Any down sides to having DM fail to detect illusions?

Particle_Man

Explorer
Hived off from another thread. Now with more positivity.

I think that having Detect Magic fail to detect illusions would allow illusionists more leeway, especially in a non-combat situation (or in a "prior to combat" set up). It would mean that some magic items would not be detectable as such by DM (one would need more beefy magic to do that). This would likely make for a better game in my campaigns.

I can imagine other campaigns either being improved, or not being affected either way.

Does anyone think that this change to the rules would make the illusionist over-powered or otherwise make the game worse, either in combat or non-combat situations?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad



I don't think this change will make illusions overpowered. The traditional weakness of illusion is that it does not work on enemies who have:

Blindsense
Scent (first level Warblade)
Tremorsense
Lifesense
True Seeing (lots of outsiders)

and so on.
 
Last edited:

I'd rather grant the caster of Detect Magic an automatic Will save for their spell to let them see past the inherently deceptive nature of the illusion. (Applies to Illusion spells that allow such a Save, obviously). Fail the Save and the Illusion fooled you, even through your Detect.

That way DM would still detect magic items based on Illusion magic (a valuable tool), but the caster would stand the same chance of being fooled by actual Illusion spells as anyone else. (Okay, the caster has a better chance of spotting the Illusion, simply because they get the save automatically, but hey, they paid for that when they cast the Detect. It ought to be worth something.)

For Invisibility spells, I'd have it reveal that there is magic in the area, but treat it as if the magic were not in a line of sight, so they can't pick up the school, and perhaps even stop it from advancing past what you can get on the 2nd round of the Detect. That is, you know it's there, somewhere, you know about how strong the magic is, but you can't quite zero in on its location or type.

To me, that's a fair balance between nerfing Detect Magic and nerfing the various Illusion spells.

Note: This doesn't address the various Illusion spells that Detect Magic doesn't help with, like Blur and Displacement. I think those work fine just as they are.

Mirror Image is an odd one. By the rules the caster of the Mirror Image can only change places with his decoys on his own Move action, so once you know which are images and which is the real McCoy, you can direct your allies to focus on the real caster, effectively negating his defensive spell until he can play his shell game again on his turn.

And you know, I'm okay with that. The one caster is doing nothing, offensively or defensively, other than concentrating on their Detect and pointing the finger, while the Mirrored caster is still free to take offensive action as they see fit. Such as splattering that annoying tattletale who keeps blowing their cover by pointing the finger.

Detect Magic may be useful as hell in non-combat situations, but once battle is joined actions are at a premium, a precious and limited resource. For a spell caster to blow all battle prep, buffing, defensive and offensive casting in order to maintain their concentration seems like a really poor allocation of resources. And I never interrupt an opponent when they're about to make a mistake.

***
Just had a thought, a "Plan B" sort of solution to issue.

Change the duration on Detect Magic to 2 rounds, plus one round per caster level.

While I would personally be suspicious if a player seemed to be able to pop a Detect an endless number of times, or always seemed to have one ready to go no matter how many times a day the occasion came up, this change would highlight that sort of abuse, make it harder to slip under the radar.

On the other hand, it might encourage even more of that sort of cheating. :)
 

I see this happening next.

Person A casts an illusion spell then hides.

Person B casts detect magic, gets nothing from the illusion as illusions are no longer magical.
Person A thinks "great, he'll think the illusion is me."

Person B stabs the illusion, dispelling it.

Person A is confused.

Person B explains that Person A SHOULD have auras of transmutation, abjuration, conjuration and/or enchantment on them, with none of these the fake Person A must logically be an illusion.
 

Hived off from another thread. Now with more positivity.

I think that having Detect Magic fail to detect illusions would allow illusionists more leeway, especially in a non-combat situation (or in a "prior to combat" set up). It would mean that some magic items would not be detectable as such by DM (one would need more beefy magic to do that). This would likely make for a better game in my campaigns.

I can imagine other campaigns either being improved, or not being affected either way.

Does anyone think that this change to the rules would make the illusionist over-powered or otherwise make the game worse, either in combat or non-combat situations?

I would never go this route. I don't subscribe to the opinion that illusions should be any more than they are. If DM allows a 1st level caster to see through an illusion, so be it. Changing DM to protect one school of magic is wholly arbitrary. Why not create special rules for Monks or make Animal Companions unkillable? Nothing I've read convinces me that there is some gross injustice inflicted on D&D because of how DM works. The most compelling counter argument to your suggestions is that there are innumerable ways to make illusions serve a role. I don't agree that illusions are worthy of gamemaster fiat to protect them.

Illusions should be least effective against those who understand magic and can detect it, regardless of level. I seriously fail to see how that is a bad thing. And it's not like the world of spell casters is in need of bolstering. The more that levels the playing field, the better.
 

Does anyone think that this change to the rules would make the illusionist over-powered or otherwise make the game worse, either in combat or non-combat situations?
Well, I like that a caster can use detect magic to make a Spellcraft check to identify a magic aura as being from the Illusion school...so yes, I think that change would make the game worse for me.

Would it be unbalanced? No. Would it ruin the game? No. But would it make the game a teeny, tiny bit worse? In my opinion, yes.
 

I think DM is, by far, the best cantrip and, IMHO, it was only made a cantrip for the "ease of play" benefit of allowing players to find loot more quickly.

It should likely be a first level spell.

Even with its incredible illusion busting powers (????), however, DM would be a mediocre first level spell. Think of Grease, PFE (as [MENTION=85158]Dandu[/MENTION] mentioned), Mage Armor, Enlarge, etc.
 

I would never go this route. I don't subscribe to the opinion that illusions should be any more than they are. If DM allows a 1st level caster to see through an illusion, so be it. Changing DM to protect one school of magic is wholly arbitrary. Why not create special rules for Monks or make Animal Companions unkillable? Nothing I've read convinces me that there is some gross injustice inflicted on D&D because of how DM works. The most compelling counter argument to your suggestions is that there are innumerable ways to make illusions serve a role. I don't agree that illusions are worthy of gamemaster fiat to protect them.

Illusions should be least effective against those who understand magic and can detect it, regardless of level. I seriously fail to see how that is a bad thing. And it's not like the world of spell casters is in need of bolstering. The more that levels the playing field, the better.

Regardless of whether it is arbitrary or not, regardless of whether it fixes a great injustice or not, the question I have is whether, assuming the house rule is in place, the game would be worse. I've run into games with house rules I considered unnecessary and arbitrary but which didn't affect my game enjoyment, as I saw them as neutral changes rather than negative ones. Is there anything about the OP house rule in your eyes that makes it actually negative, rather than merely unnecessary?

As to your last point, remember this is spellcaster vs. spellcaster, so reducing the effect of one spell to make another type of spell less likely to fail doesn't change that, either way, spellcasters rule the world in D&D. :)
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top