Identifying Potions

[irdeggman]

So, this separate items interpretation then indicates that Potions cannot have their School of Magic identified with Detect Magic unless the vials are made of glass.

Hmmm. Interesting.

Well the item must be within line of sight to do the Spellcraft check for school. But there is no requirement for "touching" for this purpose.

Note that in order to block the presence (and relative strength) of the aura the "shielding" must be pretty substantial (1 ft of stone, 1 " of common metal, a thn sheet of lead {what thin is is left up to interpretation} or 3 ft of wood or dirt).

 

[KarinsDad]

Well the item must be within line of sight to do the Spellcraft check for school. But there is no requirement for "touching" for this purpose.

Note that in order to block the presence (and relative strength) of the aura the "shielding" must be pretty substantial (1 ft of stone, 1 " of common metal, a thn sheet of lead {what thin is is left up to interpretation} or 3 ft of wood or dirt).

Agreed, but you might have missed what I was saying. I was not talking about touching at all.

Just because one can detect the aura through ceramic potion bottles (due to the penetrating rule) does not mean that one can do a Spell Craft check. The Line of Sight rule for a Spell Craft check is to the item, not to the aura. The Spell Craft rule explicitly states that line of sight to the item is required, hence, the penetrating rule does not trump it.

As I stated, from this, the two item interpretation would mean that School of Magic could not be detected for Potions.

So, which do you support? Two item interpretation or one item interpretation?

 

[Kraydak]

So, this separate items interpretation then indicates that Potions cannot have their School of Magic identified with Detect Magic unless the vials are made of glass.

Hmmm. Interesting.

Correct (if by glass you mean transparent). You also can't School ID spells on invisible creatures/objects (unless you can see invis). Note that you can't School ID a spell anchored in space (rather than on an object). I'll leave the possibility of transparent liquids that you can't pick out visually, but which aren't magically invisible, to those more rules-versed than I.

Oh, and it *isn't* (at least in the SRD) a line of sight issue. It is a *sight* issue, generally more restrictive, but does Clairvoyance grant line-of-sight? It does grant sight...

 

[KarinsDad]

Oh, and it *isn't* (at least in the SRD) a line of sight issue. It is a *sight* issue, generally more restrictive, but does Clairvoyance grant line-of-sight? It does grant sight...

Actually, it is a line of sight issue in the SRD:

If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight

As to Clairvoyance, it does grant sight. But it does not grant line of sight:

Clairaudience/clairvoyance creates an invisible magical sensor at a specific location that enables you to hear or see (your choice) almost as if you were there. You don’t need line of sight or line of effect

The entire purpose of Clairvoyance is to grant sight where one does not have line of sight. Also, Detect Magic does not work via Clairvoyance. You might be thinking of Scrying which can allow Detect Magic to work through it.

 

[irdeggman]

Just because one can detect the aura through ceramic potion bottles (due to the penetrating rule) does not mean that one can do a Spell Craft check. The Line of Sight rule for a Spell Craft check is to the item, not to the aura. The Spell Craft rule explicitly states that line of sight to the item is required, hence, the penetrating rule does not trump it.

Ahh but now you would be able to readily narrow down exactly where the aura is coming from if the potion bottle is not transparent - right? Making use of Detect Magic much more useful after all.

So, which do you support? Two item interpretation or one item interpretation?

I think there is reasonable justification for either interpretation.

For simplicity I would go with the single item - but a spellcraft check for the potion (in lieu of an identify spell) should, IMO, require touching, tasting, smelling, etc. - since it is after all only a skill check and not a spell, it should be more involved.

 

[KarinsDad]

Ahh but now you would be able to readily narrow down exactly where the aura is coming from if the potion bottle is not transparent - right? Making use of Detect Magic much more useful after all.

Not necessarily. Did the spell craft check fail because it was unsuccessful, or impossible?

 

[irdeggman]

Not necessarily. Did the spell craft check fail because it was unsuccessful, or impossible?

Hmm you didn't make the check at all?


Now if the DM is making all skill checks instead of the player than that "option" used will not tell the difference.

But Spellcraft is not a skill that states the DM should always be making the check (unlike Disable Device) and the default is that the players make their own skill checks - so in a normal game you woldn't even be able to make the check at all.

 

[KarinsDad]

Now if the DM is making all skill checks instead of the player than that "option" used will not tell the difference.

But Spellcraft is not a skill that states the DM should always be making the check (unlike Disable Device) and the default is that the players make their own skill checks - so in a normal game you woldn't even be able to make the check at all.

Agreed. I was pulling your chain a bit, but it does bring up an interesting idea from the PC's POV.

The literal interpretation of the rule here seems excessive. If the PC can see the item or not should be irrelevant, just seeing the aura should be sufficient to get a spell craft check. So from the PC's POV, the aura is slightly different based on whether he can see the item or not. It is at least different enough that he cannot ever determine the school of magic if he cannot see the item. Also, from the PC's POV there is no difference between not getting a check and failing the check. That difference is one for players.

In fact, the entire concept of spell craft checks for this is a bit stupid. If differences can be detected via the auras, then Spell Craft checks should not even be required. Green Aura means Divination, Black Aura means Necromancy, etc. The sheer number of basically worthless rolls in 3E seems excessive and I am hoping that 4E does not migrate these types of rolls. Just let Detect Magic give x amount of info and be done with it.

 

[Menexenus]

OP - since the bottles were "traps" did the party get (or attempt) search checks (those with trapfinding that is) to determine if they were traps?

No, the party did not make search checks to check for traps. (And, of course, if I had prompted them to do so, that would have given away the whole ball of wax.) All they did was use detect magic to find out what in the room was magical. When they heard that the bottles were radiating magical auras, they immediately assumed they were potions, scooped them up, and put them in a swag bag. I was never asked what schools of magic the auras were and I was never asked for the intensity of the auras. (Again, I was playing this as a trap. So I was not volunteering information to the party that would give that fact away.)

If anyone is interested in what finally happened in my game... The player who said he was going to identify the bottles at the end of the last session did not make it to the subsequent session. Since it seemed unfair to put his character in jeopardy when the player wasn't present, I ruled that he could identify the bottles by merely touching them, i.e. without opening them. The party now knows that the bottles are magical containers of some kind, but they don't know what the bottles contain.

Thanks again for everyone's help.