How a ****ing cantrip exterminates an entire school of magic. NO MORE OF THAT!

[kitcik]

This was addressed in the FAQ, for whatever that's worth. Spending three rounds to pinpoint an invisible creature while hoping that he doesn't move isn't a very efficient strategy, so IMHO there is still plenty of need for the See Invisibility spell (or better yet, glitterdust).

This was a good find and addresses the question perfectly.

However, as usual with the FAQ, you have to take it with a grain of salt.

In particular, this passage: "In this case a “location” is the 5-foot square that contains the aura."

I don't buy this for a minute. So if you cast Detect Magic on a (medium sized) corpse, all you're going to find out is it has 3 magic items (auras)? You're not going to find out it has a magic cloak, ring and boots? To me, this is ludicrous and "location" means EXACT location.

However, this in no way changes the point of your post, which remains completely correct (DM is very inefficient at finding invisible stuff).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Regardless of DM interpretation -- including the bizarre "a cantrip invalidates the need for a second-level spell" interpretation -- the advice about a smart illusionist is key. Play any multiplayer game (computer or otherwise) where a player's character/piece can turn invisible, and you'll see the obvious play is to not stand still and let your foes zero in on you or what you're doing.

This is as applicable to illusions as it is to PvP in WoW or when you used to cheat playing Battleship with your brother in elementary school.

 

[Tovec]

Regardless of DM interpretation -- including the bizarre "a cantrip invalidates the need for a second-level spell" interpretation -- the advice about a smart illusionist is key. Play any multiplayer game (computer or otherwise) where a player's character/piece can turn invisible, and you'll see the obvious play is to not stand still and let your foes zero in on you or what you're doing.

This is as applicable to illusions as it is to PvP in WoW or when you used to cheat playing Battleship with your brother in elementary school.

Why would you play your brother in elementary school? Battleship takes time, especially when you cheat by moving the ships. Far too much time to play it during school effectively.

And I loved moving them. We came up with variant rules in the 4th or 5th grade which did allow you to move them.

[MENTION=98621]Ranger19k[/MENTION] if by "take it with a grain of salt" you mean it wasn't found in the PHB rules and should therefore not be considered how to the RULES work for the purposes of this discussion, I will.

I just want to clarify, I wasn't saying that isn't how the rules work or that Detect Magic doesn't work in that way. I'm saying that isn't how they should work. Given how invisibility conceals things it doesn't make sense to me for it to be countered except by very specific magics or tactics.
Especially when there are a number of tactics which can be used very effectively, bags of flour, glitterdust and see invisibility being three such ideas. Added onto the fact that the spell itself is countered as soon as the person attacks.

 

[Ranger19k]

@Ranger19k if by "take it with a grain of salt" you mean it wasn't found in the PHB rules and should therefore not be considered how to the RULES work for the purposes of this discussion, I will.

<<Shrug>>
I said "for whatever it's worth." If you deem it to be worth nothing, than that is certainly your prerogative. When there is ambiguity in the rules, I find the FAQ to sometimes be a useful clarification. Sometimes it's not worth the paper it's written on. All depends.

Of course you seemed to be interested in RAI when you said:

On invisibility. Even if that's not RAW then it should be RAI. I've always used it that way. If you are looking for a cantrip to bypass invis then use glitterdust not detect magic.

FAQ and Sage advice do give us some insight into RAI, if not RAW, since its the same writers. It seems a little odd to me that you reject it out of hand for not being RAW rather than first consider what he said and then make a decision, but that's certainly your call.

 

[Dandu]

I'm sorry, you lost me there.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98iNFU0IDo0"][Star Trek: TNG] Redemption part 2 ~ Data in Command - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Vegepygmy]

@Vegepygmy

What?

Okay, forget the visible magical aura thing. Go with the spell descriptions for invisibility and detect magic. Cone-shaped emanation I always took to be from the spellcaster's eyes SEEING the aura of things as opposed to smelling, tasting or hearing them.

Not necessarily. Read the spell description again, and note what is learned after two rounds of concentration: (1) whether there are any magical auras in that particular area, (2) how many of them, and (3) the strength of the most powerful one. Nothing in that list would require sight.

Now look at what is learned after the third round of concentration (strength and location of each aura), and pay particular attention to this sentence: "If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each."

So it's quite clear that the detection of magical auras isn't primarily sight-based, because you can do it even if the things are not in your line of sight (remember that the spell can penetrate barriers, but is blocked by 3 feet of wood or dirt, 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, or a thin sheet of lead). But if you can see the aura, then you can gather even more information about it (because you can see its color, I've always assumed).

But as you say, that's not really important.

I've always said magical auras look like cotton candy. Not important. However, the "vanishing from sight" would be important. How can you see something through detect magic if they're not there to be seen.

I don't think "vanishing from sight" means what you think it means. An invisible item or creature is still there, it's just not visible. So of course you can detect its aura using detect magic; it's there, and that's what detect magic does, is detect auras that are there.

 

[Tovec]

[MENTION=40109]Vegepygmy[/MENTION] The only thing I actually needed was for you to clarify your statement directly preceding my "What".

As far as the ruling on the spell it seems I have been proven wrong and shouted down. I still say it shouldn't work but it clearly appears to work so I have given up. In fact, for me the final nail in the coffin was a few AHEAD of my last post, I just missed it when reading through the first time.

 

[Luigiana]

I just worship the illusion school. Silent Image, Phantasmal Force (AD&D), are my favorite spells. Illusions are, (the way I see it anyway) the epitome of magic. When we say that a wizard can distort reality, illusions are the first thing that spring to my mind.

Illusions = Creativity let loose.

Yet, no matter how cool those illusions are, or how powerful they might look... the end result is that they ALL get tramped by a single cantrip ... the accursed DETECT MAGIC (and its big brother = Arcane Sight)

I 've been searching about this in the web the past few days (on old threads of the site ...and of others), and thankfully I found out that there are a lot of gamers out there who share the same opinion, and they were mostly DMs, whining about how they can't make a proper trap or decent illusion based encounter without having this cantrip ruining it for them. Worst case scenario? A character who gets a permanent detect magic/arcane sight on him. This is bye bye to the DMs plans.

Examples of this tiny divination thwarting every possible encounter based on illusions are endless (traps, disguises, secret doors etc etc etc...). Admittedly, this sucks.

The simplest explanation one can give, as to why this happens is the following:

The power of an illusion is that it deceives you for being real. Once you know its an illusion, it loses all it's power. And Detect Magic, this 0 level miracle, grants you this ability without even a miss chance, not to mention arcane sight....
All other schools of magic do not lose their power once detected. Even abjurations, or other traps with necromancy, enchantment and stuff do not get all that weakened, because even if you detect them, you still have to find a way to overcome the actual effect. Illusions on the other hand, are COMPLETELY useless once detected.

To be more precise, so as to fathom the full extent of this problem, lets see which (and consequently the big number of) spells that get thwarted by Detect Magic and its derivatives.

1st level:
Disguise Self (100% busted)
Silent Image (100% busted)
Ventriloquism (it is arguable... but still possible in some situations)

2nd level:
Minor Image (100% busted)
Phantom Trap (100% busted)
Invisibility (Very difficult to thwart during combat because of the 3 round process and the rotation of the cone which might cost more time. Outside of combat though, an infiltrator gets 100% busted, no matter the 50% miss chance. He's busted. Arcane sight tears Invisibility apart. You instantly get to pinpoint and allow for attacks with a 50% miss chance as well as area effects. Also 100% busted in case of infiltration)
Mirror image (Almsot Impossible to thwart in combat. Arcane Sight nails it if the real PC "carries" other auras on him... which is the case 99,999% of the time...)

3rd level:
Invisibility Sphere (As Invisibility)
Illusory Script (100% busted)
Major Image (100% busted)

4th level:
Hallucinatory Terrain (100% busted)
Illusory Wall (100% busted)
Invisibility, Greater (Detect magic will prove to be almost worthless cause this one is used in combat only, Arcane sight though, breaks it, as usual)

5th level:
Mirage Arcana (100% busted)
Persistent Image (100% busted)
Seeming (100% busted)

6th level:
Mislead (100% busted)
Permanent Image (100% busted)
Programmed Image (100% busted)
Veil (100% busted)

7th level:
Invisibility, Mass (As Invisibility)
Project Image (Only Arcane sight can truly help here... it's VERY helpful to know you are not fighting the real thing)

No need to mention that the minimum 3 round process of detect magic is NO PROBLEM AT ALL in situations outside of combat (Most of the above spells will be detected in situations outside of combat). When searching rooms, interacting with disguised NPCs and stuff a character usually has enough to plenty of time to use Detect Magic.

Now a few solutions I've found to this problem, in order to balance out Illusions and Detect Magic (+ Arcane Sight accordingly), are the following possible house rules:


(Those are not to be combined. Each one is a separate solution)









....Personally I prefer #3. Surely the most advantageous to Illusions.

Tell me what you think.

As i said to others before you, having GMs complaining about the rules.

You are the GM, the GM are above the Gods. The GM makes the world, and by making the world, he makes rules!
If you dont like a rule, change it.
In this case, you dont like Detect Magic, create a counter rule. Either by saying this spellcaster can cast "Conceal Magic" (homebrewed spell concealing the magical aura)
or make a rule saying something like this "If the caster is more than 4 levels higher than you, you cant detect it.
Or use the rule "If the magical aura is too strong, you are dazed for X rounds" eventually improve it and say "You are dazed for X rounds, and your detect magic are cancelled before you got to see what magic it was"

thats how easy it is..
and if you care too much about rules, let me remind you about these two things. In DMs guide it says "The GM can alter the rules as he feel"

And this: Dungeons and Dragons are more like guidelines than actual rules

personally i prefer the last one..

 

[Arrowhawk]

As i said to others before you, having GMs complaining about the rules.

You are the GM, the GM are above the Gods. The GM makes the world, and by making the world, he makes rules!
If you dont like a rule, change it.
In this case, you dont like Detect Magic, create a counter rule. Either by saying this spellcaster can cast "Conceal Magic" (homebrewed spell concealing the magical aura)
or make a rule saying something like this "If the caster is more than 4 levels higher than you, you cant detect it.
Or use the rule "If the magical aura is too strong, you are dazed for X rounds" eventually improve it and say "You are dazed for X rounds, and your detect magic are cancelled before you got to see what magic it was"

thats how easy it is..
and if you care too much about rules, let me remind you about these two things. In DMs guide it says "The GM can alter the rules as he feel"

And this: Dungeons and Dragons are more like guidelines than actual rules

personally i prefer the last one..

This reminds me of a saying:

The road to ruin is paved with good intentions.​

The fact is, and it is a fact, the authors of 3.5 have spent way more time playtesting the game than the average DM. I don't mean playing the game, I mean specifically looking at what is commonly referred to as "game balance."

All too often, I've read a rule which on first blush seemed dumb, ill-conceived, or just plain broken because I was looking at it from one perspective. A perfect example is the Flat Footed Rule. But after broadening the scope of the analysis, you realize that in many cases, the authors are trying to create or preserve some aspect of the game and the rule in question is what allows them to do it.

It is folly to go about changing rules on a whim because they don't suit some particular outcome you are trying to achieve or envision. While many RPG's benefit from flexibility rather than rigidity in the rules, it is a mistake to think that something that is bent, will function just as well as before. The rules aren't perfect, but one's changes may do more harm than good.

You can't "fix" this game, you can only change it.

 

[Luigiana]

This reminds me of a saying:

The road to ruin is paved with good intentions.​

The fact is, and it is a fact, the authors of 3.5 have spent way more time playtesting the game than the average DM. I don't mean playing the game, I mean specifically looking at what is commonly referred to as "game balance."

All too often, I've read a rule which on first blush seemed dumb, ill-conceived, or just plain broken because I was looking at it from one perspective. A perfect example is the Flat Footed Rule. But after broadening the scope of the analysis, you realize that in many cases, the authors are trying to create or preserve some aspect of the game and the rule in question is what allows them to do it.

It is folly to go about changing rules on a whim because they don't suit some particular outcome you are trying to achieve or envision. While many RPG's benefit from flexibility rather than rigidity in the rules, it is a mistake to think that something that is bent, will function just as well as before. The rules aren't perfect, but one's changes may do more harm than good.

You can't "fix" this game, you can only change it.

one thing is balanced, another thing is realism.. i think both is important.. but i have been game master for 7 almost 8 years, and ive changed alot of rules in the DND, and no1 thinks it has changed to the worse, on the contrary, all my changes are said by my players, that it has been improved for the better.. personally if i make a simple illusion that i dont want to be seen through by "Detect Magic" i just say to my player, that he cannot see anything..
And if a player asks me afterwards why he couldnt see it i jsut say "Because i didnt want you to"
maybe the mage who had cast the illusion had found a way to improve it so it couldnt be detected..