Any down sides to having DM fail to detect illusions?

[Dandu]

The likely effect on a game is minimal.

 

[Jimlock]

Any down sides to having DM fail to detect illusions?


No downsides. Such a rule, or one in the same spirit, could only make for a better game.

 

[Dandu]

Does raise an interesting question: Why would illusions be undetectable, but Transmutations leave an aura? If you're physically transmuting something, the change has already taken effect by the time the spell is cast. Same with Conjuration, I suppose.

 

[Jimlock]

I think the answer to that question lies in the SRD as it is:

Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened.

The addition to that, would be that they deceive "magical" senses as well.

In order to "deceive", Illusion spells have no aura to betray their very nature.

We could say that this is an inherent trait of all figment and glamer Illusions only, for those are the ones that get trumped by Detect Magic.

 

[Shin Okada]

Well, I guess that will not affect much on "prior to combat" set up. Even if a character can use Detect Magic at-will (like Warlock) or nearly at-will (say, have a lot of wand of Detect Magic), it takes a turn to use it. And characters try to spend a turn for casting Detect Magic only when they suspect that some unknown magical effects are there.

Regarding non-combat situations, It will become much harder to find illusions. I guess that will give benefit to villains, more so than to give benefit to PC Illusionists. Adventuring into illusion-full of dungeons will become far much dangerous. Especially at lower-levels.

 

[airwalkrr]

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.

This would be a fine house rule, and better than the one presented by the OP.

Some specific downsides to a house rule that detect magic fails to detect illusions:
1) Aside from identifying magic items, detect magic's main role is generally the PC's first line of defense against illusions. This deprives PCs of a very important tool. Very few illusions in the core rules are ever even going to fall under a detect magic spell in the first place.
2) Game time will be wasted with other things like prodding floors, walls, and ceilings with 10-foot poles, throwing pebbles, prodding pigs, just to detect illusions.
3) Illusions are powerful enough as-is. You generally aren't going to cast detect magic unless you are already suspicious of something. And it is a simple enough matter to fool detect magic (and countless other divinations) with misdirection to hide all manner of illusions.

 

[Arrowhawk]

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.

First off, neither you nor Jimlock presented any a compelling argument that protecting illusions from DM improves the game. What you've done is argue that the world should work the way you think it should. That' doesn't make the game fundamentally better. That just changes it.

Second, deciding that Detect Magic can't detect the inherent magic in an illusion spell, undermines a basic tenement of D&D reality. Magic is a primeval force in the D&D world. It's as strong and as prevalent as gravity. Dropping Detect Magic down to a 0 level spell is an indication that the first thing a caster should be able to do is learn how to recognize magic when it's being employed. Illusions are still magic. Nothing you or anyone else has said challenges that notion or suggests otherwise. Ergo, the ability Detect Magic must work when an illusion is present.

Third, you've asked how it harms the game? It disrupts the logic of both DM and Illusion spells. You've arbitrarily decided something should work differently and you've got no justification that makes any sense other than you want illusion spells to be more effective. Well, I want Monks to be more effective. What's the harm in making the Monk the most powerful class? The simple answer is illusion spells were not meant to be as effective as you've decided they should be. The complex answer is that your change most assuredly throws a whole lot of things out of whack, the majority of which you won't see until it's too late (no pun intended). Undoubtedly, you're going to view those changes with a bias filter and not view them objectively.

Fourth, you haven't made any compelling case that illusions are in need of this change. I'm going to repeat what I already said and what lots of other posters have said through examples: Illusions can still be employed with tremendous effect. Tremendous. Judiciously placed and employed with artful skill, a party would never suspect an illusion to begin with.

Fifth, if you remove DM's ability to detect the illusion, you take away a very useful way for you to control the party's actions. In some cases you WANT the party to suspect an illusion and waste time trying to detect it. Particularly in combat. If the party knows DM will not detect illusions, then they won't even try. In effect, you claim to be using an illusion, but it might as well be a real construct because the party may have no way to know otherwise.

Sixth, I hate to say this, but this whole line of reasoning smacks of a gamemaster whose clever illusion spell got foiled by a simple DM and now you guys are upset. At the risk of sounding rude, if the party is consistently using DM to find your illusions, then you aren't doing it right. It's not like the gamemaster is under some sort of monetary restriction when creating campaigns. As I said with my first point, I don't see anything that justifies your change other than whim. Change without real justification isn't good, it's bad because the presumption is that the game rules were tested as is and more often than not strike the best balance for playability.

 

[Particle_Man]

This deprives PCs of a very important tool. Very few illusions in the core rules are ever even going to fall under a detect magic spell in the first place.

So this house rule is depriving the caster of a very important tool that is rarely going to work?

 

[Particle_Man]

First off, neither you nor Jimlock presented any a compelling argument that protecting illusions from DM improves the game. What you've done is argue that the world should work the way you think it should. That' doesn't make the game fundamentally better. That just changes it.

Note, we are not writing the game books for others' campaigns. I am not putting out an OGL document. I am looking at my personal campaign and seeing whether this has a downside. If it has no upside except "I wanna see how it works in my campaign" that is enough justification for my campaign, if there is no downside.

Second, deciding that Detect Magic can't detect the inherent magic in an illusion spell, undermines a basic tenement of D&D reality. Magic is a primeval force in the D&D world. It's as strong and as prevalent as gravity. Dropping Detect Magic down to a 0 level spell is an indication that the first thing a caster should be able to do is learn how to recognize magic when it's being employed. Illusions are still magic. Nothing you or anyone else has said challenges that notion or suggests otherwise. Ergo, the ability Detect Magic must work when an illusion is present.

So in my campaign I do away with "illusion/magic" transparancy, and call illusions, oh I dunno, psionics or something. I have now changed the physics of my game world (gasp!). Next I shall make all the elves have blue skin. Fear me!

Third, you've asked how it harms the game? It disrupts the logic of both DM and Illusion spells. You've arbitrarily decided something should work differently and you've got no justification that makes any sense other than you want illusion spells to be more effective. Well, I want Monks to be more effective. What's the harm in making the Monk the most powerful class? The simple answer is illusion spells were not meant to be as effective as you've decided they should be. The complex answer is that your change most assuredly throws a whole lot of things out of whack, the majority of which you won't see until it's too late (no pun intended). Undoubtedly, you're going to view those changes with a bias filter and not view them objectively.

I love how you used the monk as the example of a class that would not benefit from a house rule making it more effective, given that monks are often seen as the weak sisters of the game, RAW. And if you think I won't see these changes because of my bias, then I have no idea why you are replying to my posts.

Fifth, if you remove DM's ability to detect the illusion, you take away a very useful way for you to control the party's actions. In some cases you WANT the party to suspect an illusion and waste time trying to detect it. Particularly in combat. If the party knows DM will not detect illusions, then they won't even try. In effect, you claim to be using an illusion, but it might as well be a real construct because the party may have no way to know otherwise.

If only there was a will save against illusions once someone started interacting with them. Oh, wait, there is.

Sixth, I hate to say this, but this whole line of reasoning smacks of a gamemaster whose clever illusion spell got foiled by a simple DM and now you guys are upset. At the risk of sounding rude, if the party is consistently using DM to find your illusions, then you aren't doing it right. It's not like the gamemaster is under some sort of monetary restriction when creating campaigns. As I said with my first point, I don't see anything that justifies your change other than whim. Change without real justification isn't good, it's bad because the presumption is that the game rules were tested as is and more often than not strike the best balance for playability.

Not I. I got interested in this by reading another thread. And your last argument seems to be an argument against many, many house rules. But I have never been in a D&D campaign of any edition without some house rules. That is just how my crowd rolls. We still have fun somehow.

 

[Tovec]

First off, neither you nor Jimlock presented any a compelling argument that protecting illusions from DM improves the game. What you've done is argue that the world should work the way you think it should. That' doesn't make the game fundamentally better. That just changes it.

This and

Fourth, you haven't made any compelling case that illusions are in need of this change. I'm going to repeat what I already said and what lots of other posters have said through examples: Illusions can still be employed with tremendous effect. Tremendous. Judiciously placed and employed with artful skill, a party would never suspect an illusion to begin with.

This are the same argument. You even say "compelling" and "argument/case".

Second, deciding that Detect Magic can't detect the inherent magic in an illusion spell, undermines a basic tenement of D&D reality. Magic is a primeval force in the D&D world. It's as strong and as prevalent as gravity. Dropping Detect Magic down to a 0 level spell is an indication that the first thing a caster should be able to do is learn how to recognize magic when it's being employed. Illusions are still magic. Nothing you or anyone else has said challenges that notion or suggests otherwise. Ergo, the ability Detect Magic must work when an illusion is present.

You may not want to put DnD and Reality in the same sentence.

Magic is a primeval force, agreed. MORE prevalent than gravity in many cases.

Sixth, I hate to say this, but this whole line of reasoning smacks of a gamemaster whose clever illusion spell got foiled by a simple DM and now you guys are upset. At the risk of sounding rude, if the party is consistently using DM to find your illusions, then you aren't doing it right. It's not like the gamemaster is under some sort of monetary restriction when creating campaigns. As I said with my first point, I don't see anything that justifies your change other than whim. Change without real justification isn't good, it's bad because the presumption is that the game rules were tested as is and more often than not strike the best balance for playability.

A DM or a player.
I'd also like to point out. Change without real justification isn't good or bad, it's just change.

[MENTION=892]Particle_Man[/MENTION] You aren't doing away with illusion/magic transparency. You can't by definition. Illusions ARE magic, so its more like doing away with magic/magic transparency. Once again I implore you, if you dislike Detect Magic then BAN THE SPELL!
Also, I don't know about blue-skinned elves but I have scaly blue-skinned orcs, does that count?

Change isn't bad by itself, it is bad when it fundamentally changes the game. I have said, in this thread and the other, to re-examine how illusions work. If you think they do not work properly then fix the core concept. Don't keep them the way they are, in their full broken condition, and blame a different spell which works well against all other types of magic. Fix the school and DM won't matter. Change how they function, change how the saves work, change how to counter them, how to dispel then, when they grant a save, how their damage works, how they are controlled, how they interact, etc. THEN worry about detect magic. I imagine that when the other issues are solved that DM won't really factor into it.