| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Na-Gang
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
348 Posts |
 Posted - 31 Jan 2008 : 09:41:31
|
Simply put: Will Detect Magic detect the presence of an illusion aura of magic even if it's something like an invisibility spell?
This has become a rather frequently asked question since one of my players has a 'detect magic at will' ability.
|
|
|
Ergdusch
Master of Realmslore
Germany
1720 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2008 : 11:12:13
|
Why there is no Detect Illusion spell in 3.x anymore as there was in 2nd Ed. I dont know. I felt it odd that you could make out illusions with a cantrip myself and therefore house-ruled to implement that spell again.
But what is certain is, that Detect magic will not make you aware of invisible objects/persons. This follows out of the argumentum e contraio that there still is a special spell to do exactly that, 'See Invisiblity'.
|
"Das Gras weht im Wind, wenn der Wind weht." |
 |
|
|
ShadezofDis
Senior Scribe
402 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2008 : 14:51:51
|
And the whole idea of a higher level spell trumping a lower level spell in almost every case.
Almost.
But this would be one of them. IMO. |
|
|
|
Slaygrim
Learned Scribe
111 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2008 : 15:41:58
|
Here is a similar question...
Does "Detect Magic" reveal a stealthing rogue carrying magical items?
Or...
Does "Detect Magic", since it has a range of around 60+ feet, reveal NPC's carrying magical items in a room adjacent to the one the PC's are in without a "line of sight"? |
Watch my gorgeous wife sing at:
www.youtube.com/Airicx |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2008 : 15:54:29
|
I would say no
you have see invisibility (detect invisibility?) to see invisble things and true seeing for more complex illusions.
I would of course houserule that a detect illusion spell does work on illusions, of course said Wizard would need to either research it, or pay a large amount of treasure to get hold of it from another wizard (a rare spell IMO should not just be found in any random treasue, but may be found in an extended series of adventures).
lower levels spells should not generally 'defeat' higher level ones and detect magic would make improved invisibilty pointless (for instance minor/major globes of invulnerability affect lower levels spells than them, shield/magic missile see invis/invis are all comparable levels
And if the players say well its MAGIC so it must work, have them go consult a sage or priest of Mystra or Azuth who tells them that:
"Illusions magic is *ahem* somewhat different to the weave that you wield (cough nervously), Illusion is tied in to what we of the faith call (starts to sweat, has to rub his forehead with a cloth), err call.... (laboured breathing, looking pale) errrr....
He slumps over at this point, it is apparent to the players that he should not have said what he did, especially as little motes of magic drift out of his eyes, ears and nose looking like stars and spellshocks convulse his body and any nearby items of power....
oh and the alarm gong will sound at this point and shouts and running booted feet will be heard, so if they are quick they can get away before his guardians/fellow priests arrive and try to do away with them for murdering the old man...... 
Just my thoughts
Damian |
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
Edited by - crazedventurers on 31 Jan 2008 19:10:23 |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2008 : 15:56:47
|
I would yes to the first one, if he is in range and is not blocked then it works (no different to them casting it in a dark treasure room after defeating the dragon etc) items that are carried still glow.
to your second, I am hazy on 3.X rules as I don't run it but I would say no as the spell is being blocked by the wall/door etc
Damian
- quote:
Originally posted by Slaygrim
Here is a similar question...
Does "Detect Magic" reveal a stealthing rogue carrying magical items?
Or...
Does "Detect Magic", since it has a range of around 60+ feet, reveal NPC's carrying magical items in a room adjacent to the one the PC's are in without a "line of sight"?
|
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
Edited by - crazedventurers on 31 Jan 2008 15:57:51 |
|
|
|
Na-Gang
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
348 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2008 : 16:18:20
|
My argument was along the lines of 'no, a cantrip won't allow you to copy a 2nd level spell' but the response was of the 'but it's magic' school of argument. I didn't ever let them see the invisible whatever or see through the illusion with Detect Magic, just detect the presence of illusion magic, they drew their own conclusions.
I might have to initiate a house rule.
I suppose one could argue that the point of illusions is that they are designed to fool the perceptions of the viewer rather than the actual senses, and they may subconsciously be ignoring any 'positive' results that the Detect Magic spell is giving them. Maybe allow someone using Detect Magic a Will save to disbelieve or simply say 'no, Detect Magic won't give you that information.' My group have got into the habit of trying to disbelieve everything, so this is probably only a minor point for my games in any case.
DM: "The walls of the room you are in are decorated with serpentine carvings, and there is a statue to either side of the only other exit from the room - a wooden door banded with iron bearing a brass knocker shaped like a striking cobra."
Cleric: "I'll attempt to disbelieve the floor, then step in."
Fighter: "I'll attempt to disbelieve the empty room between us and the door, then step in."
Rogue: "I'll wait for everyone to believe or disbelieve stuff and step into the room"
Wizard: "Wait! Are there any magical auras in the room?"
Sigh. |
Edited by - Na-Gang on 31 Jan 2008 16:20:08 |
|
|
|
PaulBestwick
Seeker
United Kingdom
83 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2008 : 16:45:08
|
| I would be tempted to make a hidden caster level check as per dispel magic as its one type of magic trying to combat another. I also would also use the rules based around detect good/evil etc for someones detect magic to have adverse effects on them if they are inthe presences of major magic. |
|
|
|
ShadezofDis
Senior Scribe
402 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2008 : 16:54:36
|
Na-Gang,
Just have different castings of the illusion spells. Some cast that will be detected by detect magic and the new and improved version (which almost everyone uses at this point) that takes into account the mechanics of detect magic and fools it.
Most every caster will have the latter versions but you can throw in some really ancient creatures who use illusion magic that's detected.
Personally, I'd tell them that it doesn't work, if they press then I'll tell the ones with an appropriate level of knowledge (arcana) or spellcraft that the modern day illusion spells take into account detect magic and fool it, since it's such basic magic. |
|
|
|
Gelcur
Senior Scribe
503 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2008 : 17:43:40
|
The official ruling in 3.5 is:
"Any active illusion has a magical aura that divination spells such as detect magic or arcane sight can reveal." -p76 of the FAQ on wizards site.
Continuing:
"If what you're looking at happens to be a figment, you do not know it's a figment. You can, however, make a Spellcraft check to determines the aura's school. If the check succeeds, you know that the aura is from the illusion school, but cannot tell its subschool (it could be a figment, glamer, pattern, phantasm, or shadow)." -p76 of the FAQ
As for the range of a Detect Magic and seeing through walls:
"The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it." -d20srd.com Detect Magic spell at the bottom
I had to look these up recently for my home campaign when players asked basically the same things. I tend to favor strict following of the rules 99% of time with the rare house rule. |
The party come to a town befallen by hysteria
Rogue: So what's in the general store?
DM: What are you looking for?
Rogue: Whatevers in the store.
DM: Like what?
Rogue: Everything.
DM: There is a lot of stuff.
Rogue: Is there a cart outside?
DM: (rolls) Yes.
Rogue: We'll take it all, we may need it for the greater good. |
|
|
|
LordArcana
Seeker
USA
53 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2008 : 21:21:11
|
| Would detect magic detect items on a stealthy rogue? Personally i would say no unless the casting wizard made a spot check that beat the rogues hide check. The point of my arguement is the rogue is putting himself into a position not to be seen or be in the effect of spells. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2008 : 21:33:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordArcana
Would detect magic detect items on a stealthy rogue? Personally i would say no unless the casting wizard made a spot check that beat the rogues hide check. The point of my arguement is the rogue is putting himself into a position not to be seen or be in the effect of spells.
Yeah, but part of it is that the rogue is hiding from normal sight, and detect magic doesn't rely on normal sight. I'd only allow that to work if the rogue was specifically behind something that broke line of sight. A rogue standing in a dark corner is going to be seen, though. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2008 : 00:10:46
|
| Also, knowing that something is magical, and even knowing that the magic is illusion magic, doesn't automatically tell you that the whole thing is an illusion. In combat, it would be hard to spend the amount of time needed to detect the school of magic, so it would be very easy to see an illusion of a warrior that glows with magic and assuming that he might be wearing, for example, magical armor, or might be a magically conjured, but real, thing of magic. |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2008 : 03:20:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Na-Gang
Simply put: Will Detect Magic detect the presence of an illusion aura of magic even if it's something like an invisibility spell?
Yes, after 3 rounds of concentration you will know the location, strength and school of the aura. |
|
|
|
Stonwulfe
Seeker
Canada
81 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2008 : 03:42:33
|
Here's how I deal with the question of illusions, detect magic, hidden magical auras, and disbelief of illusory effects:
a. Can invisibility illusions be detected by a simple detect magic? - Only if your caster level is at least four levels higher than that of the person who cast the spell. (Or the caster-level of the spell.)
b. Can a player disbelieve an illusion? - Only if they know it's there. And by 'know' I specifically mean that they've discovered it by magical means (see above) or manual detection (walk into an illusory wall, person, etc).
c. Can detect magic reveal a rogue who possesses magical items? - If said rogue has more ranks in hide than you have ranks in spot, absolutely not. Unless the aura of the item they're in possession of is of sufficient strength to draw undue attention. (Major magic item, minor artifact, or artifact.)
I welcome feedback. |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2008 : 16:24:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stonwulfe
a. Can invisibility illusions be detected by a simple detect magic? - Only if your caster level is at least four levels higher than that of the person who cast the spell. (Or the caster-level of the spell.)
Why is illusion magic stronger than the other schools in your campaign? are other spell schools benefitting from the "four levels higher caster level" restriction? When you say "a simple detect magic", do you take into account that one requires three rounds of concentration to get the results you are talking about? (i.e. strength, location and (maybe, if spellcraft successful) school of the aura)
quote:
Originally posted by Stonwulfe
b. Can a player disbelieve an illusion? - Only if they know it's there. And by 'know' I specifically mean that they've discovered it by magical means (see above) or manual detection (walk into an illusory wall, person, etc).
I agree with this. Another way to interact with the illusion is say, attack it with a sword, spell or ranged weapon.
quote:
Originally posted by Stonwulfe
c. Can detect magic reveal a rogue who possesses magical items? - If said rogue has more ranks in hide than you have ranks in spot, absolutely not. Unless the aura of the item they're in possession of is of sufficient strength to draw undue attention. (Major magic item, minor artifact, or artifact.)
You just created a situation where no wizard on Toril will be able to detect magic on items worn by rogues: all rogues typically have more ranks in hide than wizards have ranks in spot! Therefore, why don't you let the rules work themselves out? if the rogue is invisible, but hasty and do not wish to hide, then a detect magic will not only detect the illusion school aura of his invisibility spell but the aura from all his magic items as well. If the rogue is careful, and hides, then yes, the wizard must make an opposed spot CHECK vs. the rogue's hide CHECK (note that I do not speak of ranks here: removing a die roll from solving a situation removes fun from the game; removes the element of randomness and the feeling of expectation from the process) in order to spot him. If he spots him, then he gains the information from detect magic (if he has been concentrating for three rounds of course) |
|
|
|
Stonwulfe
Seeker
Canada
81 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2008 : 04:53:46
|
PDK, I welcome your questions, and valid they are. I offer here the answers to your questions, though I fear you may not like my reasoning.
quote:
Why is illusion magic stronger than the other schools in your campaign? are other spell schools benefitting from the "four levels higher caster level" restriction? When you say "a simple detect magic", do you take into account that one requires three rounds of concentration to get the results you are talking about? (i.e. strength, location and (maybe, if spellcraft successful) school of the aura)
Please note that I did not specify all illusion magics, but the illusion magics that are inherently designed to prevent detection (in this case invisibility).
Allow me to elucidate; specific to spells such as invisibility, illusory terrain, secret page and other spells specifically designed to avoid detection, one must be four caster levels higher than the opposing caster's base caster level to detect the spell right-off. That is, unless, the caster in question attempting to discover the deception has some additional means of trumping the illusion (true seeing, magic items, etc).
This is because these illusions are purpose-made to avoid detection. Other illusions - such as a major image of an attacking mature green dragon - are more overt and thus easily identified as false via detect magic. In this way, my players are forced to be innovate when dealing with illusionists and enemy spellcasters, and to rely on the senses of the entire party and not merely the senses of those capable of spellcraft.
quote:
You just created a situation where no wizard on Toril will be able to detect magic on items worn by rogues: all rogues typically have more ranks in hide than wizards have ranks in spot!
This is precisely what I meant to do, and your response echoes that of half of the players I've had. Players who fought my 'bylaw' tooth and nail until they saw the reasoning. The reasoning for this is such: any rogue worth one quarter his weight in salt will easily be able to sneak up on someone who's had more training in booklore and dealings with the arcane than battlefield awareness. Obviously, this is less true when dealing with spellcasters who have heightened senses (Elves, half-dragons, fae). Further, this is why many mages have developed and continue to employ spells and items that enhance their natural senses, such as blindsight, tremorsense, ultravision and other spells.
As a martial artist I can tell you it is very easy to hide in a room, and even easier to hide in a person's blindspot. I'm well over six feet tall, and weigh once and half as much as the average man, and I've hidden right next to a man half my height without being noticed until I struck him with the side of my thumb. Any good rogue should be able to accomplish this on me, and even with the ability to see magic, it does no good if I'm not looking at the rogue.. |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2008 : 17:16:15
|
Stonwulfe, I don't mind your opinions at all! don't worry about me liking them or not! 
I can see your reasoning behind your changes: it's your campaign after all and you can do whatever you wish in it. The only reason I do not agree is that with your reasoning, a rogue 10 with 13 ranks in hide can only be detected via detect magic by someone with 14 ranks of spot: this means a ranger11/wizard1 or ranger11/cleric1 or bard11 or rogue11/wizard1 or rogue11/cleric1, etc. Yet, a cleric 20, wizard 20 or even wizard 20 / archmage 5 has no chance in hell to detect the magic carried by your rogue, even if he's not hiding! (max spot ranks for wizard20/archage5 is 12.5 cross-class)
Would you imagine what would happen if word would spread throughout Faerun that all petty thieves can enter archmage towers undetected? :) Moreover, your ruling flies in the face of other spells and makes them useless: nondetection, nystul's undetectable aura, etc. Your ruling makes any rogue with a simple invisibility potion nearly as potent as a wizard level 15 with Superior Invisibility turned on.
Not that you can't do anything in your campaign, but in regards to existing rules, your ruling is quite overpowered and unbalancing. If I was playing in your campaign, I'd play a rogue with max ranks in hide for sure!  |
|
|
|
Stonwulfe
Seeker
Canada
81 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2008 : 22:50:26
|
quote:
I can see your reasoning behind your changes: it's your campaign after all and you can do whatever you wish in it. The only reason I do not agree is that with your reasoning, a rogue 10 with 13 ranks in hide can only be detected via detect magic by someone with 14 ranks of spot: this means a ranger11/wizard1 or ranger11/cleric1 or bard11 or rogue11/wizard1 or rogue11/cleric1, etc. Yet, a cleric 20, wizard 20 or even wizard 20 / archmage 5 has no chance in hell to detect the magic carried by your rogue, even if he's not hiding! (max spot ranks for wizard20/archage5 is 12.5 cross-class)
Specific to the later part of the statement; I was working on the tacit stipulation that above rule applies only if the rogue is actively hiding. Further, unless I'm horrendously mistaken detect magic is field-of-sight (for the average race, 170 degrees of field) or rather an extremely wide cone-shaped emanation, and as such, if the rogue is standing behind you, no amount of magic detection that relies on sight will be sufficient to study whatever items he may be carrying. If you can't see the glow of the items, and you can't spot the rogue, then it's no good.
Further, in the event that the rogue is in front of you, and you haven't spotted him until you used the detection spell... well, I'm reminded of the following conversation.
Rogue: Have you ever seen a ninja?
Fighter: I think I saw one once...
Rogue: You haven't seen a ninja.
Fighter: What makes you say that?
Rogue: Because if you had, you'd be dead.
quote:
Your ruling makes any rogue with a simple invisibility potion nearly as potent as a wizard level 15 with Superior Invisibility turned on.
Indeed. And most rogues have more hitpoints than the wizard, higher attack bonuses, the ability to go silent and unseen (even before the potion, or ring, etc). This is why wise wizards do not work their grand magics in public, work hard not to develop rivalries, and ensorcell their demenses with spells of alarm, protection, and capture. I imagine many wizards have fallen prey to a poisoned crossbow bolt in the comfort of their own homes. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Detect Magic and Illusions/Invisibility
