A Merc's Life [OOC 02]

Considering a House Rule

Springing from discussion in another game thread, I'm considering adding a house rule regarding Detect Magic. I wanted some feedback from my players before I jump in, as it does affect players in both of my current games.

It was suggested that unlimited Detect Magic takes something away from the game - specifically, the whole "wait until we've got a pile of loot and then cast one big detect magic on all of it to separate the wheat from the chaff" thing. Now, I've got no problem with this, actually. You're gonna find out anyway, and this particular 'flavor' aspect just seems to get cumbersome to me.

However, it started me thinking about the utility of Detect Magic for locating potential magic traps - spend a few rounds in any given area, locate all the sources of magic, any that look likely for traps you 'take measures' on, rinse and repeat.

WalkingDad suggested that Detect Magic could be house ruled into a 'sense,' requiring a Perception check to actually detect the magical emanations of items that were purposely hidden. So a magic sword in the middle of an armory wouldn't require a check - it's just sitting there and no effort was made to disguise it. But the caster who trapped that door with the fireball plainly didn't want it noticed before it went off, so that one would require a Perception check to notice.

Assuming the person detecting the magic spent the time to determine aura strength, I'd make the DC to find the magic traps easier the stronger the spell on the trap (harder to hide a Fireball spell than it is to hide a Magic Missile).

If I went this route I'd also remove the 'cone' area on the spell; anything one could perceive with one's other senses could also be perceived with the Detect Magic.

Anyone have any thoughts about this? Throwing up of arms in protest, or enthusiastic endorsement? Just don't care one way or the other?

Seems fine to me. Otherwise magical traps are too easily found and if every low-level arcanist (and divine PC) has access to it in the world, you'd think that someone would develop a method to make things harder to find?

The perception skill clearly says that you use it to find magical traps based on the DC of the trap. Nothing in Detect Magic spell description directly addresses magical traps. I'd agree that even with the spell you'd need to make the perception check. You might consider giving a +2 favorable conditions bonus to the check. An example of a favorable condition is bright light. I would think a detect magic would provide a similar benefit when looking for a hidden magical trap.

i am ok with the rulling of 'percption ' cheeck to find magical trap. no real thoughts on it right now.

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.

Mowgli said:

It was suggested that unlimited Detect Magic takes something away from the game - specifically, the whole "wait until we've got a pile of loot and then cast one big detect magic on all of it to separate the wheat from the chaff" thing. Now, I've got no problem with this, actually. You're gonna find out anyway, and this particular 'flavor' aspect just seems to get cumbersome to me.
WalkingDad suggested that Detect Magic could be house ruled into a 'sense,' requiring a Perception check to actually detect the magical emanations of items that were purposely hidden. So a magic sword in the middle of an armory wouldn't require a check - it's just sitting there and no effort was made to disguise it. But the caster who trapped that door with the fireball plainly didn't want it noticed before it went off, so that one would require a Perception check to notice.

Assuming the person detecting the magic spent the time to determine aura strength, I'd make the DC to find the magic traps easier the stronger the spell on the trap (harder to hide a Fireball spell than it is to hide a Magic Missile).

Click to expand...

Coupla picky things: 1. How, exactly, does a caster "take steps to conceal his magic" to require a Perception check to notice it?
2. The only reason I can see for Fireball being easier to detect than Magic Missile is because it's a higher level spell. There's also the whole area of effect vs targeted spell, but that gets unnecessarily complicated, IMHO. I think an adjustment to the Perception check based on the level of the spell involved would be a very nice, logical next step to take, say, another +1 for every 2 or 3 spell levels of the spell used in the trap?

Mike makes some valid points (though we'll have to agree to disagree on the idea that 'magic users because it all really sucks' business ) and I agree we should follow the rules as written, but having reviewed the rules in the book, I for one could not find a definitive answer to the issue of magical traps. While there are some rules about aura's and such, I can't find anything about detect magic and magical traps. The only clear information on magical traps is the note that you must make a successful perception check against the DC of the trap to find them. So, a strong argument can be made for our gamemasters ruling that you need a successful perception roll to find magical traps, not just a use of the effectively unlimited 'detect magic' spell being by the rules as written.

Regardless, of the final ruling on this, I strongly agree that often times the heroes need to be heroic and that means kicking the crap out of some bad guys and being savvy enough to avoid many traps.

Scotley said:

Regardless, of the final ruling on this, I strongly agree that often times the heroes need to be heroic and that means kicking the crap out of some bad guys and being savvy enough to avoid many traps.

Click to expand...

Unless you're in the Tomb of Horrors... then you are to be grinded into pulp by the bad guys traps

Leif said:

Coupla picky things: 1. How, exactly, does a caster "take steps to conceal his magic" to require a Perception check to notice it?
2. The only reason I can see for Fireball being easier to detect than Magic Missile is because it's a higher level spell. There's also the whole area of effect vs targeted spell, but that gets unnecessarily complicated, IMHO. I think an adjustment to the Perception check based on the level of the spell involved would be a very nice, logical next step to take, say, another +1 for every 2 or 3 spell levels of the spell used in the trap?

Click to expand...

Interesting thought. I wonder if that's already figured into the DC of the trap? The trap rules in the Pathfinder book are pretty limited. I expect there will be more information in the upcoming DM's supplement.

Scotley said:

Interesting thought. I wonder if that's already figured into the DC of the trap? The trap rules in the Pathfinder book are pretty limited. I expect there will be more information in the upcoming DM's supplement.

Click to expand...

Amazon.com is scheduled to ship my copy to me on or about July 19, 2010. That's a pretty long while to have to wait for any traps that we face, say, now?