Does Anyone Else LOVE the new Detect Magic?

[Falling Icicle]

Just got back from the playtest. Man...at-will spells are wonky and riddled with bugs. But not this one.

I'll try to help, but take it with a grain of salt. It is nearly impossible for me to be objective about this, because I am absolutely smitten with this version of Detect Magic. I'm going to be heavily biased in favor of this version of the spell.

1. It leaves it up to the DM to decide what "study" is, and gives him/her enough flexibility to adjust it based on the needs of a story. A 12th level sorcerer could probably just glance at a potion of healing with this spell and know what it is, but a 5th level wizard would need a library and two weeks of rigorous research to identify all the dweomers and schools of magic emanating from a Staff of Power. So in short: what counts as "study" can be anything that makes sense according to the story.

I'd rather that not be left to the DM. I hate when things are that arbitrary. Obviously, the rules can't cover anything, but this is a very common spell and is one of the things that should have rules.

2. The DCs all use the same progression described in the DM Guidelines. It also says that it is up to the DM to set most of these, which I interpret as "there won't be as many charts and tables as there have been in other editions." DCs will be set by the DM to fit the pace of the story.

Sorry, but I don't find that at all helpful. Telling me what the DC is to climb a typical wall or pick a typical lock gives me no help at all in deciding how hard it should be to analyze a spell with detect magic. It's not like it would be hard for them to add this. It would take all of one sentence or two to say the DC is 10 + spell level or 10 + caster's ability modifier or whatever else.

3. Yes, illusions are "meant to be hidden," so I would rule that Detect Magic wouldn't reveal an illusion, and that illusions are immune to detection using the detect magic spell. It's only a cantrip, after all. But other DMs might disagree, and they could easily decide it wasn't hidden "enough," or that some illusions are too powerful to detect at low levels, or that they detect as magical but give off strange or erroneous signals (an illusionary bodak detecting as magical, but not evil), or whatever the story needs.

4. Same for polymorphs, alarms, wards, etc., unless the DM decides otherwise. With these new rules, Detect Magic is not an automatic defeat for illusions. Unless your DM wants/needs it to be.

So the strength of an illusionist or transmuter should vary wildly from one table to the next, just because different DMs will naturally interpret this spell in different ways? I don't consider that to be an advantage, or good game design. I'd rather be given a consistent and complete set of rules, and then house rule it if I don't find it to my taste, then to be left completely on my own to have to make up so much of the rules on the fly.

Not only does it slow down play for the DM to have to abritrate these things as they constantly come up during play, but let's face it, not every DM has what it takes to be a good game designer. I'd say I have a pretty good grasp of the rules and am fairly decent at that kind of thing, but alot of people aren't, and it shouldn't be a requirement for being a DM. I don't want to have to do that in the middle of a game, in any case.

I'd rather create house rules when I've had time to consider them and test them out. When I have to make something up on the spot, it's probably not going to be that great, and then if I have to change it later, it creates confusion, possibly even conflict among the group. As the DM, I don't like vague and incomplete rules that constantly put me on the spot. Some DMs may like having all of that freedom and power, but for me, it just feels like it makes my job alot harder.

 

[Raith5]

I find these observations interesting. But, all in all, I would like to see detect magic provide a bonus to Magical Lore skill checks or interact with such checks in some way.

 

[jadrax]

It's not grossly unbalanced the way Radiant Lance is, but it lacks a certain sense of mystery and sleuthing when you can just tell the DM that you are going to wander around the room like a Magic Metal Detector.

I am not sure it is intended that the Cone effect can pass through walls/other objects. According to how to play cones effects basically need LOS to effect something.

See p.24.

 

[PinkRose]

Doesn't a spell take an action to cast?
I'm pretty sure. Pg. 23, bottom right paragraphs. Casting time.
I don't think a wizard can cast it every round AND do other stuff.
I also agree it can't go through walls.

And I would like to know how DMs actually used Detect Magic in other versions before people say this doesn't work.
Depending on my game it was either, "There is magic in that chest." And then the group would spend time checking each item until they found all the magic items, or "Yep, you see a +2 Helm of singing".
Either way can be done with this version of the spell.

How did Detect Magic work against illusions in previous versions of D&D?

 

[variant]

I find these observations interesting. But, all in all, I would like to see detect magic provide a bonus to Magical Lore skill checks or interact with such checks in some way.

Just say no to skill bloat via spells.

 

[Lwaxy]

3. Yes, illusions are "meant to be hidden," so I would rule that Detect Magic wouldn't reveal an illusion, and that illusions are immune to detection using the detect magic spell. It's only a cantrip, after all. But other DMs might disagree, and they could easily decide it wasn't hidden "enough," or that some illusions are too powerful to detect at low levels, or that they detect as magical but give off strange or erroneous signals (an illusionary bodak detecting as magical, but not evil), or whatever the story needs.

4. Same for polymorphs, alarms, wards, etc., unless the DM decides otherwise. With these new rules, Detect Magic is not an automatic defeat for illusions. Unless your DM wants/needs it to be.

Yes, I'd rule differently - depending on caster levels and, in the case of illusions, how well it ties into its surroundings

 

[Viking Bastard]

I find these observations interesting. But, all in all, I would like to see detect magic provide a bonus to Magical Lore skill checks or interact with such checks in some way.

We abandoned that in our 4e game. Rolling for Detect Magic in every room became unsufferable. It's still an action, but one that does not require a roll and only requires you to be trained in Arcana (or Religion/Nature, depending on the power source).

 

[Lwaxy]

Yeah we house ruled it the same. No matter what system, rolling for everything slows the progress down.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

In this most recent playtest, the wizard cast it nearly every single round. Eventually, after about the fifteenth time he cast the spell, he told the DM to "just assume I am casting Detect Magic constantly, over and over again, unless I call another action." She responded, "Okay, but you will be muttering incantations and waving your hands around the entire time, which will make hiding and sneaking difficult." He decided to back down, and went back to just casting the spell at every whim.

This is a really good answer to that kind of behaviour. Just because it's a cantrip and you can cast it as often as you want doesn't mean that DM's should let players do so.

It's great to see someone that had a good answer, though, rather than just "This is stupid. Stop doing it."

I'd add "Plus you're going to get really tired and dehydrated if you keep talking all the time."

 

[Viking Bastard]

This is a really good answer to that kind of behaviour. [...]

It's great to see someone that had a good answer, though, rather than just "This is stupid. Stop doing it."

Yeah, I must confess that while I used to go to great lengths to justify such things, today I tend to just pummel players with the Club of "This is annoying!".