D&D 5E Detect magic and Gargolye

[iserith]

Yeah, the spell includes Elementals and unfortunately specifies that you know their location (though it doesn't say exact location). Really makes running a haunted mansion that much less fun.

Players who are bought into a horror premise tend not to take such spells in my experience or at least don't use them unless a dramatically appropriate moment arises. After all, what's the point of getting into a horror scenario if you can't go "I'll go check out the attic alone - I'm sure there's nothing to be worried about. Nothing at all."

 

[pemerton]

I could get behind several of the posts that encourage DMs to mix it up and not serve info up to the PCs on a silver platter to discourage rules lawyers and experienced players from meta-gaming to much.

I don't see how it's meta-gaming to cast "Detect Magic" to try and discover if what look like statues are really magical creatures that will attack and try to eat you. That looks completely reasonable from an in-character point of view.

 

[KarinsDad]

By the rules, no, I do not believe you were wrong. But that's cold comfort to players whose game experience is negatively impacted by the DM's ruling.

My take on this, lacking any additional context, is that the player's objection has less to do with how detect magic works and more with the perception of this situation being a "gotcha." A gargoyle can be a "gotcha" type creature if the DM hasn't sufficiently telegraphed their presence in the build-up to the scene in which they are encountered. The players get the feeling of having been blindsided as a result, having not been offered an opportunity to make meaningful decisions to avoid their fate.

Telegraphing is just a fancy term for the DM establishing clues either before the scene in question or during it. So if you had said previously in the adventure that "the wizard's tower is known to be guarded by demons of rock and stone..." then when the players encounter the statues, they might think the statues are more than they seem. Alternatively (or in addition to this), you could describe how there are four statues in the chamber, but one of the statues appears to have been removed from its pedestal and stands in the center of the room in a different posture than the others. Or the statues have dark brown stains on their mouths and claws. Something that indicates to the players that it might be worth exploring. Even if they don't figure it out and are jumped by the gargoyles, then at least they can reflect back on the fact that they did get a clue, but failed to put two and two together. This reduces the chances that the players perceive the DM as hitting them with "gotchas."

Something else to consider: What if you had said that detect magic revealed an aura around the gargoyles? Would this have materially changed the outcome of the encounter? Would not the gargoyles still have attacked, only without a surprise round perhaps? You might have gotten more or less the same result but without a player objection. Is it also possible that this warlock has Eldritch Sight and spams detect magic like crazy and you're getting a little tired of it?

It might just be that I have experienced players, but my players expect every statue in the campaign world to come alive and attack and are surprised if one doesn't.

In other words, the clue was already given.

DM: "There are four statues in the room."
Player: "I cast Detect Magic."
DM: "It picks up nothing here except the magic on your fellow PCs."
Player: "Ok, so they are not magical statues, but everyone be ready."

Giving the players even more foreshadowing is overkill and leading them by the nose, at least at my table.

 

[pemerton]

my players expect every statue in the campaign world to come alive and attack and are surprised if one doesn't.

My players take the same attitude towards bones also.

 

[KarinsDad]

My players take the same attitude towards bones also.

This.

 

[iserith]

It might just be that I have experienced players, but my players expect every statue in the campaign world to come alive and attack and are surprised if one doesn't.

In other words, the clue was already given.

DM: "There are four statues in the room."
Player: "I cast Detect Magic."
DM: "It picks up nothing here except the magic on your fellow PCs."
Player: "Ok, so they are not magical statues, but everyone be ready."

Giving the players even more foreshadowing is overkill and leading them by the nose, at least at my table.

My players are very experienced (20+ years of RPG experience on average), but we don't play in what I would call a "procedural" way. "If bones, then search," "If statue, then smash," etc.

They know that as DM I put all my cards on the table. Some are face up, some are face down. But they will know all the cards are there because I've mentioned them in some fashion when I describe the environment. If they want to see the face-down cards, they have to pay attention and engage with the exploration pillar. Sometimes they figure it out, sometimes they don't, sometimes they figure it out at a cost. The foreshadowing only looks obvious to the DM, who already knows what all the cards are.

 

[Beleriphon]

That is why I suspect the player's real objection is about something other than a gargoyle not detecting as magic.

I suspsect its a "Hey not fair! I tried and you still screwed me!" type of response.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Think you are in the right, they are not magical in nature and as such are not detected by magic. Even golems may not be detected by magic, as their core are an elemental (see MM page 167). this thread makes me think about maybe creating a flow chart, does it fail a number of test.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The OP made the correct call. If we follow the detect magic rabbit down the hole and allow it to detect these sorts of creatures what are we unleashing on the realm?

The next logical conclusion of course! Dispel Magic then becomes Dispel Elemental. Ta-da! Away with workaday magical monsters, just dispel them and get on with your day!

 

[KarinsDad]

My players are very experienced (20+ years of RPG experience on average), but we don't play in what I would call a "procedural" way. "If bones, then search," "If statue, then smash," etc.

You call it procedural. I call it logical.

They know that as DM I put all my cards on the table. Some are face up, some are face down. But they will know all the cards are there because I've mentioned them in some fashion when I describe the environment. If they want to see the face-down cards, they have to pay attention and engage with the exploration pillar. Sometimes they figure it out, sometimes they don't, sometimes they figure it out at a cost. The foreshadowing only looks obvious to the DM, who already knows what all the cards are.

Except that you were the one stating that the player was most likely perceiving this as a gotcha.

My point is that maybe the player did perceive it that way, but it's unlikely that many players would because the clue was already given. In fact, the clue was given, and the player reacted to the clue (by casting Detect Magic), and then the player was disappointed that his reaction to the clue failed.

This does not mean that the DM should have given more clues (my point in your statement that the DM should have telegraphed gargoyles). It means that the player didn't like the fact that his reaction to the clue failed.


You are indicating that this was a face down card by the DM whereas I am stating that it is already a face up card.