D&D 5E How to deal with a Warlock gaining Detect Magic as a cantrip

[CydKnight]

But the game challenges are not primarily either "find a way to counter a PC's special ability which is one of their few limited resources" nor is it typically "hidden magic is a key to challenging PCs which is spoiled by detect magic".

Would you be looking for ways in the rules to make his offensive magic less harmful if he had chosen that option instead? It seems like you're kinda metagaming it a bit to act as a DM competitor. Why not roll with it and reward the player's use of detecting magic instead of choosing combat-oriented abilities?

Whatever man. I obviously don't know a tenth what you know if we go buy message board posts and signature dates but if it's within the rules as written, I just don't see the issue. I'm not trying to discourage players from doing anything but at the same time, spamming an ability through the entire game session seems like lazy gamesmanship to me. They are trying to make a spell or an ability act like passive perception when it doesn't seem it was meant to be used in that way. Still, if it's within the rules then have at it. As a DM I see it as my job to counter that when I feel it's necessary to keep the game challenging.

If that is DM metagaming then guilty as charged but I know a few DMs that have been playing decades that do the same thing. Is it really a thing for a DM not to present challenges that test the known abilities of that games PCs? I am no "DM Competitor". I am actually for the PCs being successful and that actually makes it difficult at times to present them with challenging encounters without being so easy they are boring.

For the record this is simply what I would do in a worst-of-the-worst case scenarios after it has become a problem. I have yet to actually encounter this scenario personally and my answer may change depending on actual circumstances. In your games you should apply the rules as they work best for you.

 

[iserith]

Whatever man. I obviously don't know a tenth what you know if we go buy message board posts and signature dates but if it's within the rules as written, I just don't see the issue. I'm not trying to discourage players from doing anything but at the same time, spamming an ability through the entire game session seems like lazy gamesmanship to me. They are trying to make a spell or an ability act like passive perception when it doesn't seem it was meant to be used in that way. Still, if it's within the rules then have at it. As a DM I see it as my job to counter that when I feel it's necessary to keep the game challenging.

If that is DM metagaming then guilty as charged but I know a few DMs that have been playing decades that do the same thing. Is it really a thing for a DM not to present challenges that test the known abilities of that games PCs? I am no "DM Competitor". I am actually for the PCs being successful and that actually makes it difficult at times to present them with challenging encounters without being so easy they are boring.

For the record this is simply what I would do in a worst-of-the-worst case scenarios after it has become a problem. I have yet to actually encounter this scenario personally and my answer may change depending on actual circumstances. In your games you should apply the rules as they work best for you.

You're likely just seeing blowback from how you phrased your initial post. Few would argue with a DM seeking to challenge his or her players. But when you start talking about "nerfing" someone "spamming" a character resource, that takes on a whole different meaning for some as it connotes bad intent.

 

[Mistwell]

Whatever man. I obviously don't know a tenth what you know if we go buy message board posts and signature dates

Woah woah. I am not arguing any of that. I respect your opinion and am listening to what you have to say. I am not an expert, just another DM and player. I acknowledge you may well know more about this issue than I do, so don't act like I am trying to out-argue you with some expertise claim or something. Your arguments look to have merit to me at least, i am just challenging them because my initial view is contrary. But I am open to persuasion.

but if it's within the rules as written, I just don't see the issue. I'm not trying to discourage players from doing anything but at the same time, spamming an ability through the entire game session seems like lazy gamesmanship to me. They are trying to make a spell or an ability act like passive perception when it doesn't seem it was meant to be used in that way.

I think it's fair to require them to specify when they are using the ability, and to expend an action if it's in a combat situation. But, if they say "I am looking around for magic now" I think it's fair to let them see magic, if it's there. That was my point,

Is it really a thing for a DM not to present challenges that test the known abilities of that games PCs?

I think it's a matter of challenging characters rather than players, as described above.

 

[Corwin]

I think it's a matter of challenging characters rather than players, as described above.

To be fair, I think "challenge" and "adversary" are very different things. Wouldn't want to be misconstrued. I believe you challenge players, not characters. But specifically in an adversarial DM playstyle, it is important for the DM to remember to be an adversary to the characters, not the players.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[CydKnight]

Woah woah. I am not arguing any of that. I respect your opinion and am listening to what you have to say. I am not an expert, just another DM and player. I acknowledge you may well know more about this issue than I do, so don't act like I am trying to out-argue you with some expertise claim or something. Your arguments look to have merit to me at least, i am just challenging them because my initial view is contrary. But I am open to persuasion.



I think it's fair to require them to specify when they are using the ability, and to expend an action if it's in a combat situation. But, if they say "I am looking around for magic now" I think it's fair to let them see magic, if it's there. That was my point,





I think it's a matter of challenging characters rather than players, as described above.

OK, I think we may be on the same page here. Mostly anyway. I will try to be more careful and descriptive with my points in the future.

 

[iserith]

I believe you challenge players, not characters.

Right.

 

[ccs]

I think it's a matter of challenging characters rather than players, as described above.

Done properly it's bit of both.

 

[Fanaelialae]

How about an NPC Warlock with a new Invocation that makes Nystul's Magic Aura castable at-will....?

I wouldn't go that route personally. Nystul's is fairly potent in both its variety and permanence. Making it at will seems like it might be asking for trouble if you have a clever player.

That said, since it cost one 2nd level spell slot for 30 days (to achieve permanence), after the first few levels it isn't terribly costly to make Nystul's permanent on one thing.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Note that detect magic doesn't tell him how many auras he detects or how far away those magic auras are, just whether there is magic within 30ft (and what type it is if it's in plain sight).

That means if any of his companions have magic items or have magic spells cast, the answer is always "Yes, you sense the presence of magic" - it won't tell him there are 2 hasted assassins hiding around the corner.

I would have detect magic ping the caster when a new aura comes into range. It would be rather silly if the spell didn't work for a wizard who cast mage armor on himself in the morning.

This is a wizard spell. Wizards are the class you'd most expect to constantly have magic on hand. It doesn't make much sense for it to not indicate the presence of new magical auras, IMO.

 

[Cyrinishad]

How about an NPC Warlock with a new Invocation that makes Nystul's Magic Aura castable at-will....?

I wouldn't go that route personally. Nystul's is fairly potent in both its variety and permanence. Making it at will seems like it might be asking for trouble if you have a clever player.

That said, since it cost one 2nd level spell slot for 30 days (to achieve permanence), after the first few levels it isn't terribly costly to make Nystul's permanent on one thing.

Actually, this sounds like it might be an interesting plot-hook for a Warlock PC... Twin Warlocks separated at birth... The Warlock PC's ability is the essential thing that enables the PC to follow the breadcrumbs of permanent Magic Auras to find their Warlock NPC twin.

Then only one question will remain... Which one is the Evil twin?