non-trained person might reasonably be expected to waste a round or two trying to disbelieve an Illusion school spell just because they don't understand the actual complexities and diversity of such magicks.

"You told me he had an illusion up, I was trying to see through it!"

Regardless, just detecting or even identifying the school isn't enough. So what you spent 3 rounds noticing that Illusion aura in the room ahead of you. You don't know if that aura is coming from an invisible chest or from a silent image making the room look dusty or a major image that is making the room smell like cinnamon rolls, or a magic mouth set there to greet visitors. All you know is the aura and school. If your character wants to assume that they can disbelieve the illusion, then they can take an action that would potentially do so.

Quote:

You also get a chance to see through an illusion like Disguise Self if you attack the target, use Sense Motive against it, use Perception against it, Sleight of Hand, or any other standard action focused on the subject of the illusion.

Also not necessarily true. Certainly if a person has a disguise self up that makes their battleaxe look like a dagger, you get an automatic attempt to save if they hit you with it. If their illusion makes the knife look 'blue' instead of steel, then you probably don't (unless there's a reason, like your blood isn't turning it red or something). If the person's disguise makes them look blonde, then hitting them or talking to them or bluffing them, or even kissing them on the lips isn't going to be an interaction with the illusion. Just because the illusion is on the target as a whole, that doesn't mean the target is wholly an illusion or concealed by one.

If we used your example (you know where the aura is and its strength), a person with detect magic could notice a wooden chest that contains three cloaks and thus three auras. One is a cloak of displacement (faint illusion) and the other is a silent image that looks like the cloak of displacement (faint illusion) and the third is a normal cloak that has glamer that makes it look just like the other two (faint illusion). Now, as the caster can't see the objects, they can't discern the school, but they can determine the location and the strengths of both auras. By your method, you're claiming that someone with detect magic should be able to 'see through' the illusory cloak inside the chest just because they are 'interacting' with it (and by 'it', you mean an aura they're sensing) and also 'see through' the illusion on the real cloak that just makes it look like the other cloaks. There is no wording or any such hint that detect magic lets you know that. You don't get to know that the chest contains two 'real' things and one 'fake' thing or that one of the 'real' things is real but not really the thing it looks like (which you can't see or even know.)

You can attempt to identify the object using detect magic with a Spellcraft check, but in this discussion we are clearly referring to 'scanning' an area, but even identifying specifically requires you to be able to thoroughly examine the item, not just see the aura. And that takes us back to you thoroughly studying and examining the actual illusion, not just seeing it, not just noticing the illusory effect that the illusion spell creates, but interacting and studying.

It is unreasonable to grant the person with detect magic the ability to know when an Illusion aura is not only an Illusion spell, but also a glamer or figment when it does not do that for other spells. It doesn't detect a wall of fire as Evocation (fire), just Evocation. It doesn't detect cause fear as a [fear-effect] or [mind-affecting], just Necromancy. Nor will it tell you whether that Enchantment aura you detect is a compulsion or a charm.

[Slithery D]

You appear to be suffering from several limitations that are leading you to this point of view. The one I can do something about is to provide the Ultimate Intrigue rules.

Ultimate Intrigue wrote:

Disbelief and Interaction: All three of the subschools above tend to have saving throw lines that say “Will disbelief,” but they differ in how those saving throws apply.

Phantasms directly assail a creature’s mind, so the creature automatically and immediately receives a saving throw to disbelieve a phantasm. Figments and glamers, however, have the more difficult-to-adjudicate rule that creatures receive a saving throw to disbelieve only if they “interact” with the illusion.

But what does it mean to interact with an illusion? It can’t just mean looking at the illusion, as otherwise there would be no need to make the distinction, but drawing the line can be a bit tricky. Fortunately, the rules can help to define that difference. A creature that spends a move action to carefully study an illusion receives a Will saving throw to disbelieve that illusion, so that is a good benchmark from which to work.

Using that as a basis, interacting generally means spending a move action, standard action, or greater on a character’s part. For example, if there were a major image of an ogre, a character who tried to attack the ogre would receive a saving throw to disbelieve, as would a character who spent 1 minute attempting a Diplomacy check on the ogre. A character who just traded witty banter with the ogre as a free action would not, nor would a character who simply cast spells on herself or her allies and never directly confronted the illusory ogre. For a glamer, interacting generally works the same as for a figment, except that the interaction must be limited to something the glamer affects. For instance, grabbing a creature’s ear would be an interaction for a human using disguise self to appear as an elf, but not for someone using a glamer to change his hair color. Similarly, visually studying someone would not grant a save against a glamer that purely changed her voice.

Detect Magic to pinpoint a spell location requires three consecutive standard actions. But if you want to toss in a requirement for an additional move action per aura in your game, it really shouldn't be a problem, this isn't happening in combat anyway.

[Pizza Lord]

Right, and if you actually read what you quoted, you would see that detect magic does not meet the requirements for carefully studying or interacting with a figment or glamer merely by concentrating on an area. Whether you spend 1 round or 3 rounds or 10 rounds. You aren't interacting with the creature or the aura. You are just looking at an area. There is nothing in the spell that says you are concentrating on any aura or creature or object. You just sense the location and the strength and you get a check to determine the school for every single aura in the area. That is not the same as you focusing your attention of every single aura in the area.

You might have a case if the area you are looking at with detect magic is an illusion, like a phantasmal terrain, but even then I wouldn't be so sure, since I don't actually see anything that says you have to be able to see to detect magic in an area. Certainly you need Line of Sight to an item to determine school, but other than that, as far as I can tell you can be blindfolded or have your eyes closed and just be 'sensing' the presence and strength of nearby auras in the direction you are 'concentrating' on. And again, the spell is what your character is spending their action concentrating on, not the figment or the glamer (he can't even tell whether that aura is a figment or a glamer.)

You could also use Spellcraft as a guideline since both examination of magic items and examination of illusions point out careful or thorough studying of the subject. It points out using detect magic to identify item properties. It requires the ability to 'thoroughly examine the item'. That's pretty much the stated requirement for disbelieving something (without taking a direct interaction, like running straight into an ogre which you only suspect might be illusory because there's an Illusion school spell coming from it.) That's at least the amount of detail and attention you must be giving something and clearly, just scanning the area with detect magic or even having noted a magic item's exact location (including strength and school) within that area does not meet this requirement.

If there's an an illusory ogre standing in a park humming, you don't get a free chance to notice it's an illusion just because you say that you're listening to the birds and the children playing and the fountain bubbling. You have to either actually study the ogre (either its appearance or the sounds it's making) to be considered interacting with it.

Quote:

Similarly, visually studying someone would not grant a save against a glamer that purely changed her voice.

This means, since the action you're taking with detect magic does not have anything to do with the visual, audio, thermal, or texture of the illusion, you don't count as interacting with it for purposes of noticing a flaw.

Contrast this with the Illusion spell, magic aura, which does create a false aura (even a false aura that detects as 'Illusion') or conceals an aura. In this case, a detect magic does have a chance to allow you to notice that the Illusion is concealing something (specifically only after thoroughly examining it to the point where you could identify it) because that interaction is directly related to the concealing property of the spell. Certainly, if the item were also glamered and, during that time of examination you are also handling it; weighing it, tasting, or smelling it, then yes, a Will save would also come into play for that interaction.

[Claxon]

I went through something like this before but never got solid answers.

[ryric]

I'd also point out that nowhere in the description of detect magic does it say that items glow or otherwise indicate what exactly in the area is magical - you get a 5' square location, aura, and strength. So after 3 rounds the spell (with a skill check) tells you that there is a moderate illusion aura in the area in front of you. It doesn't tell you whether it's the wall, floor, or ceiling, or an invisible object sitting there. Maybe someone has a programmed illusion waiting to go off that hasn't been triggered. Detect magic on its own doesn't give you any way to be sure.

Now, per UI, examining the area for 3 rounds counts as enough careful observation to merit a Will save, but you'd get that even without detect magic.

[Claxon]

I will agree that detect magic doesn't reveal something is specifically an illusion.

But, it will count as interacting and even if you fail the save would be reason enough to more closely investigate things (IMO) including trying to put objects through what seem like solid objects.

[RegUS PatOff]

Slithery D, thank you for posting the rules excerpt from Ultimate Intrigue.

The example of 1 minute diplomacy being significant interaction while a free action witty banter with the illusionary ogre not being significant interaction indicate that you can interact without it reaching the level of 'significance' required to roll a Will save to disbelieve.

Since Detect Magic is scanning the area, I would say that after three rounds of Detect Magic, the GM should make a (hidden) Will save for you. As someone who has cast Detect Magic, you are paying attention to the area and are getting a clearer indication of the magic signatures in the area over several rounds. IMO it is logic to grant the check at the point where you have resolved which squares are affected by illusion magic. If the illusion magic's signature was overwritten by a more powerful magic, I could see the GM skipping the check.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Charlie Bell wrote:

Now if you are detecting illusion magic from a wall, and you suspect it's an illusion but still fail your save, you can always try to walk through it. PRD: "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." Walking through a wall is pretty clear proof that it isn't real.

Because you bash your head against every wall which has a bit of illusion magic? What if it's just changed to be a different color? What if it's really a wall of poison spikes?

Even if it DID count as proof that it wasn't real (I'm dubious considering all of the weird magic stuff in the world - but for the sake of argument) walking through walls which you can't see through seems like a good way to have a VERY short adventuring career. If it did work that way and was a common way of beating them, I know that as a BBEG with illusionary walls, I'd put said walls a fraction of an inch in front of all sorts of nastiness.

[Mark Seifter]

Slithery D wrote:

But if you want to toss in a requirement for an additional move action per aura in your game, it really shouldn't be a problem, this isn't happening in combat anyway.

Having written that part of UI, I'd agree that the UI guidelines aren't strict enough to enforce this one way or the other, but a move action to study just after concentrating for the third round (could be the same turn even) is definitely supportable (in fact for a glamer, which illusory wall isn't, the extra action is more clearly necessary, though it's still certainly supportable for a figment too). That said, I'd also agree with you that since this is happening too slowly to be used in combat (and indeed the extra move action could just be one the exact same round as the third standard action to concentrate), it shouldn't change the timing whether you require the move action or not (heck, if you're paranoid of illusions or impatient enough, your allies could be using move actions to study likely objects and wall areas while you're narrowing it down). Certainly if you have something that gives you instant magic data like arcane sight, by the UI guidelines, you'd still spend a move action studying to get the Will save after discerning the school for free.