Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 6625863" data-attributes="member: 23716">I suppose that I would go with the majority of the responses here and say the ruling was justified.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Though if you want to run a campaign like that it might be kind of fun.&nbsp; However, Just to play devil's (or Player's) advocate, I would add that it is a good idea to be consistent here.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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 &quot;gotchas&quot; dear to the DM.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; But that is a minor complaint.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Off topic, if you knew you were dealing with an illusionist, would detect magic be a good way to help detect illusions?&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gadget, post: 6625863, member: 23716"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification