The skill feat arcane sense and the sorcerer class feat magic sense look very similar to me. They both allow my PC to cast detect magic for free. Can I assume these two feats are basically same? That if my PC take one feat, then he simply doesn't need to take the other at all? And if my PC is an imperial bloodline sorcerer, who learns detect magic for free, then he absolutely has nothing to gain from these two feats?
Also, I think I just found out an error. It seems that the detect magic spell in Second Edition doesn't have duration, while in First Edition both detect magic and arcane sight have duration. Perhaps a typo? I just found out that detect alignment doesn't have duration either.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're not exactly the same, but taking both is redundant yeah.
Arcane Sense lets you cast Detect Magic as a 1st, later 3rd level spell. Magic Sense is always-on level 1 Detect Magic, heightened to 3rd when you Seek.
Thing is, both of these are not that great. Detect Magic does more as it heightens, including detecting illusions of higher level. Being stuck at 3rd level is not great.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The magic sense feat is uniquely useful because it is constant - you don't have to spend actions to detect the presence or absence of magic. This is important in combat, where spending actions to cast detect magic would be a waste, as well as in exploration (where you become fatigued if you repeat spellcasting for long enough). Furthermore, constant detect magic can alert you to things being magical even if you don't think to cast detect magic manually, and magic sense also allows you to be detecting magic in circumstances where spellcasting would be gauche (in the middle of a tense diplomatic standoff).
They're not exactly the same, but taking both is redundant yeah.
Arcane Sense lets you cast Detect Magic as a 1st, later 3rd level spell. Magic Sense is always-on level 1 Detect Magic, heightened to 3rd when you Seek.
Thing is, both of these are not that great. Detect Magic does more as it heightens, including detecting illusions of higher level. Being stuck at 3rd level is not great.
I thought both feats allow me to cast 3rd level detect magic. But if the detect magic from magic sense feat would be heightened to 3rd level only when I Seek, then can I assume that the arcane sense is slightly better than the magic sense, since arcane sense allow me to cast 3rd level detect magic without Seeking?
Seek is a single action, casting Detect Magic is two, so it's the other way around. Arcane Sense doesn't let you "do it without Seeking" so much as that Magic Sense lets you "do it faster and benefit from Seek at the same time"
The potential downside to magic sense is just that it's much more expensive (level 12 class feat vs level 1 skill feat) and that it never heightens to 4th.
The magic sense feat is uniquely useful because it is constant - you don't have to spend actions to detect the presence or absence of magic. This is important in combat, where spending actions to cast detect magic would be a waste, as well as in exploration (where you become fatigued if you repeat spellcasting for long enough). Furthermore, constant detect magic can alert you to things being magical even if you don't think to cast detect magic manually, and magic sense also allows you to be detecting magic in circumstances where spellcasting would be gauche (in the middle of a tense diplomatic standoff).
Sigh. Magic sense seems like a must-have for sorcerers. Too bad the imperial bloodline (my favorite one) grants detect magic for free. An imperial bloodline sorcerer who takes magic sense feat can be considered as making a huge mistake since he practically wasted a feat slot?
I have always thought that detect magic in Second Edition would make my PC's eyes glow blue because this spell is very similar to arcane sight in First Edition and arcane sight make the caster's eyes glow blue. It's not the case in Second Edition anymore? And nobody would find out whether I'm currently using detect magic or not?
Is casting detect magic in the middle of a diplomatic standoff very rude? I mean, casting violent spells like fireball or mind reading would be seen as offensive, of course. But casting non-violent spells like detect magic or read aura would not cause a problem, perhaps?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really depends on the situation. Spell identification isn't automatic, so the person you're negotiating with might not even know you're casting detect magic. All they'd see is the sorcerer casting a spell in the middle of their talks, which might get you some raised eyebrows at the very least.
Sigh. Magic sense seems like a must-have for sorcerers. Too bad the imperial bloodline (my favorite one) grants detect magic for free. An imperial bloodline sorcerer who takes magic sense feat can be considered as making a huge mistake since he practically wasted a feat slot?
Partially yes. It is mostly the same, but as was noted, there are some minor differences between actually casting the cantrip and using using one of the feats.
I have always thought that detect magic in Second Edition would make my PC's eyes glow blue because this spell is very similar to arcane sight in First Edition and arcane sight make the caster's eyes glow blue. It's not the case in Second Edition anymore? And nobody would find out whether I'm currently using detect magic or not?
You could almost certainly describe it that way if you wanted to. But it isn't required to be describe as glowing blue eyes any more. The only mechanical requirement is that when you cast the spell there is some sort of visible indications that the spell is being cast.
Is casting detect magic in the middle of a diplomatic standoff very rude? I mean, casting violent spells like fireball or mind reading would be seen as offensive, of course. But casting non-violent spells like detect magic or read aura would not cause a problem, perhaps?
It depends on the social situation. There isn't anything hard-coded into the game rules about it. Though there are a couple of spells that do have some rules text about that, but they are exceptions. Infectious Enthusiasm and Nudge the Odds are the ones that I can think of.
So nothing specific for Detect Magic in social encounters. Up to your campaign and GM to decide on that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They're not exactly the same, but taking both is redundant yeah.
Arcane Sense lets you cast Detect Magic as a 1st, later 3rd level spell. Magic Sense is always-on level 1 Detect Magic, heightened to 3rd when you Seek.
Minor correction: Arcane Sense is heightened to 4th level if you are Legendary in Arcana.
Thing is, both of these are not that great. Detect Magic does more as it heightens, including detecting illusions of higher level. Being stuck at 3rd level is not great.
I think Arcane Sense was designed for Rogues (and now Investigators) rather than for full casting classes which automatically have a lot of cantrip 'slots.'
Having a basic ability to detect magic is useful for 'skill monkeys' who are scouting, searching areas, or looking for traps, and those classes have plenty of skill feats and skill increases so the cost of Arcane Sense is relatively minor for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. . . as well as in exploration (where you become fatigued if you repeat spellcasting for long enough). . .
Slight correction: Detect Magic has its own Exploration Activity that does not fatigue the caster.
Don't as me why 2-action V/S Detect Magic and 1-action V Shield affect you differently when cast repeatedly.
Small note however that according to the rules here detect magic cannot be used to find traps, and to find illusions the spell needs to be of a higher level than the illusion effect:
You detect illusion magic only if that magic's effect has a lower level than the level of your detect magic spell. However, items that have an illusion aura but aren't deceptive in appearance (such as an invisibility potion) typically are detected normally.
So ultimately detect magic is less of a must have vs previous editions. For GM's who know what they're doing, I have yet to see the ''repeat a cantrip: detect magic'' exploration action be relevant.
I use it to make sure we don't miss searching for magical loot. It is also something to do that makes a spellcaster feel useful. There are almost certainly other things that different characters could do that would have the same outcome, but that really isn't a problem. It just means that the rules have multiple paths to the same goal and a wider variety of characters can participate.
Small note however that according to the rules here detect magic cannot be used to find traps,...
Um. The rules that you cited indicate that it can.
Magical hazards that don’t have a minimum proficiency rank can be found using detect magic, but this spell doesn’t provide enough information to understand or disable the hazard—it only reveals the hazard’s presence.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, yes.
Though how many magical traps don't have a minimum proficiency rank?
Agreed gusher, but breit has my answer.
Agreed gusher, but breit has my answer.
So when you said "that according to the rules here detect magic cannot be used to find traps" you didn't mean "that according to the rules here detect magic cannot be used to find traps?"
You meant "that according to the rules here detect magic can be used to find traps," but that type of trap is rare?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I meant that in almost all cases, detect magic cannot be used to detect hazards. Saying it can be used is misleading as the number of hazards with the magic trait and no trained requirement can probably be counted on one hand, if there are any.
I stand by my statement, it's a good rule of thumb.
EDIT: Just reviewed all hazards on AoN, all of the hazards that do not list a requirement of proficiency are +0 in stealth or DC 10, and specifically list detect magic as a way to detect them (armageddon orb, dragon shell, dragon pillars, etc). Therefore my statement was factual, you can't use detect magic to detect traps. You CAN use detect magic to detect magic on hazards that your eyes can plainly see though, but my take is that if I see a giant totem rotating and throwing fire rays at me I'm gonna somehow assume it's magical.
I honestly have no idea why magic sense requires the sorcerer to Seek to gain the benefits of a 3rd-level detect magic. Wouldn't it be better if the sorcerer automatically gains the benefits of a 3rd-level detect magic without Seeking? I really wish Paizo revises the rule slightly in the 4th printing of Core Rulebook so that magic sense feat heightens to half the PC's level rounded up, and grants the benefits of a 4th-level detect magic even without Seeking. If that really happens, then I'll have my imperial bloodline sorcerer take magic sense feat even though that bloodline grants him detect magic cantrip for free. Perhaps this change would make the magic sense feat too powerful?
Without magic sense you have to constantly cast Detect Magic as a two action spell to even know there is magic.
With magic sense you automatically know there is magic. You can then one action seek (getting the usual benefits), and also receive the specific benefits of detect magic (3rd). It's an upgrade.
I honestly have no idea why magic sense requires the sorcerer to Seek to gain the benefits of a 3rd-level detect magic. Wouldn't it be better if the sorcerer automatically gains the benefits of a 3rd-level detect magic without Seeking? I really wish Paizo revises the rule slightly in the 4th printing of Core Rulebook so that magic sense feat heightens to half the PC's level rounded up, and grants the benefits of a 4th-level detect magic even without Seeking. If that really happens, then I'll have my imperial bloodline sorcerer take magic sense feat even though that bloodline grants him detect magic cantrip for free. Perhaps this change would make the magic sense feat too powerful?
You don't really need the 4th level Detect Magic. Magic Sense applies only in your field of vision, which you can easily manipulate by turning your head or squinting. For Exploration Mode it should never matter; you'll zero in on the right square and more quite quickly.
In Encounter mode it may be marginally less useful if someone is hiding behind a 2nd level Detect Magic, but you're only spending one action and can get the benefit of seek, so odds are you'll still come out ahead for finding an unobserved foe.
Note that Detect Magic only tells you "yes or no, is there magic present, within (30' emanation) range?"
It doesn't tell you what is magical, or how much. Later on, it can identify general schools, but not which item(s). Sure you can exclude your friend's magic items, but you still don't get anything specific.
(edited)
Yes. The Detect Magic cantrip is an emanation.
Magic Sense uses the effects of Detect Magic but without actually casting the cantrip. And it only detects things in your current vision.
Arcane Sense does just let you cast the cantrip, but only at specific levels determined by your Arcana skill proficiency.
It is one of the many fiddly little differences between the various feats.
There is also Arcane Sight from Goloma Ancestry. It looks like it also doesn't actually cast the cantrip - just gives you the same effect. But that is very vague and will likely be debated thoroughly if anyone notices. It also has the requirement that you are able to cast the Detect Magic cantrip, which the other two feats don't. And it seems to not be limited in spell level - so I guess it would match the level that you can cast Detect Magic. Which has the interesting effect that the only difference between using Arcane Sight and actually casting Detect Magic would be the lack of spellcasting emanations.
Wait. So while detect magic cantrip and arcane sense feat have limited area, magic sense feat effectively has unlimited area? Wow. Turns out this feat is way better than it looks. If only it automatically heightens to half the PC's level rounded up...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait. So while detect magic cantrip and arcane sense feat have limited area, magic sense feat effectively has unlimited area? Wow. Turns out this feat is way better than it looks.
"Yup. There's magic somewh're in them thar hills."
Being an emanation, it is an area of effect which means that it only effects things that are out in the open, nothing inside containers, drawers, buried etc. You still have to search to find hidden things. So I don't really see it as an option to reveal loot. Even in a pile of scrolls, magic scrolls can be behind others which means no line of effect.
Are we missing something?
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=359
Being an emanation, it is an area of effect which means that it only effects things that are out in the open, nothing inside containers, drawers, buried etc. You still have to search to find hidden things. So I don't really see it as an option to reveal loot. Even in a pile of scrolls, magic scrolls can be behind others which means no line of effect.
Are we missing something?
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=359
I'd strongly discourage that reading myself. Certainly for a pile of scrolls. There's more rules support for being in a drawer or sealed chest, but I personally just use the PF1 version of material interference as a guideline.
Being an emanation, it is an area of effect which means that it only effects things that are out in the open, nothing inside containers, drawers, buried etc. You still have to search to find hidden things.
This is the first I have ever heard of anyone suggesting that.
Basically the way that I have always seen it run is that while the item itself remains hidden, the existence of the magical aura becomes known. The characters do have to search the area to find what is causing the aura.
Yet this makes sense once there's nothing in cantrip that allows it to circumvent barriers. So you are unable to detect hidden things (but probably is able to detect magic hazards once they usually are disguised not really completely hidden behind a "solid physical barrier").
So you are unable to sense things like a a magic dagger inside a drawer.
From a very strict RAW perspective, you could read it that way.
Though I am not seeing anything that defines how far a magical aura extends from the item that is creating it. So it is ambiguous.
And ruling it that way makes Detect Magic pretty much worthless.
Look, there's technically nothing saying that magical auras can or can't pass through solid barriers.
Also, Detect Magic is more of an "active sonar" than an actual ability to see auras. So solid physical barriers can prevent this "sonar" from detecting objects hidden by them.
I also don't think Detect Magic is rendered useless because of this. Because 2 of its main uses which are detecting hazards and illusions are unaffected by this. This just makes it harder for spellcasters to use detect magic to find things hidden in other objects or in secret places. But for example, it does not prevent you from detecting a secret door magically hidden by illusion, as it is exposed, only magically disguised.
Besides, it's not like being able with your imprecise Sense dispenses with Search checks.
Look, there's technically nothing saying that magical auras can or can't pass through solid barriers.
Also, Detect Magic is more of an "active sonar" than an actual ability to see auras. So solid physical barriers can prevent this "sonar" from detecting objects hidden by them.
I also don't think Detect Magic is rendered useless because of this. Because 2 of its main uses which are detecting hazards and illusions are unaffected by this. This just makes it harder for spellcasters to use detect magic to find things hidden in other objects or in secret places. But for example, it does not prevent you from detecting a secret door magically hidden by illusion, as it is exposed, only magically disguised.
Besides, it's not like being able with your imprecise Sense dispenses with Search checks.
Those are two extremely unreliable used for Detect Magic.
1. You can only detect illusions if they are of a lower level than your cantrip. How often do you see the dungeon's boss hiding doors behind permanent illusions of a lower level than the party?
2. You can only detect magical hazards if they lack a proficiency gate to spot, which most have. Those that lack such gates are usually obviously magical anyway. If your GM tells you "there's a giant glowing orb crackling with electricity" your don't need a cantrip to tell there is magic present.
The only actual use I've seen for Detect Magic is telling PCs there's a relevant piece of loot for them to find and identify. If you rule that a pile of papers is going to prevent that, you might as well throw the cantrip in the bin.
I suppose you could just detect magic during the tossing of a room, though? So as long you found the drawer you'd find the dagger.
The only actual use I've seen for Detect Magic is telling PCs there's a relevant piece of loot for them to find and identify. If you rule that a pile of papers is going to prevent that, you might as well throw the cantrip in the bin.
Seconded. That is all I have ever seen it used for too.
I suppose you could just detect magic during the tossing of a room, though? So as long you found the drawer you'd find the dagger.
That is what I would do as a player if this is how the GM is going to rule that Detect Magic works. Just open all the drawers and cupboards first.
As a GM I would probably just have the searching be handwaved to be included in the Detect Magic casting in most cases rather than run as a separate check or action. Which gives narrative explanation - but doesn't change the mechanics any from just letting the Detect Magic cantrip pick up auras from something inside a closed cabinet.
The only actual use I've seen for Detect Magic is telling PCs there's a relevant piece of loot for them to find and identify. If you rule that a pile of papers is going to prevent that, you might as well throw the cantrip in the bin.
I don't think that a "pile of papers" is a so solid barrier to the point to prevent a Detect Magic. Maybe consider a drawer as a solid barrier is too much but the main effect is to prevent magic items in a "safe" to be easily detected by a cantrip.
I don't think that a "pile of papers" is a so solid barrier to the point to prevent a Detect Magic. Maybe consider a drawer as a solid barrier is too much but the main effect is to prevent magic items in a "safe" to be easily detected by a cantrip.
If the container is like a "safe" and intended to keep the contents hidden, then I could see invoking the rule about Detect Magic having to be higher level than the protective wards or illusions in order to actually detect the magic.
But not being able to Detect Magic on items in a desk drawer, or underneath the pile of debris, or inside the backpack of the dead adventurer that the party stumbles across - that just makes Detect Magic not worth learning or preparing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only actual use I've seen for Detect Magic is telling PCs there's a relevant piece of loot for them to find and identify. If you rule that a pile of papers is going to prevent that, you might as well throw the cantrip in the bin.I don't think that a "pile of papers" is a so solid barrier to the point to prevent a Detect Magic. Maybe consider a drawer as a solid barrier is too much but the main effect is to prevent magic items in a "safe" to be easily detected by a cantrip.
Consider if the detect we were talking about was noticing a light source, instead of detect magic:
A glowing bulb under a couple of papers is going to be obvious. A glowing bulb under hundreds of pages is not.These are different situations, therefore a bit of GM interpretation is required.
Being an emanation, it is an area of effect which means that it only effects things that are out in the open, nothing inside containers, drawers, buried etc. You still have to search to find hidden things. So I don't really see it as an option to reveal loot. Even in a pile of scrolls, magic scrolls can be behind others which means no line of effect.
Are we missing something?
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=359
I think you are missing something. Re-read the rules that you linked to.
In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected. If there’s no line of effect between the origin of the area and the target, the effect doesn’t apply to that target.
Your hypothetical magic items aren't creatures, and they can't be targets because the Detect Magic cantrip doesn't have any targets. (The spell description lacks a "target" line.)
So the line of effect requirements don't apply to those magic items.
The only way in which the line of effect rules apply to Detect Magic is:
You usually need an unobstructed path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an area, or the place where you create something with a spell.
You do need an obstructed path to the origin point of the area, but since the caster is the origin point of the area, this requirement is automatically met.
Being an emanation, it is an area of effect which means that it only effects things that are out in the open, nothing inside containers, drawers, buried etc. You still have to search to find hidden things. So I don't really see it as an option to reveal loot. Even in a pile of scrolls, magic scrolls can be behind others which means no line of effect.
Are we missing something?
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=359I think you are missing something. Re-read the rules that you linked to.
In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected. If there’s no line of effect between the origin of the area and the target, the effect doesn’t apply to that target.Your hypothetical magic items aren't creatures, and they can't be targets because the Detect Magic cantrip doesn't have any targets. (The spell description lacks a "target" line.)
So the line of effect requirements don't apply to those magic items.
The only way in which the line of effect rules apply to Detect Magic is:
You usually need an unobstructed path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an area, or the place where you create something with a spell.You do need an obstructed path to the origin point of the area, but since the caster is the origin point of the area, this requirement is automatically met.
Not sure I like that conclusion either. Detecting magic through three feet of stone feels wierd.
Not sure I like that conclusion either. Detecting magic through three feet of stone feels wierd.
Which part of my argument was wrong? Whether it 'feels weird' or not, I'm pretty sure that that's what the rules say.
(And I'll note that in the real world, we can use ultra-low frequency radio waves to penetrate hundreds of feet of rock so I don't see why magic, which isn't bound by physics, would necessarily be stopped by just a few feet.)
I just went through those rules, Baarogue.
They explicitly apply to creatures and targets of the spell.
Magic items are not creatures, and they can't be targets of detect magic, because detect magic doesn't have targets.
So the fireball example, which addresses how creatures within the areas of effect would be affected, is irrelevant.
A magical scroll under a pile of regular scrolls, or a magic ring in a closed desk drawer should definitely show up if within the detect magic emanation.
-----
As for an item within the emanation but behind a wall, there isn't any mention of walls affecting the size or shapes of an emanation. On the contrary...
Emanation
An emanation issues forth from each side of your space, extending out to a specified number of feet in all directions.
...
So detect magic always creates a 30 foot sphere of emanation.
And since the line of effect and area of effect limitations regarding solid barriers only apply to how creatures or targets are affected by spells, they don't apply to using detect magic to find magic items.