Does Anyone Else LOVE the new Detect Magic?

[CleverNickName]

Have you used Detect Magic yet? It's freaking brilliant. Everything you need to know about the spell and how it works, in four sentences (unlike 3.5E, which required two columns of text and two tables.) It clearly describes the limitations and function of the spell, and still leaves it open-ended enough to allow creative interpretation for the DM.

"Clues into the nature of the magic" and "magic designed to be hidden" are splendid alternatives to the piles of DCs for what can and cannot be discovered, or lists of numbers of rounds needed for concentration...and excellent ways for the DM to circumvent spam.

We are on break. We've been spamming the crap out of it at this playtest (much to our DM's chagrin) and it just won't break.

[SBLOCK="Spoilers"]The wizard casts this spell constantly...it is practically a called action at this point. Mostly, the DM says flatly, "You sense no magic. Again. Just like last time." But then, with the battle against the orc leader, she said, "You sense that is no ordinary handaxe."

And you could have heard a pin drop.

Then later, after the battle: "Hmm, you definitely sense the presence of magic, but you can't discern anything specific no matter how hard you concentrate." (We all know that it's just a handaxe +1, but I'll be darned if we aren't all on the edges of our seats wondering what it might do.)[/SBLOCK]This is the way Detect Magic was meant to work.
_____________________________________________
Sent from my LG ENV Phone by Verizon Wireless

 

[moxcamel]

The playtest version is pretty much how my group has always used Detect Magic. There are some elements of regression that I don't much care for in the playtest, but I agree with you that this is how Detect Magic should work. It's just one of those spells that should rely mostly on DM interpretation.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

+1


They got this right.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I find it frustratingly vague. It says you can study the auras to gain clues into the nature of the magic, but it gives absolutely no information about what counts as "study", what the DCs should be or what kind of information you gain. It also says that it can't detect magic that is designed to be hidden, but what is that? Does that mean every illusion is immune to detection? What about polymorph type effects, alarm spells, or other wards? Considering how rules-lite this spell is, I doubt I can expect to find any help in the other spells' descriptions about whether or not they're "designed to be hidden."

This is not the kind of stuff that I want to just make up when I DM! This isn't DM "empowerment," this is forcing the DM to make up rules when he really shouldn't have to. I'm saying this as someone who often DM's.

 

[CleverNickName]

Just got back from the playtest. Man...at-will spells are wonky and riddled with bugs. But not this one.

I find it frustratingly vague. It says you can study the auras to gain clues into the nature of the magic, but it gives absolutely no information about what counts as "study", what the DCs should be or what kind of information you gain. It also says that it can't detect magic that is designed to be hidden, but what is that? Does that mean every illusion is immune to detection? What about polymorph type effects, alarm spells, or other wards? Considering how rules-lite this spell is, I doubt I can expect to find any help in the other spells' descriptions about whether or not they're "designed to be hidden."

I'll try to help, but take it with a grain of salt. It is nearly impossible for me to be objective about this, because I am absolutely smitten with this version of Detect Magic. I'm going to be heavily biased in favor of this version of the spell.

1. It leaves it up to the DM to decide what "study" is, and gives him/her enough flexibility to adjust it based on the needs of a story. A 12th level sorcerer could probably just glance at a potion of healing with this spell and know what it is, but a 5th level wizard would need a library and two weeks of rigorous research to identify all the dweomers and schools of magic emanating from a Staff of Power. So in short: what counts as "study" can be anything that makes sense according to the story.

2. The DCs all use the same progression described in the DM Guidelines. It also says that it is up to the DM to set most of these, which I interpret as "there won't be as many charts and tables as there have been in other editions." DCs will be set by the DM to fit the pace of the story.

3. Yes, illusions are "meant to be hidden," so I would rule that Detect Magic wouldn't reveal an illusion, and that illusions are immune to detection using the detect magic spell. It's only a cantrip, after all. But other DMs might disagree, and they could easily decide it wasn't hidden "enough," or that some illusions are too powerful to detect at low levels, or that they detect as magical but give off strange or erroneous signals (an illusionary bodak detecting as magical, but not evil), or whatever the story needs.

4. Same for polymorphs, alarms, wards, etc., unless the DM decides otherwise. With these new rules, Detect Magic is not an automatic defeat for illusions. Unless your DM wants/needs it to be.

 

[Najo]

Does detect magic get abusive being at-will or is it just right? On one hand, it reflects a sixth sense of a spellcaster. On the other, its going to become a standard assumed part of a Dm's descriptions to the players. Should there be any limitations on detect magic's use?

 

[Dragoslav]

How did Detect Magic work in previous editions? It sounds, in the playtest version with it being an at-will spell, like what is in 4e just an Arcana skill check with saying "Do I sense anything magical?" Which is very handy and has never come across as game-breaking in my experience as a player.

 

[dd.stevenson]

<snip>

3. Yes, illusions are "meant to be hidden," so I would rule that Detect Magic wouldn't reveal an illusion, and that illusions are immune to detection using the detect magic spell. It's only a cantrip, after all. But other DMs might disagree, and they could easily decide it wasn't hidden "enough," or that some illusions are too powerful to detect (or you are too low of a level), or that they detect as magical but give off strange or erroneous signals (an illusionary bodak detecting as magical, but not evil), or whatever the story needs.

4. Same for polymorphs, alarms, wards, etc., unless the DM decides otherwise. With these new rules, Detect Magic is not an automatic defeat for illusions. Unless your DM wants/needs it to be.

Uncharacteristically, I find myself siding with the gamists on this one. Giving magic effects case-by-case "plot armor" against detect magic is just a bit too vague for my taste. I feel like nothing would be lost and a great deal gained if wotc would add a sentence or even just a word or two indicating how players can expect this spell to interact with illusions.

Other than that, I was really pleased with the way they presented this spell. Most all the other spells too, actually.

 

[slobo777]

When I DM I want to focus on creativity of how the characters make choices, describing the game world and advancing the plot.

I don't want to be interpreting basics such as if and what Detect Magic discovers. Multiply that out by a few other spells left open to DM interpretation, and the Wizard player can be left playing a game of "persuade the DM", and alternately finding their exploration spells useful or not useful depending on the current plot and DM's need to keep secrets from the players. This definitely one of my least favourite "games" when I'm a player.

Personally, as DM, I'll end up having to take notes just to keep myself consistent.

So, no, I don't like the vagueness, especially how that leans on the DM to interpret everything, and how it will interact with other spells, and with adventure plot devices. Personally I'd go for 3.5's interpretation over DDN. But then again, I guess that I still can, and can do that for any of the detction spells if that's the only issue I have with the magic system.

 

[CleverNickName]

Does detect magic get abusive being at-will or is it just right? On one hand, it reflects a sixth sense of a spellcaster. On the other, its going to become a standard assumed part of a Dm's descriptions to the players. Should there be any limitations on detect magic's use?

How did Detect Magic work in previous editions? It sounds, in the playtest version with it being an at-will spell, like what is in 4e just an Arcana skill check with saying "Do I sense anything magical?" Which is very handy and has never come across as game-breaking in my experience as a player.

In this most recent playtest, the wizard cast it nearly every single round. Eventually, after about the fifteenth time he cast the spell, he told the DM to "just assume I am casting Detect Magic constantly, over and over again, unless I call another action." She responded, "Okay, but you will be muttering incantations and waving your hands around the entire time, which will make hiding and sneaking difficult." He decided to back down, and went back to just casting the spell at every whim.

For the most part, it ended up working like a search check: if something in the room was magical, she added a brief description of it to the room. "...and you sense a magical presence in the room." After the game, I asked her how she quantified it, and she said that she just figured it was just another thing in the room that could be found if we looked hard enough for it. Small things, like keys or coins, require a lot more effort to Search for. So, likewise, small magical auras like a healing potion or a low-level scroll would require more effort to sense. Obviously magical things, like a crackling magic portal to another world, would be overwhelmingly strong.

It was sort of backwards from the way I would have handled it. I would have regarded any magical aura to be as obvious as a lit torch unless it was intended to be hidden or misleading (a cursed item, or an illusion spell.) The difference between detecting a magic potion on a shelf and an illusion, then, would be the difference between detecting a coin that is hidden under the ashes in the fireplace vs. a coin that is laying out in plain sight on the fireplace mantle.

But I digress. I don't expect a quantified table of DCs for Search checks, so I don't expect one for Detect Magic either.

Uncharacteristically, I find myself siding with the gamists on this one. Giving magic effects case-by-case "plot armor" against detect magic is just a bit too vague for my taste. I feel like nothing would be lost and a great deal gained if wotc would add a sentence or even just a word or two indicating how players can expect this spell to interact with illusions.

Other than that, I was really pleased with the way they presented this spell. Most all the other spells too, actually.

I am curious about illusions, as well, and magical creatures like the medusa. How do we describe them with Detect Magic?

As much as I love this spell, I still wish it was not an at-will ability. (I feel this way about all at-will superpowers, magical or otherwise.) It's not grossly unbalanced the way Radiant Lance is, but it lacks a certain sense of mystery and sleuthing when you can just tell the DM that you are going to wander around the room like a Magic Metal Detector. The way this spell is written, it would be perfect as a storytelling element...if it couldn't be spammed nonstop and totally kill any suspense or intrigue that the DM was building up to.

It doesn't break the game mechanics, it just makes the game dull.