Any down sides to having DM fail to detect illusions?

[Arrowhawk]

That would make those decisions non-arbitrary then, wouldn't it? "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system"

First off, the decision that may be inspired by some outside source is still arbitrary if it lacks self supporting reasons for being. Naming your kid after your favorite baseball player is arbitrary unless you family/culture has a tradition for naming kids after baseball players.

Second, you've taken two quotes out of context to combine them. In the first quote, the decision by D&D to decide what part of an illusion is real or fake or figment or whatever, is arbitrary. There is no underlying basis in reality for how illusions should work. Whether the authors got the idea from other fantasy works or they just made it up, the decision to make it a part of D&D is "wholly" arbitrary. Overtime, that decision gets revisited and it may get tweaked to achieve some desired end. It most cases, these decisions are reviewed by other editors and the changes are tested by not only the authors, but other people who have no vested interest in the outcome and who aren't given a reason for the change.

In the second quote, we are talking about someone who, for reasons unknown, has decided that illusions should be more powerful than they are. Why? There is no stated reason. It's tantamount to why someone likes vanilla more than chocolate, except it doesn't even have a physiological underpinning.

Yet there is nothing magical about "feedback" or "playtesting" that makes the resulting product good for everyone.

I'm not sure what it is you're trying to convey here. There is a such a thing as robust play testing and misinformative play testing. You do it right, you make good decisions, you do it wrong, you make bad decisions.

It seems you trust the designers more than the gamers.

"Trust" is the wrong word. It's not a value/character assessment, it's a competency assessment. No, I don't have any faith that any random group of players is conducting unbiased evaluations of the rules they've decided to change. More to the point, people may not even be able to accurately determine if the game is in fact better for them with the rules changes because it would require them playing the same scenario twice with no knowledge of having played it the other way.

I trust the gamers as much as the designers to know what will work at their table.

So you think gamers are infinitely capable of figuring out what works and what doesn't? If that were so, they wouldn't be on the boards asking for opinions now would they? The fact is we don't know what the total consequences of any change might be, especially when it comes to something as monumental as deciding that DM no longer detects illusions. We change it, we play it. And then it's an open question as to whether the change was really an improvement on an objective level.

Here's a biologically proven truth about human beings: we impose our own logic on facts. Someone convinces themselves A is better than B and they subsequently interpret all facts to the contrary in a way that does not disturb their preconceptions. This behavior in human beings has been proven in numerous types of experiments and it most assuredly applies to someone's ability to assess rule changes that they've asked for.

It seems you approach these house rule proposals as something different than a group's very own playtesting.

I think you and I have a very different definition of what "play testing" involves.

Everyone's game is a continuous playtest IMO, decisions for house rules that come from it are definitionally not arbitrary.

You and I are talking about two different definitions of "play test" and whether its arbitrary depends on the stated reason for introducing the rule, now doesn't it?

 

[airwalkrr]

This thread just got more interesting. I wonder if Monte Cook will stop by too.

 

[Particle_Man]

With all this talk about "arbitrariness" and "Game Balance" and trusting the designers over players and all that, I wonder if Arrowhawk thinks that the Tier system is valid (which holds that some classes are way, way better than others), or that, since the 3.5 PHB has the classes listed, without any indication that some are better than others, then they must be about equal.

 

[Dandu]

The designers out and said that they made some options better than others to "reward system mastery", though if you ask me that was their excuse for covering their collective rears.

 

[Jimlock]

I know that what I'm about to do is probably wrong...

I know that I will sound like a prick.

But... I'm really tired of answering to every wrong point (wrong... for me) made here, and in the other thread.

Honestly, I find that the majority of points made by Arrowhawk, Tovec, and airwalkrr, and perhaps a few others are wrong and out of focus.

If you guys think, and keep saying that there is no case made "yet" after all those pages, I'm afraid I have nothing more to say.

Rest assured, that if your arguments were convincing, I would have come out to admit it. Believe me or not, I assure you I would have done it.

I say all this, because I retire from this debate. I 've made my points, over and over again and it is obvious we disagree... perhaps because, as I've said earlier, we might be using the same books but we play a different game, each and every one of us.

...but think not that I retire because, I'm being convinced by your arguments. I retire because I find no point in trying to convince you of the obvious (obvious... again... for me), and because I find it futile to try and to counter arguments that I believe to be wrong over and over again.

It is almost certain, that I've already made myself look like an [MENTION=40136]SS[/MENTION] after all the above... but what can I say... I can't help it .


One last thing before my way out of this debate: The rules were not written by the hand of god, and rest assured that they are full of mistakes, inaccuracies, and create for very unbalanced situations to a great extend, as written.
Overall they are "good" rules... but far... FAR from being perfect. So when you stand so firmly by them as if they are the bible, think of that. Cause it's one thing to say what you REALLY think, and another to stand blindly by a set of rules as if they were written in stone by some mighty deity... because those are the "D&D rules" and we have to bow and love and protect them... because we love the game so much.
It's one thing to build your arguments on top of your believes, and another, to build your arguments around the rules as a firewall, in order to blindly protect therm against any possible assault. And that is what I believe has happened to a great extent here, and in the other thread as well.


Excuse my attitude, and for not even trying to be more polite over this...

I'll see you guys on the other threads.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Honestly, I find that the majority of points made by Arrowhawk, Tovec, and airwalkrr, and perhaps a few others are wrong and out of focus.

It's all opinion, so I have no problem with you stating yours. And I'm not in this thread trying to convince anyone of anything. The OP asked for opinions and I offered one. If someone has questions about it, I'll respond to it. But I don't think you're "wrong." I don't think it's a question of right and wrong in the traditional sense.

 

[Tovec]

Honestly, I find that the majority of points made by Arrowhawk, Tovec, and airwalkrr, and perhaps a few others are wrong and out of focus.

Practically everything I posted was the ACTUAL rules relating to detect magic.

Please point out where in that I was "wrong" or "out of focus" and certainly when I was both

I like to know it when I'm wrong so I may learn from it. I have an opinion, yes, it is not immutable as yours Jimlock. When I am offered evidence of a subject then I take it into consideration. What you have offered in 2 different threads are arguments where SPECIFIC uses of DM can counter-balance illusion spells. The prevailing opinion seems to be that it can somehow counter ALL illusion spells but we have proven this isn't so. To the best of our ability we have dis-proven the specific, niche and limited uses where it does too by saying that in those circumstances other things would defeat the illusion just as much as detect magic.

 

[Dandu]

Without the cost of expending a limited, albeit minor, daily resource.

Unless you count ink as a limited, albeit, minor, daily resource.

 

[RangerRick]

Is there anything about the OP house rule in your eyes that makes it actually negative, rather than merely unnecessary

Honestly it probably wont make a giant difference either way so if you and your players are cool with it then sure go for it I don't think your upsetting the apple cart too much.

But for me personally I wouldn't do it and it would make things worse for my campaign because we don't have any high level illusionists in our party so basically its just making things harder for the party and now were going to take more time prodding everything and throwing stuff just to be safe and that slows things down.

Plus for my party its usually like an aha moment when we think to check for an illusion so I kind of like that OK if you're smart enough to check for it then yes you win ding ding ding! We definitely dont go around spamming detect magic on every floor and wall just for kicks so yeah if we did that then I'd probably feel differently about it as a DM.