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

[Arrowhawk]

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..

First off, what makes the game more real or less real in D&D is entirely subjective, so we don't need to debate it.

Second, I would never play in a campaign where the DM felt they could change the rules willy-nilly in the manner you describe. It wouldn't be D&D, it would be someone's arbitrary RPG where they don't have to even obey their own rules...they can make it up any time and any place and for any reason they want. No thanks.

My attitude is that the DM does not "own" the game...the DM is a guide. As a player, I expect to play version X and if the DM or players want to play some other version or some modified version then we all have to agree in advance as to what those changes are going to be.

I also don't believe in inventing stuff just to suit the outcome I want. Fundamental to my perspective on D&D is the players create the story and I, as the DM, allow them to do that. I expect the players will find ways to defeat the obstacles so I don't put myself in a position like the one you describe. If the players cast detect illusion, then I deal with the outcome and let them feel rewarded for their clever thinking. As maybe Greenfield or Jimlock said, I don't punish players for my not being prepared.

 

[Vegepygmy]

@Vegepygmy The only thing I actually needed was for you to clarify your statement directly preceding my "What".

I just went back and looked to be sure: there is no statement of mine directly preceding your "What?"

So I have no idea what you want(ed) me to clarify. If you care to quote my confusing statement, I'll be happy to try and clarify it, though.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Here's a whole bunch of opinions on some of the topics that have come up in the thread so far.

Regarding Detect Magic ****ing up a whole School of Magic.
Put me in the camp that says "Nope." For all those reasons along the lines of clever use of illusions will allow an illusionist to get away with a lot more than if they are used as a blunt instrument.

I like the various suggestions re. how Detect Magic interacts with Illusions. There are enough suggestions in this thread to satisfy pretty much everyone. Personally I'm of the opinion that Illusion Magic shows up as Illusion Magic. This does not mean that in all cases Detect Magic will make the illusion useless. A sensible wizard will still be careful here for the many reasons listed above about how Illusion Magic is not necessarily harmless.

Regarding the difference between Figments and Phantasms:
I consider a Figment to have a physical presence. The illusion magic manipulates light and air to create image and sound. Instruments for detecting variations in light waves and air pressure (like, oh, eyes and ears) will react to these physical phenomena in the usual fashion. I would also say that magic has a physical presence and thus instruments that react to magic (like, but not limited to, Detect Magic) react to its presence in the usual fashion. (Because there is ongoing magic manipulating the Figment for the duration of the spell, and after of course. See the description of Detect Magic for more information.)

A Phantasm has no physical presence, it exists purely in the mind of the target. (Let's assume for the sake of fantasy rpgs that mind is a separate class of thing from the physical brain.) The magic "moves" the target's mind in a manner analogous to that in which it moves light and air. As the target's mind is fooled any sort of Detect Magic cast by the target will be interpreted in such a way as to not "see" through the Phantasm.* Of course someone else casting Detect Magic on the target of the Phantasm will detect Illusion magic on them.

Those of you who have not wandered away in boredom yet may have noticed that I am treating Magic as a force that straddles the gap between mind and the physical world. It is a physical force that can be manipulated by the (sufficiently trained) mind. Descarte would be so proud.

Regarding Invisibility. (Um, is Invisibility a Figment? At work can't access books. I'm assuming it is.)
Firstly I gotta disagree vehemently with whoever it was who said that invisibility disguises all all properties of the item on which it is cast. The example given was of a flaming sword. What so invisibility disguises things like it's weight? The heat given off by the flame? The light given off by the flame? The pain inflicted by the sword? No. There are limits to it.

What the players have to decide is what exactly those limits are. Me, I say it effects visible light** and a bit around it on the spectrum. So Infrared and Ultraviolet are effected as well. That's it. Magical aura is still there.

The more difficult question is, is the light given off by the flaming sword effected? If the Figment warps light so it passes around the subject perhaps the torch throws strange warped shadows...

One of my (many) ongoing gaming projects*** is to re-write the DnD Schools of magic and spell descriptions so that they make more sense to me. One of the things that inspired me to try to do so was the difficult nature of Invisibility. I mean why the eff does it have some sort of moral outrage regarding violence?

What I dreamed up was this: Invisibility is actually a part of the Ethereal School. What the spell does is draw a thin veil of the Ether around the target. The veil goes around the character, what they are wearing and any small objects they pick up. This veil warps light around it. Light coming out from under this veil, say from a torch, is feint and warps in strange ways as the torch and the viewer move. The target can see the normal world in the same way as someone in the fringe of the Ethereal Plane can. That is to say the world appears unclear and shadowy. I would not allow an invisible character to make out fine detail. For instance read a book that it has not picked up.

But this veil is delicate and easily torn by vigorous action. So any combat action and moving faster than base move per round tears it, ending the spell. In addition the veil provides no cover from beings in the Ether. In fact they can see you much more clearly. (A notable addendum to this is that I treat incorporeal undead as being partly in the fringe of the ether and thus they will see the invisible person much more clearly. Also they don't use visible light anyway but home in on life force. Guess the inspiration for this and win a fabulous No Prize.)

Wow, that's a bit of an essay that is.
Cheers if you got this far. Hell, have another No Prize if you did.


*Although I wonder is the target of the Phantasm within the AoE of their own cone of magic detection?
**that is light visible to humans; whatever the hell wavelengths that includes.
*** read gaming stuff I'll probably never finish.

 

[kitcik]

The more difficult question is, is the light given off by the flaming sword effected? If the Figment warps light so it passes around the subject perhaps the torch throws strange warped shadows...

Do I really have to do this again? People should read the whole thread...

An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light spell (or similar spell) cast upon it.

and just for kicks I will repeat this one since I thought it ended the invisibility question for good.

Invisibility does not thwart detect spells.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Maybe you should read my thread again? Or at least that bit that says "here's a whole bunch of opinions." I was not at any time quoting the SRD.

Nor was I at anytime suggesting that Invisibility thwarted Detect Spells. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Dandu]

Just fyi, Invisibility is an glamer.

 

[kitcik]

Maybe you should read my thread again? Or at least that bit that says "here's a whole bunch of opinions." I was not at any time quoting the SRD.

Nor was I at anytime suggesting that Invisibility thwarted Detect Spells. Quite the opposite in fact.

You asked the question "Is the light from the flaming sword effected by invisibility?" That question has been asked and answered. In this thread.

That said, I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[Luigiana]

First off, what makes the game more real or less real in D&D is entirely subjective, so we don't need to debate it.

Second, I would never play in a campaign where the DM felt they could change the rules willy-nilly in the manner you describe. It wouldn't be D&D, it would be someone's arbitrary RPG where they don't have to even obey their own rules...they can make it up any time and any place and for any reason they want. No thanks.

My attitude is that the DM does not "own" the game...the DM is a guide. As a player, I expect to play version X and if the DM or players want to play some other version or some modified version then we all have to agree in advance as to what those changes are going to be.

I also don't believe in inventing stuff just to suit the outcome I want. Fundamental to my perspective on D&D is the players create the story and I, as the DM, allow them to do that. I expect the players will find ways to defeat the obstacles so I don't put myself in a position like the one you describe. If the players cast detect illusion, then I deal with the outcome and let them feel rewarded for their clever thinking. As maybe Greenfield or Jimlock said, I don't punish players for my not being prepared.

*TAKE NOTE THIS IS NOT FLAMING*
I wouldnt talk too much, and deny to try to play with a GM that alters the rules "Willy-nilly" as u call it..
i dont alter the rules without thinking of the consequences.
but why shouldnt a mage has found a way to make an illusion undetectable by normal magic?

also, if i were you, i wouldnt deny to try to play with a gm like me, before you have actually tried it.
For 2 weeks ago, i played with a player who had played DND For 7 years.. and he first thought it was weird, but he really liked it after the first few hours.

An old saying says "You dont know if you like the food before you have tasted it"

Rewritten it says "You dont know if you like a game master before you have played with him"

 

[Arrowhawk]

*TAKE NOTE THIS IS NOT FLAMING*
I wouldnt talk too much, and deny to try to play with a GM that alters the rules "Willy-nilly" as u call it..
i dont alter the rules without thinking of the consequences.
but why shouldnt a mage has found a way to make an illusion undetectable by normal magic?

also, if i were you, i wouldnt deny to try to play with a gm like me, before you have actually tried it.
For 2 weeks ago, i played with a player who had played DND For 7 years.. and he first thought it was weird, but he really liked it after the first few hours.

An old saying says "You dont know if you like the food before you have tasted it"

Rewritten it says "You dont know if you like a game master before you have played with him"

If everyone is having fun, that's all that matters.

 

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

screw illusions. Are you really trying to say anti-caster stuff is overpowered in 3.5???