-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
How a ****ing cantrip exterminates an entire school of magic. NO MORE OF THAT!
- Thread starter Jimlock
- Start date
Jimlock
Adventurer
Really????
Let's see what comes up with a 1 minute google search.....
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/30138-detect-magic-vs-illusion-spells.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/195946-detect-magic-illusion-spells.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/39331-spellcraft-detect-magic-vs-illusions.html
Candlekeep Forum - Detect Magic and Illusions/Invisibility
Spellcraft, Detect Magic, and Illusions [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums
Detect Magic CANNOT Detect Invisibility!!!!!!! [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums
paizo.com - Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Archives / Detect Magic: My GM Hates It
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/48002-detect-magic-illusions-invisibility.html
Detect Magic and Illusions? - DnD Online Games
..................
............
.......
Jimlock
Adventurer
No, why do think this is what matters?
Defense is a notion, not simply a counter spell.
A fireball can be cast defensively.
I don't get where you are going with this.
In my experience with D&D... the "defender" of any given situation (where two opposing forces are close in terms of power) is the one with the advantage. The offender always risks more.
Try "protecting" a house with a party against a certain CR of monsters,
And then play it the other way around... meaning that this time, the monsters are in the house and the party goes in.
Every time the defender has the advantage.
kitcik
Adventurer
Now that you mention it, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Back in the day, we played a lot of modules, which are generally dungeon-based.
Now, for whatever reason, we play almost 100% DM-created adventures, which have only the occasional dungeon crawl.
I guess it may be a difference in me and the people I play with (although they have changed numerous times over the years) more so than in the published game itself.
kitcik
Adventurer
I'm coming in late to this and don't really want to be part of the underlying discussion, but just to clarify, I think the idea is:
High DPS + forcing a lot of save-or-screwed + no save debuff spells
>>>
High AC / HP + good saves + etc.
Empirate
First Post
That, but not only that. Attacking has the intrinsic advantage of choosing when, how and where to strike. Due to how buffing etc. work, and due to the many ways in which an 'attack' in whatever sense of the word can be conducted, this is a huge attacker's advantage. Sure, if the objective is to take/keep a specific place or item, the "where" is covered. But in D&D, it simply binds up so many resources to defend against every possible avenue of attack, that the attacker has a fat chance of choosing a workable method of attack.
Just fortifying a place against teleportation and divination is extremely complicated and costly, while the corresponding methods of attack are comparatively cheap. Getting a place made out of unbreachable material is likewise nigh impossible. Traps are very expensive. Etc. And each of those only cover one thing you have to guard against.
A quick, well-prepared one-shot takedown is hard to defend against in D&D - and this holds true regardless of the dimensions you're looking at: tactical (e.g., trying to protect the BBEG in an encounter) or strategic (e.g., trying to protect a castle vs. attack).
EDIT: I'm not sure where this discussion is going; it certainly leaves the topic of this thread. If you don't like it here, say so, and I'll leave off.
Just fortifying a place against teleportation and divination is extremely complicated and costly, while the corresponding methods of attack are comparatively cheap. Getting a place made out of unbreachable material is likewise nigh impossible. Traps are very expensive. Etc. And each of those only cover one thing you have to guard against.
A quick, well-prepared one-shot takedown is hard to defend against in D&D - and this holds true regardless of the dimensions you're looking at: tactical (e.g., trying to protect the BBEG in an encounter) or strategic (e.g., trying to protect a castle vs. attack).
EDIT: I'm not sure where this discussion is going; it certainly leaves the topic of this thread. If you don't like it here, say so, and I'll leave off.
Crothian
First Post
Over react much? I said I don't recall seeing a thread on it not that one didn't exist.
Particle_Man
Explorer
Actually, we could turn this around and see what happens. Let's assume a house rule where detect magic cannot detect any form of illusion magic. The up-side would presumably be that one could be a more effective illusionist. A down-side would be that certain magic items would be undetectable by detect magic (you would need something more beefy, like identify).
Ok. In a campaign with this house-rule, do illusionists rule the roost? Are PCs absolutely screwed when going up against the evil illusionist lich? Are PCs with an illusionist in the party going to casually defeat everything, making the DMs tear their hair out?
Ok. In a campaign with this house-rule, do illusionists rule the roost? Are PCs absolutely screwed when going up against the evil illusionist lich? Are PCs with an illusionist in the party going to casually defeat everything, making the DMs tear their hair out?
airwalkrr
Adventurer
I am going to embellish here a little bit to bring things into perspective.
How a ****ing saving throw exterminates an entire school of magic. NO MORE OF THAT!
So a 1st level wizard casts charm person on an orc and the orc rolls a natural 20 on his saving throw. WHAT? The spell is completely wasted!
But this isn't limited to charm person. Oh no. Try casting charm monster, dominate person, sleep, deep slumber, dominate monster, and oh so many other enchantment spells. A successful saving throw just completely ignores the spell! OMFG! A 28th level wizard with a 36 Intelligence can cast an epic enchantment on the orc and he rolls a natural 20 and bam! Spell wasted.
Saving throws are obviously unbalanced and need to be fixed.[/hyperbole]
This is all situational. Detect magic is not an at-will ability. Even its older siblings arcane sight and greater arcane sight are not at-will abilities. It isn't like every caster is walking around with an infinite ability to detect magic. Even spells made permanent by a pemanency spell can be dispelled (and if you play higher level games where permanency is an option this is bound to happen sooner or later). Usually the caster needs a fairly good reason to cast detect magic in the first place. Maybe a tunnel stops when a map indicates it should be continue. Whatever the case, there are certain conditions that need to be met in order for detect magic to reveal an illusion, the most important of which is that the character with the detect magic spell needs a good reason in the first place to suspect an illusion, that is, if the illusion hasn't caused damage already. If you step on an illusory floor covering a 30' deep pit with spikes at the bottom you have already suffered the ill consequences and know there is an illusion there one way or the other. The illusion served its purpose. So what if you can use detect magic to find the illusory floor now that you have eleven spikes protruding through your body? And if you have time to stop and cast detect magic every 60', you are wasting a lot of time. I hope there isn't a damsel in distress at the bottom of the dungeon whose time is slowly ticking away. And detect magic is simply not an efficient way to sort out illusions during combat, period, especially at higher levels. You just don't have time to sit around for 3 rounds to narrow down what is an illusion and what isn't. Rounds 1 and 2 aren't generally going to help in a lot of situations anyway because often there will be other magic auras in the area.
So detect magic can detect the presence of an illusion. That's a given. The fundamental issue here then is whether this is a game balance issue. I contend it is not. Detect magic is a limited range, limited duration, limited resource spell that takes a significant amount of in-game actions to actually fulfill its potential. And the notion that it negates the use of the entire school of magic is preposterous. Only a handful of illusions are really of the nature that they will be subject to a detect magic spell in the first place.
How a ****ing saving throw exterminates an entire school of magic. NO MORE OF THAT!
So a 1st level wizard casts charm person on an orc and the orc rolls a natural 20 on his saving throw. WHAT? The spell is completely wasted!
But this isn't limited to charm person. Oh no. Try casting charm monster, dominate person, sleep, deep slumber, dominate monster, and oh so many other enchantment spells. A successful saving throw just completely ignores the spell! OMFG! A 28th level wizard with a 36 Intelligence can cast an epic enchantment on the orc and he rolls a natural 20 and bam! Spell wasted.
Saving throws are obviously unbalanced and need to be fixed.[/hyperbole]
This is all situational. Detect magic is not an at-will ability. Even its older siblings arcane sight and greater arcane sight are not at-will abilities. It isn't like every caster is walking around with an infinite ability to detect magic. Even spells made permanent by a pemanency spell can be dispelled (and if you play higher level games where permanency is an option this is bound to happen sooner or later). Usually the caster needs a fairly good reason to cast detect magic in the first place. Maybe a tunnel stops when a map indicates it should be continue. Whatever the case, there are certain conditions that need to be met in order for detect magic to reveal an illusion, the most important of which is that the character with the detect magic spell needs a good reason in the first place to suspect an illusion, that is, if the illusion hasn't caused damage already. If you step on an illusory floor covering a 30' deep pit with spikes at the bottom you have already suffered the ill consequences and know there is an illusion there one way or the other. The illusion served its purpose. So what if you can use detect magic to find the illusory floor now that you have eleven spikes protruding through your body? And if you have time to stop and cast detect magic every 60', you are wasting a lot of time. I hope there isn't a damsel in distress at the bottom of the dungeon whose time is slowly ticking away. And detect magic is simply not an efficient way to sort out illusions during combat, period, especially at higher levels. You just don't have time to sit around for 3 rounds to narrow down what is an illusion and what isn't. Rounds 1 and 2 aren't generally going to help in a lot of situations anyway because often there will be other magic auras in the area.
So detect magic can detect the presence of an illusion. That's a given. The fundamental issue here then is whether this is a game balance issue. I contend it is not. Detect magic is a limited range, limited duration, limited resource spell that takes a significant amount of in-game actions to actually fulfill its potential. And the notion that it negates the use of the entire school of magic is preposterous. Only a handful of illusions are really of the nature that they will be subject to a detect magic spell in the first place.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
The interaction giving a Will save would still apply, and so most illusions would either be ones that the caster would set up to deter opponents without causing them to directly interact with them, or (as apparently a lot of people run illusionists as being pretty stupid), there'd be Will saves all over the place.
Since this is the way it runs at many tables -- including mine -- especially back in the pre-3E era when Detect Magic was a precious commodity, I'll chime in and say that illusionists don't come to dominate things. Characters will be skeptical and will investigate things possibly more than they do in 3E and 4E (10' pole, anyone?), but I don't see that as a bad thing.
