D&D 5E Detect magic and Gargolye

[The Crimson Binome]

I would be very surprised if "Detect Magic not revealing a gargoyle" would be on, let alone crossing, anyone's line of suspension of disbelief.

What about undead, though? If there was a skeleton in the corner of the room, and you checked it for magic because you weren't sure if it was going to rise up and attack you, and there was no sign of magic but then it attacked you anyway...

That's getting awfully close to my line. I mean, I'm willing to buy that gargoyles have some sort of anti-detection magic that blocks their power source from casual detection, since that's their whole gimmick and it would be silly if a simple at-will ritual could see through it, but there needs to be some sort of logic to it. If it's all just make-it-up non-sense and there's no way to predict anything because none of it follows any consistent set of rules, then that raises a big question about why I'm even playing this game in the first place.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I had half a mind to report this post for being unbearable, but I barely managed to stop myself.

If the content is hirsutable in ursine view, report it to the moderators. We do not want the forum to become grizzly.

 

[Gadget]

I suppose that I would go with the majority of the responses here and say the ruling was justified. Furthermore, 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. Having a simple ritual be able to reveal anything that could be remotely called 'magical' would probably be too much in all but the most low magic settings. Though if you want to run a campaign like that it might be kind of fun.

However, Just to play devil's (or Player's) advocate, I would add that it is a good idea to be consistent here. I generally like rulings, not rules, but the ad-hoc nature of such can create inconsistencies that would tend to make things hard to fathom from the player's end. I like a little mystery as a player, but if it feels like the DM is just being arbitrary all the time at the players expense (Not that I'm saying this is at all the case here), I would be a little frustrated. Players come up with whacky, off the wall things all the time, and it isn't a sin to reward clever or good play, even at the expense of carefully prepared so-called "gotchas" dear to the DM. The only minor complaint I might have as a player in this situation would be that, while my character might not know specifically what the creatures are, he should have a decent idea of what the limits of his spell are, and that it would only detect active spells (i.e. in players handbook) and magic items. But that is a minor complaint.

Off topic, if you knew you were dealing with an illusionist, would detect magic be a good way to help detect illusions? I mean, it wouldn't outright reveal whether something is an illusion or just 'magical' in some other way, but it could give you a pretty good idea.

 

[DaveDash]

Edit: I've changed my mind. The lines are blurry on an animated skeleton.

 

[steeldragons]

What about undead, though?

Asked and answered...I thought.

If there was a skeleton in the corner of the room, and you checked it for magic because you weren't sure if it was going to rise up and attack you, and there was no sign of magic but then it attacked you anyway...

Me personally? I would be like "huh? So where's its source of negative energy coming from? Maybe it's powered some other way." I would ask questions of my DM -via the actions of my character in the game world, if I really cared so much- until I had some kind of suitable, or at least interesting, answer.

But then, I would never use Detect Magic to try to detect undead. I would expect my cleric or paladin to let me know if that was something to worry about...and if I were alone and there was an unmoving skeleton in the corner...I would watch it for a minute...see if it moved or not...and then, my character would assume it is not undead. Then my character would be frightened and/or surprised when it moved to attack me...and "should I have detected magic? Would it detect as magic?" would never cross my mind because I am just trying to stay alive at that point.

That's getting awfully close to my line. I mean, I'm willing to buy that gargoyles have some sort of anti-detection magic that blocks their power source from casual detection, since that's their whole gimmick and it would be silly if a simple at-will ritual could see through it, but there needs to be some sort of logic to it. If it's all just make-it-up non-sense and there's no way to predict anything because none of it follows any consistent set of rules, then that raises a big question about why I'm even playing this game in the first place.

Well, as you said, everyone has their own tolerance. But a DM ruling that Detect Magic doesn't show a gargoyle (or an undead) is the DM's call to make. They get to decide where the "make-it-up nonsense" line is. If you perceive their reasons and rulings as "make-it-up nonsense" that's...well, just too bad, really. You can go along with it or, if that ruins the game/breaks disbelief for you, then you can bow out of that game.

I don't know what else to tell you. But individual players don't get to decide what is or is not "real/real enough/makes sense" in the game world. How magic and spells and, well, everything works is what a DM interpreting what's in the core books is for. They are the referee and arbiter. They decide.

For me, if the next time I was going into a room with gargoyles in it and my Detect Magic spamming [which would not be allowed in my games anyway] DID reveal them, then might raise an eyebrow and point it out. Or I would think "Oh SNAP!* Something's wrong/up here! Why are they detecting as magic...they didn't before." If the DM's response is "Oh right. Yeah. I forgot. Nevermind." Then we rewind a bit and carry on. If the DM's answer is "Yeah, that's weird, huh?" then the game, in fact, is afoot!

*Ok. I wouldn't actually think "Oh SNAP" as I do not speak or think in urban-slang other than for comedic effect. But you get the point.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The DM's call was reasonable, but I agree with iserith's point.

A casual Player making a reasonable effort to gather information about a suspect room, where s/he was looking for "unnatural" effects, would do exactly as described by the OP. To say that the gargoyle is a naturally elemental magical creature that is unnatural to nature on this plane, yada, yada, ... but it is still not magic is a fine, by the letter of the rules, ruling, but it is pretty dissatisfying and, yes, even SoD breaking.

I think the better answer would be to communicate (less overtly): "Your spell detects no obvious ongoing magical effects. But your PC understands that if he were to invest time, he might be able to detect hints of subtler things."

 

[Sunseeker]

There's also a spell, detect evil and good, which picks up a bunch of creature types. Can't remember which ones, but it's the standard group that those kind of spells detect.

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.

 

[Zaruthustran]

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.

You're saying that certain confirmation of the presence of a threat, makes that threat less scary?

Tell that to PFC Hudson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S8V254QqTE


EDIT: hard to believe that's the best clip I could find. Curse you, DMCA!

 

[Sunseeker]

You're saying that certain confirmation of the presence of a threat, makes that threat less scary?

When the reaction to the threat is to smash every statue in sight, yes.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

At our table we rule that Detect Magic doesn't detect creatures (unless they're wearing something magical). Now as a ritual it's already quite a powerful spell (say goodbye to your magical traps).

Not at all. There's a low level spell for hiding auras that become permanent if you have a month to keep casting it.