Pathfinders of Pelligrew's Pinnace [OOC 01]

mleibrock · Jun 25, 2010

Hmmm

OK, first...let me say, I never play magic users because it all really sucks so I am pretty much just throwing out my opinion but don't really care since it doesn't affect me and never will.

I am a little confused... is this because it's a "magical" trap? Trap being the prominent word, and traps being a perception check? If you go with your idea, it should at lest be a passive perception check. If you are a magic user type maybe you get two checks (or chances to see the trap - a magical check and a trap check).

That said, part of the "fun" happens when our characters kick butt or are very useful. We are "Heros" after all and this feels like an attempt to limit us. I know you are very much by the book when it comes to things we want to do and I kinda feel if it's written to have unlimited detect magic spells then there is a reason they decided to do it that way. I know for me nothing is more stifling than to come up with a really unique idea merely to have to squashed because it's not addressed in the rules (not that this case has anything to do with that - I guess I'm just saying it's not the players against the DM. I sometimes get the feeling you are upset when we tear through bad guys? I know you've said you feel someone should come close to dying in a fight or it's not a good fight. I don't know about the others but I don't feel that way. My favorite fights are when the party works well as a team and kicks the crap out of a bad guy and we are emerge unscratched - or nearly so.

I'm not saying I don't want challenges, as they are great character builders (figuratively and literally), but I'd like to stick with what's written in the player's guide - if we go by the book, everyone (DM and players) knows what to expect and knows how to get around certain things to bring realism into play.

As I prefaced, I don't really care either way but if we go with your change, you might shoot Pazio an e-mail about the reason you are deviating from the rules and see what they come back with?

Hope this came across they way I intended, It's late and I'm pretty tired but I did want to weigh in. If it sounds short, please excuse, it's not intended that way.

Maidhc O Casain · Jun 26, 2010

So, I looked at the discussion - good points Mike and Jake, thanks for the input! - and did some more reading and thinking.

I found some other info that might shine some light on the writers' intentions here:

Detect Snares and Pits is a first level Druid/Ranger spell that detects 'simple' traps, and specifies that it's useless for detecting anything other than a basic snare, deadfall, potentially collapsing wall etc. It will detect magical traps, but only of the types mentioned above (the Snare spell was mentioned specifically).

So I'm thinking that if a first level spell intended to detect traps and only available to two classes allows detection only of a limited sort of mundane or magical traps, a zero level spell that is much more general and available to every casting class probably isn't supposed to detect whatever magical traps are in the area.

So, from this point forward the ruling is this:

Rather than forcing the caster to specify each time he faces a different direction with his 'cone,' Detect Magic will be considered a '360' Sense. This is the only part of my ruling that directly goes against the RAW, but it cuts down on the most cumbersome aspect of the spell (especially in PbP) and on the opportunities for me to screw with you guys if I'm having a bad day ("You didn't specifically state you were facing North by Northwest, so the magic never showed up!")
Detect Magic will not automatically detect magical traps - trap detecting is a 'specialty skill' of the Rogue class and one of their primary contributions to the party, so we're gonna let them shine in this area.
Using Detect Magic will grant a +2 'favorable conditions' bonus to the caster's Perception check to detect magical traps.

This seems to me to strike the best balance between 'autodetect' and 'worthless for detecting,' and takes into account the fact that Perception checks for detecting magical traps are specified in the rules as written, while detecting them with Detect Magic is not.

HolyMan · Jun 26, 2010

I like it it great job Mowgli. Do you have a place for your houserules?? maybe in your signature with a link to a thread. I seem to recall others, lik ethe move through allies square.

HM

Maidhc O Casain · Jun 26, 2010

HolyMan said:
I like it it great job Mowgli. Do you have a place for your houserules?? maybe in your signature with a link to a thread. I seem to recall others, like the move through allies square.

HM

Yep - My house rules can be found in the 'Mowgli's RPG Repository' link in my sig.

mleibrock · Jun 26, 2010

Sounds vey fair. I like it too.

Rhun · Jun 28, 2010

Sounds fair to me as well.

grufflehead · Jun 28, 2010

Chiming in late (been away for most of the last week for one reason or another) to say I have no problem with the proposed houserule.

I have been of the opinion that Detect Magic, combined with making it 'at will', is, if not exactly too 'powerful', something that takes away some potential challenges that could be thrown at the PCs in game. The traps issue is a particular point that has been raised in a few places, and another one that grates badly on me is that by RAW, DM will also detect Invisibility - despite the fact that there is a spell specifically for that, and it's Level 2.

As an alternative suggestion, as the intent of WD's suggestion was to make it a sense, then you could just take the spell out of the equation completely and make it a class ability for wizards (plus any of the other arcane casters you feel it is appropriate for). Justify it by saying that wizards are the ones who recognise the workings of magic, and as such can attune themselves to the 'arcane flow' - I've been reading the Dresden Files books lately so that's maybe where the idea came from!

Mechanically, it would work in an analagous way to Dispel Magic ie D20 + level (you could throw in INT mod as well), rather than a Perception (skill) check, and as it's a 'sense' then range modifiers would apply. Unlike Dispel, you could take 20 on the check, but it would take as long as taking 20 on a Perception check, so might not be practical if you are in a hurry. Success on a check would indicate the general location of the source in much the same way as a Listen check gives the location of a sound. A further Spellcraft check could then be used to identify the school of magic.

Doing it like this would also allow it to fit with Mowgli's 'passive' perception system - a sort of wizardly spider sense - which might also help get away from the problems of 'well you didn't say you were looking over there' or the character missing something because they didn't happen to have the spell up at exactly the right moment.

Maidhc O Casain · Jun 28, 2010

Some good ideas in there, but a little too far outside RAW for me. I'll leave it as a spell. However you bring up a good point about the Invisibility. I'll expand the house rule to include any case where there's a higher level 'Detect' spell that covers the thing trying to be detected. So in the case of Invisibility, just as in the case of traps, Detect Magic will not detect it directly but will give the +2 Favorable Conditions bonus to the caster's attempts to detect the invisible thing.

Of course, what's good for the goose . . . enemies will also not be able to use Detect Magic to locate invisible PCs.

Rhun · Jul 1, 2010

It would make sense that an invisibility spell would be invisible to a detect magic anyway. And I really think that is how is was meant to be. I don't think detect magic was ever intended as being a "catch all' to detect magic traps and invisibility and whatever else. Just like I think a lot of people take advantage of the paladin's "detect evil" ability, you know?

Maidhc O Casain · Jul 8, 2010

OK - the fight (at least the part of it that has you guys not able to see more than 5' away

) is over.

I kind of enjoyed doing it that way, though I'll admit it did have some drawbacks as well. From a GM's perspective it made me think about the combat in ways that I typically don't, and it brought a different 'feel' to the table. Though it took a little longer in real time, I'm not sure how much that was due to the way we ran it and how much was due to my sometimes lagging in response times. My hope is that the combat felt different to you all as well, that some sense of isolation was communicated to you and that it helped you identify with your characters - whether they were feeling frustration, anxiety, or whatever else. My concern is that that same isolation may have made the combat seem overly long.

Feedback from the crew? Was the experiment worth the effort? Fun/Not Fun/Indifferent? Any other comments?

Regardless, if you want to file your side threads away in a 'Retired' folder somewhere I don't think we'll be using them much in the foreseeable future. Don't delete your subscriptions, though, as I can see them coming in handy for all sorts of things on down the line. We might have another situation where you can't see each other in a fight - one or more of you might be invisible or your fight might span two or three different rooms or areas. Also, in both of the other APs I'm running there are times 'between' adventures that are left largely up to the GM - I've got the freedom to reduce the time to nothing, or to say 'a year passes, what do you want to accomplish?' If 'Serpents Skull' has similar situations I could see moving on with the AP, but using the side threads to take care of individual business that may have occurred during the 'time off.'