Useless spells because of durations

[Jeff Wilder]

Hmm? You couldn't tell [mindless undead] were evil, because they weren't evil. They just showed up on a Detect Evil spell (like the LN cleric of Hextor). There's a difference.

Riiiiiight.

In other words: "Detect evil doesn't detect, you know, 'evil.'"

"Um, then what does detect evil detect?"

"Well, detect evil detects whatever it is, you know, that detect evil detects! Don't worry about it ... you'll know it when you see it!"

Even more lovely, protection from evil and dispel evil didn't protect from or dispel whatever it was that detect evil detected.

Perfectly clear. Like Crystal Gravy®! "Finally ... you can see your meat!"


Jeff

 

[Saeviomagy]

For an invisible wizard, it's awesome.

I don't think that awesome is quite the word. It means that instead of a move silently roll from you when you move after speaking, your opponent gets a low-dc will saving throw.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Riiiiiight.

In other words: "Detect evil doesn't detect, you know, 'evil.'"

"Um, then what does detect evil detect?"

"Well, detect evil detects whatever it is, you know, that detect evil detects! Don't worry about it ... you'll know it when you see it!"

Right. It detects evil auras, but not everything that has an evil aura is itself evil.

Even more lovely, protection from evil and dispel evil didn't protect from or dispel whatever it was that detect evil detected.

That's still the case in 3.5. Detect Evil will still detect non-evil undead and non-evil clerics of evil deities, but Protection from Evil and Dispel Evil (and Holy weapons, etc, etc) will have no effect on them.

This isn't something that's changed from 3E to 3.5.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Right. It detects evil auras, but not everything that has an evil aura is itself evil.

Uh huh. Detect evil detects "evil auras," but there's no way to know what has an "evil aura" until you look to see what detect evil detects. I know you understand the absurdity there, though you'll never admit it.

Wouldn't it make much more sense to use, oh, I dunno ... alignments and alignment descriptors to determine whether something has an "evil aura"?

This isn't something that's changed from 3E to 3.5.

Not changed, no. Just ... "clarified," like Evil-aligned mindless undead.


Jeff

 

[Hypersmurf]

Uh huh. Detect evil detects "evil auras," but there's no way to know what has an "evil aura" until you look to see what detect evil detects. I know you understand the absurdity there, though you'll never admit it.

If something registers on a Detect Evil spell, you know that it's one of the following:

Evil creatures
Undead creatures
Evil magic items or spells
Clerics of evil deities

It's still useful information. Sure, the spell's called "Detect Evil", and it detects evil, and undead, and some clerics. So what? Deflect Arrows deflects arrows, and bolts, and javelins... should we 'clarify' it so that it only works on arrows?

Not changed, no. Just ... "clarified," like Evil-aligned mindless undead.

But it still detects non-evil undead! The fact that skeletons are evil doesn't change the problem you have with the spell.

... which I don't see as a problem.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Sure, the spell's called "Detect Evil", and it detects evil, and undead, and some clerics. So what? Deflect Arrows deflects arrows, and bolts, and javelins... should we 'clarify' it so that it only works on arrows?

If "arrows" were a rules-term that went to the very heart of the rules-set, then yes, it should be clarified. (As deflect missiles or something similar.)

In D&D, "evil" means something. For better or worse, the alignment system is a huge portion of the D&D rules, and it's just plain stupid to have a spell called detect evil that doesn't do what it says. Especially when having it do so would be so simple.

It isn't analogous to deflect arrows deflecting other missiles in addition to arrows ... it's analogous to detect magic detecting veins of mithril in addition to magical effects.

But it still detects non-evil undead! The fact that skeletons are evil doesn't change the problem you have with the spell.

There are no non-evil undead in the core game, as far as I'm aware.

And no, the designers changing the alignment of mindless undead to Neutral Evil doesn't change my problem with the spell; I never claimed it did. But it illustrates that they know there was something wrong with the spell in 3.0 (despite your claims as to how clear it always has been) and that they were willing to do stupid things toward "fixing" it, rather than the simple things that would have actually made sense.

 

[Gez]

The irony is that it would have made much more sense to leave mindless undead Neutral, but tag them with the [evil] descriptor. But "sense" has very little to do with this particular rule.

Uh? Descriptors are for spells, not for creatures.

Creatures can have subtype, however, but the alignment subtypes are only for outsiders. (You won't find any "Humanoid (Lawful)" or "Elemental (Evil)" or "Fey (Chaotic)" or "Magical Beast (Good)" or whatever in WotC books. If you find one in a third-party book, then it was written by someone with a poor grasp of the official rules. Only Outsider can have alignment subtypes.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Only Outsider can have alignment subtypes.

What makes you say that? The description in the Monster Manual says they usually apply to outsiders.

There were rituals in Savage Species to grant an alignment subtype to any creature, for example.

It isn't analogous to deflect arrows deflecting other missiles in addition to arrows ... it's analogous to detect magic detecting veins of mithril in addition to magical effects.

How are those not the same analogy? It's something having a greater effect than the name would indicate, in all three cases.

There are no non-evil undead in the core game, as far as I'm aware.

Well, the Monster Manual notes the possibility for exceptions even in a creature with an "Always X" alignment.

But regardless, whether it be a core non-evil undead under the one-in-a-million-exception clause, or a non-core non-evil undead like the aforementioned baelnorn, it will be detected by 3.5 Detect Evil.

But it illustrates that they know there was something wrong with the spell in 3.0...

Why do you think that changing mindless undead to evil indicates a perceived problem with the spell, and not a perceived problem with the undead?

For example:
"Skeletons and zombies are icky, and they're created by a spell with the Evil descriptor. Shouldn't we make them Neutral Evil?"
"Sure, works for me."

Rather than:
"Hey, Detect Evil detects zombies, but they're Neutral. Hadn't we better change the zombies so the spell makes more sense?"
"Sure, works for me."

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

How are those not the same analogy? It's something having a greater effect than the name would indicate, in all three cases.

Maybe there's an explanation of how your analogy is poor in the two paragraphs you snipped (and apparently didn't read). Let's check:

"If "arrows" were a rules-term that went to the very heart of the rules-set, then yes, it should be clarified. (As deflect missiles or something similar.)

In D&D, "evil" means something. For better or worse, the alignment system is a huge portion of the D&D rules, and it's just plain stupid to have a spell called detect evil that doesn't do what it says. Especially when having it do so would be so simple."

Hey, there it is!

"Evil" has profound meaning under the D&D rules. "Magic" has profound meaning under the D&D rules. "Arrow" has no more meaning under D&D rules than "rope" or "trail rations."

But regardless, whether it be a core non-evil undead under the one-in-a-million-exception clause, or a non-core non-evil undead like the aforementioned baelnorn, it will be detected by 3.5 Detect Evil.

Listen, I don't mean to sound snippy, but you have this truly irritating habit of stating the obvious as if claiming some sort of victory ... when nobody is arguing the issue.

Who in this discussion has said 3.5 detect evil doesn't detect undead, hypothetically non-evil in alignment or not? Nobody, right? So why are you quoting the rule as if it were in dispute?

Why do you think that changing mindless undead to evil indicates a perceived problem with the spell, and not a perceived problem with the undead?

Because I was explicitly told so, by, among others, Skip Williams.

For example:
"Skeletons and zombies are icky, and they're created by a spell with the Evil descriptor. Shouldn't we make them Neutral Evil?"
"Sure, works for me."

Except that it's completely incompatible with the rest of the creature alignment system, which has everything to do with intention and choice and willful action. It's a stupid, unnecessary kludge intended to partially patch a hole that never should have existed in the first place. Other than that, of course, it's peachy.

 

[Nail]

I don't think that awesome is quite the word. It means that instead of a move silently roll from you when you move after speaking, your opponent gets a low-dc will saving throw.

Nope.

I think the word "awesome" covers it nicely.

Read this part:

With respect to such voices and sounds, anyone who hears the sound and rolls a successful save recognizes it as illusory (but still hears it).

You'll note the "still hears it" part.

In other words, they know it's illusory, but the sound still issues from that spot, and they still don't know where you are.