need help with permanent detect magic

[Jack Simth]

I agree with this. Otherwise, if all else fails, a good Dispel Magic will cure the problem!

Pinotage

1) In what way is it metagaming?
2) In what way is it cheesy?
3) In what way is it taking longer than a party that uses a Rogue with Search for the same tasks?

 

[moritheil]

I had a similar problem with a character that got detect magic at will, but as that was not permanent, I addressed it by noting that even if he wanted to reactivate it as soon as it fell, he would have to roll a random duration at the start of every battle.

I don't really think detect magic is as big of a problem as certain other spells. A single joker with magic aura and nothing to do can make a LOT of false alarms.

 

[SnowHeart]

1) In what way is it metagaming?
2) In what way is it cheesy?
3) In what way is it taking longer than a party that uses a Rogue with Search for the same tasks?

As for the first two, it obviously depends on what your concept of the game should be like. I do not punish my players for building effective characters, but I do try to dissuade them from bending (and abusing) the rules. I'm very comfortable with modifying the RAW if I feel they are being used to break either the balance or theme of the game. I'm less eager to toss them out, but I will if necessary.

I don't think this is metagaming, not by the definition anyway, but I do think it's powergaming (using the RAW to give your character the maximum advantage in combat or solving puzzles without consideration as to role-playing opportunities). Others call this building an effective character. (Interesting how PC words infiltrate even into gaming.) There is nothing intrinsicly wrong with that, but some people don't like it. I'm one of them and it sounds like the OP is another. Like I said, I don't believe in wantonly punishing players for this or just randomly tossing out a rule because a player did something creative that makes me think harder (that's a GOOD thing, not a bad thing). But I also think when a player starts twisting the RAW to game the system rather than play the game, the DM is entitled to start using the the player's own tricks against him in creative (and fun) ways. You got detect magic on permenantly? Great... You just got dazzled when you went into the wizard's tower.

Similarly, what constitutes "cheesy" is in the eye of the beholder. I think it's cheesy b/c it takes a lot of the fun and surprise out of exploring a dungeon. As a cast in point, there is a dragonfire adept in my group who can cast Detect Magic at will and, effectively, Identify Item as well. As a consequence, there is no surprise or mystery when they find new magic items -- no experimenting with their functions. That takes away part of the experience to me. JMO. Other people who see this more of a game of dice, rules and an interplay of cause and effect rather than story-telling and adventure don't think it's cheesy. Perfectly valid opinion as well. There's room for disagreement.

Despite the disagreement, I actually think a lot of your suggestions about the traps were inspired and a way for a creative DM to deal with this in the context of a dungeon crawl.

 

[Jack Simth]

As for the first two, it obviously depends on what your concept of the game should be like. I do not punish my players for building effective characters, but I do try to dissuade them from bending (and abusing) the rules. I'm very comfortable with modifying the RAW if I feel they are being used to break either the balance or theme of the game. I'm less eager to toss them out, but I will if necessary.

And how is spending 500 xp to be able to see magic breaking the balance of the game? Okay, so he's got a bit of warning vs. traps, invisible critters, magically disguised opponents, and ... that's about it. That is, if all your traps are magical because you ignore the mundane traps ... and if the invisible critters stay put for two or three rounds while the Wizard concentrates ... and if the only uses for Illusion are to disguise yourself ... and if nobody picks up ant-divination effects such as, oh, Magic Aura, Nondetection, and potentially Mind Blank.

As Detect Magic is a cantrip, wands of it are dirt cheap. As you can concentrate (a standard action) and move in the same round, a mage could potentially go through most of a dungeon at a walking pace just using a simple wand of Detect Magic (which a Wizard can make in eight hours for 187 gp, 5 sp, and 15 xp, assuming the Wizard took the feat for it).

By the time you can Permanancy Detect Magic (caster level 9), Arcane Sight is available (a 3rd level spell) - and has a nice duration, better range, no delay, and no need to concentrate.

Additionally, a Permanent Detect Magic doesn't really put anyone out - it doesn't heal like the Cleric, it doesn't kill things like the Fighter, and it will only find a small subset of the traps that the rogue will ... and it does absolutely nothing about disabling the trap, in any event; just finding it.

How in the world is this disruptive to the game?

I don't think this is metagaming, not by the definition anyway, but I do think it's powergaming (using the RAW to give your character the maximum advantage in combat or solving puzzles without consideration as to role-playing opportunities).

Yes, because a Wizard, who's fluff is all about seeking out magic, isn't going to arrange to use basic tools for finding ... magic. How is this without consideration as to role-playing opportunities? Do you prevent Barbarians from using Greatswords, forcing them to stick with Greataxes or Greatclubs because they fit your definition of the class's flavor better? Do you prevent clerics from casting Cure spells because that negates the need for natural healing?

Others call this building an effective character. (Interesting how PC words infiltrate even into gaming.) There is nothing intrinsicly wrong with that, but some people don't like it. I'm one of them and it sounds like the OP is another. Like I said, I don't believe in wantonly punishing players for this or just randomly tossing out a rule because a player did something creative that makes me think harder (that's a GOOD thing, not a bad thing). But I also think when a player starts twisting the RAW to game the system rather than play the game, the DM is entitled to start using the the player's own tricks against him in creative (and fun) ways. You got detect magic on permenantly? Great... You just got dazzled when you went into the wizard's tower.

How is this example "fun" for any of the players? How is what amounts to arbitrarily applying a penalty to the player not "wantonly punishing" them or "randomly tossing out a rule"? By default, there's nothing in Detect Magic that Dazzles someone when exposed to a lot of magic (although there is a penalty for the Detect [Alignment] spells if you're directly opposed to the alignment you're detecting, and it's very much stronger than you are). Are you springing this house-rule on your player with no warning, or letting him know in advance these little things that an expert on magic like a Wizard would know, and would affect his actions and preparations?

Similarly, what constitutes "cheesy" is in the eye of the beholder. I think it's cheesy b/c it takes a lot of the fun and surprise out of exploring a dungeon. As a cast in point, there is a dragonfire adept in my group who can cast Detect Magic at will and, effectively, Identify Item as well. As a consequence, there is no surprise or mystery when they find new magic items -- no experimenting with their functions.

At what point do you punish someone for being careful? In a world where cursed items exist, you DON'T just randomly try to activate every little thing you run across ... at least, not if you want to live long. You need to identify a wand before using it - otherwise, you might end up using Cure Light Wounds on that Demon you're trying to kill, or Fireball on that buddy you're trying to heal. Do your players have "fun" with what amounts to arbitrary character deaths?

Seriously, requiring your players to experiment with items to identify them does nothing more than require everyone at your table to know magic items backwards and forwards - anyone at the table who doesn't have such knowledge can't use magic items effectively, beyond the dull ones that give simple +'s to things like attack, AC, and ability scores. The interesting ones that need activation? They're completely beyond the reach of someone who's not familiar with how to go about experimenting with magical items in reasonable safety. How's that fun for that person when everyone else at the table gets to use their items cool powers? For that matter, how in the world do you let the player know the item even needs experimenting if you're not letting them use such things as Detect Magic to find out it's magical in the first place?

That takes away part of the experience to me. JMO. Other people who see this more of a game of dice, rules and an interplay of cause and effect rather than story-telling and adventure don't think it's cheesy. Perfectly valid opinion as well. There's room for disagreement.

The catch for this sort of thing is that you need to know your players' preferences and abilities, more than your own in such regards. If your players are setting themselves up so they can easily detect and locate magic, chances are, it's because their preferences align with that playstyle. In other words, as long as they aren't stepping on the toes of anyone else in the party, why exactly are you trying to nix them?

Despite the disagreement, I actually think a lot of your suggestions about the traps were inspired and a way for a creative DM to deal with this in the context of a dungeon crawl.

Thanks.

 

[SnowHeart]

And how is spending 500 xp to be able to see magic breaking the balance of the game?

By itself? It doesn't. To me it marks part of a trend or a style of gameplay that can disrupt the balance. (And, by the time you're 9th level, 500 xp really isn't that much of a cost.)

As Detect Magic is a cantrip, wands of it are dirt cheap...

Great... buy the wand and use a charge after every battle and spell you cast.

Additionally, a Permanent Detect Magic doesn't really put anyone out - it doesn't heal like the Cleric, it doesn't kill things like the Fighter, and it will only find a small subset of the traps that the rogue will ... and it does absolutely nothing about disabling the trap, in any event; just finding it... How in the world is this disruptive to the game?

It's not just about traps to my mind. It's everything. "This loot is valuable, that isn't; That's really powerful, that isn't; There's something on the other side of the door," and so on. It's not disruptive per se, but it eliminates a lot of the resouce balancing and mystery.

Yes, because a Wizard, who's fluff is all about seeking out magic, isn't going to arrange to use basic tools for finding ... magic. How is this without consideration as to role-playing opportunities? Do you prevent Barbarians from using Greatswords, forcing them to stick with Greataxes or Greatclubs because they fit your definition of the class's flavor better? Do you prevent clerics from casting Cure spells because that negates the need for natural healing?

That's kind of a silly comparison. You're talking about fundamental aspects of the class, and for the wizard that's casting a broad range of spells. The use of permenancy is a single spell, and the discussion relates to the application of that spell to another. A very unique circumstance that does nothing to nerf the wizard as a class.

How is this example "fun" for any of the players? How is what amounts to arbitrarily applying a penalty to the player not "wantonly punishing" them or "randomly tossing out a rule"? ...Are you springing this house-rule on your player with no warning, or letting him know in advance these little things that an expert on magic like a Wizard would know, and would affect his actions and preparations?

You're making some major assumptions about me and my game. Not sure why you're getting your back up over this.

The catch for this sort of thing is that you need to know your players' preferences and abilities, more than your own in such regards. If your players are setting themselves up so they can easily detect and locate magic, chances are, it's because their preferences align with that playstyle.

Very true. The flip side is I tell my players at the beginning what sort of a game I'm running and I explicitly tell what aspects of the game I place an emphasis on, and that I reserve the right to modify the RAW. If that's not the kind of game they want to play in, they are told right up front and given the opportunity to look elsewhere. It goes both ways.

 

[Jack Simth]

By itself? It doesn't. To me it marks part of a trend or a style of gameplay that can disrupt the balance. (And, by the time you're 9th level, 500 xp really isn't that much of a cost.)

As the entire thread is on a highly specific application, to the best of anyone's knoweledge (except, perhaps, the OP) this application IS "by itself".

Great... buy the wand and use a charge after every battle and spell you cast.
It's not just about traps to my mind. It's everything. "This loot is valuable, that isn't; That's really powerful, that isn't; There's something on the other side of the door," and so on. It's not disruptive per se, but it eliminates a lot of the resouce balancing and mystery.

It's a Concentration-duration (max 1 min/level) effect, and it's a cantrip. With a caster level-1 wand, concentrating while you walk, casting it once after every battle (7.5 gp - not particularly expensive, compared to the Wand of Cure Light Wounds most people arrange to have, and from which most people burn quite a few charges after every battle) generally WILL get you to the next obstacle (or at least, find all magical items in the room that aren't specifically shielded against this tactic - which is easy; what was it? Three feet of dirt or wood, one foot of stone, one inch of common metal, or a thin sheet of lead - or something like that? Alternately, just use Magic Aura). Yes, it's quite viable, save for a low-wealth campaign. Half the time, you can just prepare it in your cantrip slots and do even better (thanks to the increased caster level).

That's kind of a silly comparison. You're talking about fundamental aspects of the class, and for the wizard that's casting a broad range of spells. The use of permenancy is a single spell, and the discussion relates to the application of that spell to another. A very unique circumstance that does nothing to nerf the wizard as a class.

For the Cure spells? Maybe. That one was an exaggeration (well, unless you've got non-good clerics that Rebuke, or your healer is a Druid, a Cleric of War rather than healing, or some such). But do you prevent your Barbarians from using Greatswords, citing that the manufacturing needed to make a greatsword should be beyond a barbarian tribe? Or do you not worry about the one point of average damage?

The thing is, though, most of the applications you appear to be worried about can be done even without permanency, as they're inherent to the Detect Magic spell already.

You're making some major assumptions about me and my game.

That section did not include any assumptions at all. You specified you'd be applying the "Dazzled" condition (a defined game penalty) to such a character who walked into a wizard's tower. Detect Magic has no such clauses about powerful or pervasive magic, so you're making a house rule. If you're not warning your players that you'll be doing that sort of thing at the time that they'd be setting themselves up for it (especially for the character who's most likely to be doing this - a wizard - who's going to know a lot about magic in character), then you're applying a penalty with no warning, and no real way that they could get such warning, that is outside the existing rules. How do you define "arbitrarily" that this doesn't fit?

Not sure why you're getting your back up over this.

Because I dislike DM's that implement what appear to be sudden house-rules with no warning in such a way that it weakens a character, without apparently giving the player an opportunity to rebuild to adjust to the house rule when it'd be something that the character would very much know in-character.

That same 500 xp could have been spent on, say, Comprehend Languages, tailoring 12,500 gp worth of equipment by way of Crafting (around
thirty wands of Detect Magic, for a full day worth of the spell, broken up however you choose - if he's getting it from a scroll, that's a 10,125 gp item all by itself, as generated in the random treasure tables), or just not having to worry about falling behind the level curve.

Granted, it's a fairly small weakening of the spell, by itself, but to me it marks part of a trend or a style of DMing that can disrupt the game.

Very true. The flip side is I tell my players at the beginning what sort of a game I'm running and I explicitly tell what aspects of the game I place an emphasis on, and that I reserve the right to modify the RAW. If that's not the kind of game they want to play in, they are told right up front and given the opportunity to look elsewhere. It goes both ways.

Do you tell your players up from that you'll be suddenly be making house rules that amount to "this thing you spent resources on? It suddenly does nothing worthwhile" in the middle of game play, for no apparently good reason, when there's no particular in-character reason why it wouldn't work?

 

[irdeggman]

It's a Concentration-duration (max 1 min/level) effect, and it's a cantrip. With a caster level-1 wand, concentrating while you walk

I beleive you are reading the spell incorrectly.

The duration is concentration it still requires

The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.

So the caster must concentrate on (that is study) an area or object for the rounds in question. IMO it is pretty difficult to walk and study an area or object at the same time, especially for this purpose.

To me that is the limiting factor on this ability which is why the caster must state what he is studying while the ability is in effect - it is not another type of vision.

 

[Jack Simth]

I beleive you are reading the spell incorrectly.

The duration is concentration it still requires

So the caster must concentrate on (that is study) an area or object for the rounds in question. IMO it is pretty difficult to walk and study an area or object at the same time, especially for this purpose.

If I have a 60-foot range, and travel 30-feet over the course of 1 round, measured from my starting point, I have been studying the range from 30 to 60 feet continuously for that 1 round - which is enough to determine whether or not magic is present in that range, and thus whether or not it's worth stopping for closer examination. Even if I stop for the full round every sixty feet to determine whether or not magic is present in the next 60-foot stretch, I'm still only spending three rounds to go sixty feet - the exact same pace as a human in full plate, or a halfling in no armor. I'm STILL hardly going any slower

To me that is the limiting factor on this ability which is why the caster must state what he is studying while the ability is in effect - it is not another type of vision.

It permits the study of an area, with no limitation on what amount of space constitutes an area beyond the spell's area - a sixty-foot cone-shaped emanation. On round 3, you get the location and strength of all auras in the area under study. By RAW, I'm still good, unless the DM chooses to arbitrarily redefine the area or some such.

 

[SnowHeart]

As the entire thread is on a highly specific application, to the best of anyone's knoweledge (except, perhaps, the OP) this application IS "by itself".

I think you're taking my words out of context. The specific example does not break the game, but it can form one part of a theme or ongoing abuse of the RAW to unbalance the game. Thus, I had first said things that either break the game or the theme.

For the Cure spells? Maybe. That one was an exaggeration (well, unless you've got non-good clerics that Rebuke, or your healer is a Druid, a Cleric of War rather than healing, or some such). But do you prevent your Barbarians from using Greatswords, citing that the manufacturing needed to make a greatsword should be beyond a barbarian tribe? Or do you not worry about the one point of average damage?

No, because that's applying cultural and technological assumptions to a rule mechanic. We're talking exclusively about a rule mechanic here.

The thing is, though, most of the applications you appear to be worried about can be done even without permanency, as they're inherent to the Detect Magic spell already.

Absolutely! So why not just dedicate a few spell slots to preparing the spell? Saying you cannot use permenancy on it at all (an extreme that I would not favor) or applying limitations to it (better) does not hinder the class. The wizard/sorcerer is still perfectly capable of casting the spell should he so choose. Instead, by using the permenancy as you're advocating, the weight and burden of running that shifts from the Player to the DM. IMO, the DM has enough going on without also having to keep this in mind.

That section did not include any assumptions at all. You specified you'd be applying the "Dazzled" condition (a defined game penalty) to such a character who walked into a wizard's tower.

Fair enough but again I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. I used that as a brainstorming example of ways that a constant Detect Magic could work to the wizard's detriment. Using a PC's abilities against her (particularly when they become a crutch) is a perfectly valid approach for a DM.

Because I dislike DM's that implement what appear to be sudden house-rules with no warning in such a way that it weakens a character, without apparently giving the player an opportunity to rebuild to adjust to the house rule when it'd be something that the character would very much know in-character... Do you tell your players up from that you'll be suddenly be making house rules that amount to "this thing you spent resources on? It suddenly does nothing worthwhile" in the middle of game play, for no apparently good reason, when there's no particular in-character reason why it wouldn't work?

Again, you ARE making assumptions about me and my game. You assume I implement "sudden house-rules" without warning (or at least implying that I do), or that I'm advocating the same. I don't. I always talk through rules issues with my players, discuss my concerns, and seek input on ways to address my concerns in ways that are fair to the players. Ultimately, though, I believe in what was the Golden Rule of AD&D 2nd -- if a rule doesn't work for you, toss it out. The idea that the RAW have somehow become a sacred, untouchable thing that DMs shouldn't dare think about changing is, to me, absurd.

In the end... you say "tomato" and I say "tomatoe". They are different approaches and styles to DMing a campaign. In the end, the purpose is to have fun. If a rule isn't fun, I say toss it out. No rule is so holy or sacrosanct that it can't be changed or eliminated if it isn't fun. To me, using the rules even if it reduces the fun of others just because you "can" isn't right. Does a permenant detect magic have to ruin the fun for the DM? Absolutely NOT -- hopefully the DM is creative and adaptable enough to go with the flow. But if it does, and it really doesn't ADD that much to the player's experience (and I'm really not sure a permenant detect magic adds all that much, precisely for all of the counter-examples you raised above) then the DM should be able to address the issue with his players to come up with alternatives. That's it. Peace.

 

[irdeggman]

If I have a 60-foot range, and travel 30-feet over the course of 1 round, measured from my starting point, I have been studying the range from 30 to 60 feet continuously for that 1 round - which is enough to determine whether or not magic is present in that range, and thus whether or not it's worth stopping for closer examination.

I disagree.

Merely walking and looking "normally" is not the same as "studying".

It is much the same as the difference between a reflexive spot check and an active spot check.

I repeat detect magic does not function as if it were an additional type of "vision" it requires an active studying of the emanations to "detect and analyze them".

If you are allowing it as a simple "whatever I can see I can detect" type of thing then the spell is much more powerful than written.