Useless spells because of durations

[Jeff Wilder]

Ahh... it does. I was reading it as 'accidentally omitted'.

In all seriousness, it might be of some value to ask yourself why you were reading it that way. Or not.

By 'show up', you mean 'register on a Detect Evil spell'?

Yes. Can you find another indication?

 

[Ranes]

JW, Hyp,

I love you guys.

JW, I like the defensive spells-swift action train of thought.

Is that comment on-topic enough, because I've nothing else to add?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

JW, I like the defensive spells-swift action train of thought.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that I'm going to have my necro-theurge research appropriate spells. It may become a second specialty. For example, "Reactive shield. As the shield spell, except the duration is 1 round/level, the shield bonus is +2, and it can be cast as a swift action in response to a missile, melee, or magic missile attack on the caster." (Note the side benefit of slightly weakening magic missile, which kinda needs it.)

I bet there are a hundred spells out there, waiting to be plucked. And I bet a PDF publisher would buy a product.

Go forth, young man.

 

[Olive]

Uh, because it's, you know, not there? (Are you being serious? It's getting hard to tell.)

Surely the point is that it's not there because it's not supposed to be there? Rather than what you seem to be assuming, that it's not there cos it was elft out.

Wait, aren't even Neutral undead supposed to register as evil? Well, supposedly, but you can't really be expected to know that because you have no reason to look at the "Aura Power Chart," which is the only place in which that is indicated..

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that it was the designers fault that you didn't read the rules.

Personally, I haven't ever had a problem with this issue.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Surely the point is that it's not there because it's not supposed to be there? Rather than what you seem to be assuming, that it's not there cos it was elft out.

Where do I "seem to be assuming" anything of the sort? In fact, I said "deliberately excluded." I know y'all don't talk so good Down Under, but sheesh.

Personally, I haven't ever had a problem with this issue.

How very ... special you must feel. Many, many people did.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In all seriousness, it might be of some value to ask yourself why you were reading it that way. Or not.

Because to me, the phrase 'left out' implies that it was originally planned that it be included.

If I'm making an apricot pie, I don't consider that the garlic is 'left out'. But if I choose not to include any sugar, say, or if I forget it, then the sugar is 'left out'.

If Undead were always intended to be detected by Detect Evil, then the word 'Evil' was not 'left out'.

Yes.

So, the only place in the 3E core rules that we can find that undead are detected by Detect Evil is... in the description of Detect Evil?

Wow, they sure dropped the ball there, didn't they...?

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If I'm making an apricot pie, I don't consider that the garlic is 'left out'.

And yet it was.

If Undead were always intended to be detected by Detect Evil, then the word 'Evil' was not 'left out'.

And yet it was.

So, the only place in the 3E core rules that we can find that undead are detected by Detect Evil is... in the description of Detect Evil?

Wow, they sure dropped the ball there, didn't they...?

Apparently they felt so to the extent that they "fixed" the problem in 3.5, huh?

I am making no claim as to what they intended with detect evil (either version), other than what was explicitly told me by one of the designers. (I was, in fact, the first person on this thread to point out that detect evil registered undead. (My saying it first and never disputing it hasn't kept you from quoting the same rule back at me, of course, for some reason.) My only claim is that detect evil was a poorly written, unclear spell in 3.0 and that it remains poorly written in 3.5, but with some "improvements."

You claimed the spell's effect is, and always has been, "perfectly clear." I demonstrated otherwise. I even demonstrated that the designers felt otherwise.

And yet you persist. "Perfectly clear! Awk! Perfectly clear!" Right-o.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And yet it was.

How? If garlic is not one of the ingredients of an apricot pie, then an apricot pie with no garlic in it does not have the garlic left out. It has exactly as much garlic as it should.

Apparently they felt so to the extent that they "fixed" the problem in 3.5, huh?

The spell didn't change.

It still detects non-evil undead, and nowhere else in the rules is there a statement that "Undead whose alignment is not evil have an evil aura". But it's not necessary for that statement to appear anywhere except in the Detect Evil description.

You claimed the spell's effect is, and always has been, "perfectly clear." I demonstrated otherwise.

Demonstrated? How?

The spell's effect is that it detects undead. The spell states that it detects undead.

Therefore the spell's effect is exactly what the spell says the effect is.

What's unclear about something doing what it describes?

-Hyp.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Nope.

I think the word "awesome" covers it nicely.

Read this part:

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.

OTOH, the general rules for illusions are that you see whatever is really there if you make your save.

The 'still hears it' part of ventriloquism merely means that the individual hears YOU and hears the ventriloquism voice, and recognises that the ventriloquism bit is false.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If garlic is not one of the ingredients of an apricot pie, then an apricot pie with no garlic in it does not have the garlic left out. It has exactly as much garlic as it should.

That's correct. Because garlic has been left out. If somebody feels "left out," they feel "deliberately excluded." They might also feel "accidentally excluded." "Left out" is an intent-neutral term, meaning "absence."

The spell didn't change.

I didn't say they changed the spell. (You know I didn't say that, of course, but by implying I did you feel you're scoring points.)

I said they addressed the problem. The problem is that the only indication of undead as "evil" is in a table that, as I've demonstrated, is easy to overlook. As I showed, and you didn't dispute, it is entirely possible to read the spell properly and come to an incorrect conclusion.

So they addressed the problem by providing other indicators for the problem situations. For undead, they made them evil-aligned. For non-evil clerics, they gave them an evil aura. Whether you can bring yourself to admit it or not (I'm betting not), they did so as a means of addressing the problem of detect evil's lack of clarity.

It still detects non-evil undead, and nowhere else in the rules is there a statement that "Undead whose alignment is not evil have an evil aura".

No, but what you carefully avoid mentioning is that they changed the actual alignment of undead, which was done, according to Skip WIlliams, to make detect evil more clear. You also carefully avoid mentioning the addition of auras for clerics, which were undeniably designed for use with the detect evil spell.

Why is it so difficult for you to simply admit that the spell is not "perfectly clear"?

But it's not necessary for that statement to appear anywhere except in the Detect Evil description.

If the definition of "necessary" is "in order for the spell to be substantially clearer and easier to use,'" then it's necessary. If the definition of "necessary" is "in order that the world doesn't explode in nuclear devastation," then no, it's not necessary.

Let's go back to something that you -- again, unsurprisingly -- completely ignored. I'm sure you'll ignore it again, because God forbid you admit to being wrong about the "perfect clarity" of a rule, but what the hell. Hope springs eternal.

Assume you're a decent DM, but one who doesn't have every single spell memorized. Assume you have a paladin who glances into a room in which a (non-core) Neutral vampire is at rest. The paladin concentrates for one round, using detect evil.

In the spell description, you discover the paladin "can sense the presence of evil. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject." Okay, good enough. He's concentrating for one round. So you look at the appropriate text in the spell.

"1st Round: Presence or absence of evil."

Okay, easy enough: "No, you don't detect any evil."

Wait, aren't even Neutral undead supposed to register as evil?

Well, supposedly, but you can't really be expected to know that because you have no reason to look at the "Aura Power Chart," which is the only place in which that is indicated.. Only if the paladin concentrates for two rounds or more is the reader of the spell even referred to the "Aura Power Table," and it is only in the "Aura Power Table" that someone can learn that even non-evil undead have "evil auras."

Wait, don't tell me: "Perfectly clear! Awk!"