# Identifying Potions



## Menexenus (Feb 3, 2008)

The wording in the SRD about the mechanics of Identifying a magic item are sort of vague.  I could use everyone's help with a ruling that my players will not feel is arbitrary.

Here's my problem:  the party found a bunch of opaque stoppered bottles that radiated magic (under Detect Magic), so they scooped them all up under the false assumption that the bottles were merely potions.  Later, one of the party's spell casters cast Identify on the bottle.  What I need to know is this:  if he thought it was a potion, would he have had to open the bottle to identify its contents.

Here's why it matters.  It turns out that these magical bottles are actually traps containing monsters that will immediately attack the party if opened.  Once the player whose character was identifying the bottles got wise to the fact that something bad was about to happen to him, he argued that someone shouldn't have to open a bottle to identify a potion.  He reasons that the bottle is part of the potion.

I was thinking about it a different way.  You couldn't identify a sword without drawing it from its scabbard.  You need to examine the magic item for tell-tale markings (etc.) that would aid one in discerning its function.  Similarly, you would at least need to see the liquid in the bottle in order to observe tell-tale colors, odors, viscosities, etc. that would aid one in identifying the potion's function.

We decided to take our disagreement to ENWorld sort of as an appeals process.  You all represent a "higher authority" to our group.      So choose wisely:  does the identifier of a potion routinely open the bottle to identify it, or is opening the bottle and observing the liquid inside completely unnecessary when identifying a potion.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Klaus (Feb 3, 2008)

Menexenus said:
			
		

> The wording in the SRD about the mechanics of Identifying a magic item are sort of vague.  I could use everyone's help with a ruling that my players will not feel is arbitrary.
> 
> Here's my problem:  the party found a bunch of opaque stoppered bottles that radiated magic (under Detect Magic), so they scooped them all up under the false assumption that the bottles were merely potions.  Later, one of the party's spell casters cast Identify on the bottle.  What I need to know is this:  if he thought it was a potion, would he have had to open the bottle to identify its contents.
> 
> ...



 If the bottles are containment devices, similar to an Efreeti Bootle, the wizard would detect the auras as described for Efreeti Bottle (iirc, Conjuration?). Also, the bottled will probably have runes and such in them, since *they* are the enchanted items.

In the end, you could ask for a Knowledge (arcana) or Spellcraft check to determine f the players notice anything amiss with the vials.


----------



## roguerouge (Feb 3, 2008)

First of all, a spellcraft check to identify a unique or strange magical effect is DC 30, as opposed to identifying a potion, which is DC 25. (Why the heck is he using a spell with a 100 gp component to identify potions?! What is he, made of money?) A reasonable compromise is to have that spellcraft check determine whether he notices anything amiss before removing the stopper to the bottle. If he was using spellcraft to i.d. the potions or a sword, extensive handling would be entailed.

Second, one of the reasons you use identify is to avoid curses. No, you don't have to take the sword out of the scabbard or even touch the sword hilt with bare hands in using this spell. (You drink a concoction, in fact.) The reason is that some swords refuse to be sheathed due to their curses. Having to handle the item in question undermines one the protective values of the spell.


----------



## Menexenus (Feb 3, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> (Why the heck is he using a spell with a 100 gp component to identify potions?! What is he, made of money?)




Yeah, we've had a house rule for a long time that makes Identifying in 3rd edition much more like it was in 2nd edition.  Namely, we allow the caster to identify one item *per caster level*.  Of course, that's offset by the fact that it still takes 8 hours to cast.  

We like the house rule because A) it makes it much more cost effective for the players to find out what their magical loot does, and B) I as a DM don't have to worry quite so much about what has been identified and what hasn't.

I'm not saying it's balanced or that anyone else should adopt it.  But we have been using it for quite a while and we're happy with it.  FYI.

Also, thanks for your points and suggestions.  They have definitely given me food for thought.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 3, 2008)

> Range: Touch
> 
> Targets: *One touched object*
> 
> ...






> A potion is a *magic liquid* that produces its effect when imbibed.




I'd have to say that you are correct.

The item only has to be touched with Identify, but the magic item in this case is the liquid, not the container. So, a player trying to use Identify for a Potion would by definition, open the bottle and touch the liquid.

Additionally, if one rules in favor of your players, that means that the DM is not able to create the type of trap that you created and have any reasonable chance of it actually going off merely because of the fact that Identify would always be used (as defined by your house rules).

The way to avoid this problem is to use Search, or Augury, or Analyze Dweomer, or Find Traps, not Identify.



			
				roguerouge said:
			
		

> Second, one of the reasons you use identify is to avoid curses. No, you don't have to take the sword out of the scabbard or even touch the sword hilt with bare hands in using this spell. (You drink a concoction, in fact.) The reason is that some swords refuse to be sheathed due to their curses. Having to handle the item in question undermines one the protective values of the spell.




This is not correct. The item does have to be touched with Identify.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 3, 2008)

But with Detect Magic, the wizard would know that the container, not the content, is what's magical. And if he casts a costly spell like Identify, wouldn't he know the powers of the bottle as soon as he picked it up to open it?


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 4, 2008)

This is why you should always put a permanent Nystul's Undetectable Aura on cursed items that you create, Evil Wizards!

Ken


----------



## roguerouge (Feb 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I'd have to say that you are correct.
> 
> The item only has to be touched with Identify, but the magic item in this case is the liquid, not the container. So, a player trying to use Identify for a Potion would by definition, open the bottle and touch the liquid.
> 
> This is not correct. The item does have to be touched with Identify.




I stand corrected. Good show.


----------



## UltimaGabe (Feb 5, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Second, one of the reasons you use identify is to avoid curses. No, you don't have to take the sword out of the scabbard or even touch the sword hilt with bare hands in using this spell. (You drink a concoction, in fact.) The reason is that some swords refuse to be sheathed due to their curses. Having to handle the item in question undermines one the protective values of the spell.




If Identify is all you're using to check for curses, I'm afraid you're going to be a very cursed individual. A 20th-level caster casting Identify on a cursed item has an 80% chance to NOT notice the curse. (I've been looking in the SRD for the relevant passage, and I don't think it's there. And I don't have my DMG handy. But it's in the Cursed Item section of the DMG, in the section about selling Cursed Items. A caster has a 1% chance per caster level of noticing a curse- otherwise, it detects exactly as the item it's appearing as.) So that's not a very good idea if all you've got is identify. Analyze Dweomer and Legend Lore are much better for noticing Curses, and are much more in line with their power. After all, who cares about Cursed Items if all you need to notice them is a 1st-level spell?


----------



## akbearfoot (Feb 5, 2008)

a -potion- IS an object....so touching the bottle should be just fine to identify it if hes using the identify spell.


Also...potions are usually itty bitty things, while every monster summoning type items I've ever seen have been more like stoppered beakers, or flasks which are considerably larger than regular potion bottles.

Also, any magic involved in creating such a device that could trap a creature SHOULD radiate fairly powerful magic, which should have been apparent when they first cast detect magic.  If it's just a magic bottle then I'd say concentrating on the detect magic would reveal a magic container, without magical contents.

Then there's the tactile question...are the vials actually filled with liquid that sloshed around when they handled them....or did they feel empty.


I think just saying that the bottles are -cursed items- is weak at best since cursed items can't be created by choice....otherwise warforged everywhere would rejoice that they could have dust of sneezing and choking mass produced and go dragon killing with it.  How on earth did someone end up with presumably several identical bottles that all ended up with the same curse?


All the arguments abotu nystulsmagic aura and augury etc...may be right as far as being other effective ways to obtain/deny information...but really all a trap of this sort will do is make the players eternally paranoid.

I played a cleric once that the DM tried to have assassinated once during a business deal....for the rest of his life, he cast augury before doing business with anyone,  he cast detect magic, and purify food and drink every time he had a meal, and cast detect poison before handling anything that wasn't already in the party's posession....its like putting traps in random places in dungeons...once you do it once, the party always takes 20 on every square and it bogs down game play immensely.


----------



## Zurai (Feb 5, 2008)

As mentioned, _detect magic_ would have revealed that it was the bottles, not the contents, that were magical, and would have revealed that the auras were Conjuration (presumably, anyway), which is a rather uncommon potion school - _mage armor_ being about the only common Conjuration potion, and its aura would be very weak compared to any summon worth the cost to make a trap out of it.


----------



## irdeggman (Feb 5, 2008)

UltimaGabe said:
			
		

> If Identify is all you're using to check for curses, I'm afraid you're going to be a very cursed individual. A 20th-level caster casting Identify on a cursed item has an 80% chance to NOT notice the curse. (I've been looking in the SRD for the relevant passage, and I don't think it's there. And I don't have my DMG handy. But it's in the Cursed Item section of the DMG, in the section about selling Cursed Items. A caster has a 1% chance per caster level of noticing a curse- otherwise, it detects exactly as the item it's appearing as.) So that's not a very good idea if all you've got is identify. Analyze Dweomer and Legend Lore are much better for noticing Curses, and are much more in line with their power. After all, who cares about Cursed Items if all you need to notice them is a 1st-level spell?




Here you go from the SRD:




> A simple detect magic spell yields a misleading aura and strength, often indicating that the item is a noncursed item of similar sort. An identify spell only has a 1% chance per caster level to reveal a cursed item’s true properties, including the cursed aspect. Analyze dweomer reveals the true nature of a cursed item.


----------



## irdeggman (Feb 5, 2008)

OP - since the bottles were "traps" did the party get (or attempt) search checks (those with trapfinding that is) to determine if they were traps?


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 6, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> As mentioned, _detect magic_ would have revealed that it was the bottles, not the contents, that were magical, and would have revealed that the auras were Conjuration (presumably, anyway), which is a rather uncommon potion school - _mage armor_ being about the only common Conjuration potion, and its aura would be very weak compared to any summon worth the cost to make a trap out of it.




How about Cure/Heal potions? They are conjuration and can be quite powerful.

And how are you getting that Detect Magic would reveal the bottle as magical as opposed to the contents? Detect Magic states nothing about specific portions of items, rather it states that location of auras are detected. That is a fairly nebulous statement.


----------



## irdeggman (Feb 6, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And how are you getting that Detect Magic would reveal the bottle as magical as opposed to the contents? Detect Magic states nothing about specific portions of items, rather it states that location of auras are detected. That is a fairly nebulous statement.





Well if the bottle and potion are considered "separate" objects for the purposes of the identify spell then it only follows that they have a different "location" for their auras.  But the auras can be masked by a more powerful one - so it all depends on what spell is where.

But if there are two auras present in the "area" {even if you don't want to narrow it down any} then the caster would "know" without a doubt that there was something more going on than a simple potion (since a potion is a single spell and hence only one aura).


----------



## eamon (Feb 6, 2008)

In case people feel that a magical bottle would encase a magical potion such that it hides the potion's aura by blocking line of effect, I thought I'd just point out that detect magic can penetrate thin barrier's.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 7, 2008)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Well if the bottle and potion are considered "separate" objects for the purposes of the identify spell then it only follows that they have a different "location" for their auras.  But the auras can be masked by a more powerful one - so it all depends on what spell is where.




The rules do not explicitly state one way or the other. As pointed out by eamon, the bottle does not block line of effect. The word "aura" does not imply a concrete image, it implies something vague and indistinct. Like the light given off by a candle or some form of radiation. Does a frosted bulb glow inside the bulb, or does the outside edge appear to glow?

In the Detect Undead spell, it states: "You can detect the aura that surrounds undead creatures." This implies that auras surround objects.

Ditto for Holy Aura: "A brilliant divine radiance surrounds the subjects" Ditto for Unholy Aura.

The use of auras in the game (since we are not given a specific definition) appears to indicate that they surround objects, so I think it is more reasonable to assume that the location of a potion aura and the location of a bottle aura would be the same. Around the bottle.

This is totally within DM adjudication land as opposed to specific rules land. Hence, I think the OP is well within the rules to rule it the way he did and he is not specifically changing any rules to do so.



			
				irdeggman said:
			
		

> But if there are two auras present in the "area" {even if you don't want to narrow it down any} then the caster would "know" without a doubt that there was something more going on than a simple potion (since a potion is a single spell and hence only one aura).




Where do you get two auras from?


----------



## irdeggman (Feb 7, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The rules do not explicitly state one way or the other. As pointed out by eamon, the bottle does not block line of effect. The word "aura" does not imply a concrete image, it implies something vague and indistinct. Like the light given off by a candle or some form of radiation. Does a frosted bulb glow inside the bulb, or does the outside edge appear to glow?




The rules do say that the "items" give off auras. Which means, at least to my reading, that each item gives off an aura.   But they can be "masked" so it might be possible to "overwelm" the aura. 



> 3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. *If the items* or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura; DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + half caster level for a nonspell effect.)
> 
> Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras






> Where do you get two auras from?





Hmm that was the entire point wasn't it?

I mean the potion itself and the "magical trap" that the bottle is.

The point being that a Detect Magic should indicate multiple auras if there is a trap on the bottle and a potion inside - so an identify spell would not be required to determine that something is amiss.

Now if there is no potion, but only a trap - then this method is moot since there should only be 1 magic aura (unless the trapped creature has it's own aura - then it an entirely different ball of wax.


----------



## Krensus (Feb 7, 2008)

I would say it would depend upon what exactly the mechanic of the bottle is.  If it is a monster trapped inside the bottle, then the bottle would exude some kind of trapping aura, such as abjuration.  Abjuration is a fairly common aura for a potion, so I don't see why this would raise questions in the wizard's mind.

If the opening of the bottle triggers a conjuration spell, then it would of course show an aura of conjuration.  Conjuration is probably the most common aura for a potion, so it would most likely be assumed that it is some sort of unique healing potion by the wizard under the board.  

As for how identify works, I would have to say that the RAW indicates you have to put your pinky into the bottle to touch the liquid.  I'd say that the caster would choose not to discharge identify until their finger was touching the magical liquid (or gas, in this case), and thus they would identify the bottle, but not before it was already too late.  The trapped monster would have escaped at that point, and the wizard would probably take the true nature of the bottle to his grave.


----------



## irdeggman (Feb 8, 2008)

Krensus said:
			
		

> I would say it would depend upon what exactly the mechanic of the bottle is.  If it is a monster trapped inside the bottle, then the bottle would exude some kind of trapping aura, such as abjuration.  Abjuration is a fairly common aura for a potion, so I don't see why this would raise questions in the wizard's mind.
> 
> If the opening of the bottle triggers a conjuration spell, then it would of course show an aura of conjuration.  Conjuration is probably the most common aura for a potion, so it would most likely be assumed that it is some sort of unique healing potion by the wizard under the board.
> 
> As for how identify works, I would have to say that the RAW indicates you have to put your pinky into the bottle to touch the liquid.  I'd say that the caster would choose not to discharge identify until their finger was touching the magical liquid (or gas, in this case), and thus they would identify the bottle, but not before it was already too late.  The trapped monster would have escaped at that point, and the wizard would probably take the true nature of the bottle to his grave.




It all depends on how the "trap" was designed.

Is there more than one spell in effect?

One that binds the creatures to the bottle and one that "shrunk them to fit in the bottle"?

Are the creatures "magical creatures"?

What was the caster level used to trap the creatures? - this one can (and should be) very important. Brew potion only allows spells fo 3rd level or lower to be made into a potion. In almost all cases the caster level used is the minimum for making the item (that is for casting the spell). So in this case most potions should have a 5th level caster equivalent radiant aura - which is "faint".  A functioning spell (required to be effective for the trap) would be at least moderate in order to have an sort of trapping spell in place (and that is CL 4-6) so in most likelihood it is a strong aura (CL 7-9) {i.e., 4th or 5th level spells}.

So a well done Detect Magic should work to give the caster an idea that something is wrong here.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 8, 2008)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> It all depends on how the "trap" was designed.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




If we assume that all casters casting Detect Magic know that Brew Potion is limited to 3rd level spells (as per the main leg of your argument here), then we also have to assume that the caster who crafted the item also knew this.

Hence, he might try to hide this fact from a Detect Magic spell. There are several different ways to do this, but the fact remains that he does not even have to do it.

He could make it look like an Elixer. Elixers are not potions, they are Wondrous Items which can theoretically have any spell level.

Since any caster would know that a Potion has a maximum of Spell Level 3, any caster would also know that a bottle could contain an Elixer and that an Elixer could have any aura strength. By your definition here of what is in the core books.

The item could be cursed. Cursed items often show up different auras then what they actually should be.

There are a lot of explanations for why this works, least of all is that magic outside that of the normal PC magic can be anything in a game. If the DM wants a Temple that flies, no problem. If the DM wants trapped magic bottles that have monsters appear when opened, no problem. I do not see how the rules explicitly prevent it or how the rules explicitly indicate that Detect Magic or Identify are spells would automatically and definitively bypass the magical trap.

Without explicit rules support for your position (which so far, caster level and auras do not support), it appears that the OP is totally fine with his interpretation of what could happen.


Besides, what fun are magical traps that can be easily detected by "standard magic item identification operating procedures"? Why even introduce such an item to a game? What kind of challenge is that? It's not as if the players were suspicious before they tried to Identify the items and cast Auguries or anything to investigate it. They just did job as usual and found something unusual.

Isn't that part of the fun?


----------



## irdeggman (Feb 8, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Without explicit rules support for your position (which so far, caster level and auras do not support), it appears that the OP is totally fine with his interpretation of what could happen.




What do you mean my arguements are not supported?  They very much are - in fact you had to go to an _entirely_ different magic item to bypass it (wondrous item instead of potion).


Now for the other factor - how many auras are present?

Each spell in effect has one, each creature summoned has a summoning spell associated with them - and that spell in no way allows for "trapping" inside a bottle.

So if a potion (or an elixer) radiates more than 1 aura that is a cue to the caster of the Detect Magic spell that something is amiss.  {Note I never said that he "knew" what was wrong or going on only that he had a clue that something more than meets the eye is present. I presented a way to get a quick idea if something is going on or not without having to use the "expensive" identify spell, which should require "touching" the object being identified}.

Also using Detect Magic would have reasonably allowed for a subsequent use of trap finding by the party rogue to determine (or perhaps disable) the trap.  Per the OP this was a trap so there should be some method that it can be found and disabled, reasonably.


----------



## irdeggman (Feb 8, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The item could be cursed. Cursed items often show up different auras then what they actually should be.




Where is this from?

The only thing I can find is how identify only has a 1%/level chance of working.  Nothing on how Detect magic won't detect the actual magic aura of the spells used.



> There are a lot of explanations for why this works, least of all is that magic outside that of the normal PC magic can be anything in a game. If the DM wants a Temple that flies, no problem. If the DM wants trapped magic bottles that have monsters appear when opened, no problem. I do not see how the rules explicitly prevent it or how the rules explicitly indicate that Detect Magic or Identify are spells would automatically and definitively bypass the magical trap.
> 
> Besides, what fun are magical traps that can be easily detected by "standard magic item identification operating procedures"? Why even introduce such an item to a game? What kind of challenge is that? It's not as if the players were suspicious before they tried to Identify the items and cast Auguries or anything to investigate it. They just did job as usual and found something unusual.
> 
> Isn't that part of the fun?





Well magical traps can be easily detectd via Detect Magic (it is in the traps section) - but they only detect the presence (and location) of the aura, not what the trap is.

I never, never said that Detect Magic would tell what the item was - only that it would give the caster an idea that something was amiss.

Then other means could be used - like trapfinding.

If it is routine to provide magical traps that can not be found (or disabled) then that is not a game I would ever want to play in - since the DM is obviously out to collect charaacter sheets.

_All _ traps have a means of identifying them and disabling them (that is the entire nature and design of the system) - the only factor is using the "proper tools" to accomplish that task. And by tools I mean to include skills and spells not just physical trap finding tools.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 8, 2008)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Where is this from?
> 
> The only thing I can find is how identify only has a 1%/level chance of working.  Nothing on how Detect magic won't detect the actual magic aura of the spells used.




It's in the Curse section under Opposite Effect and Completely Different Effect.

As an example, a Scarab of Death uses the Abjuration school, even though it is not Abjuration. More like Necromancy. Armor of Rage is Necromancy when it should be Enchantment/Abjuration. Cloak of Poisonness is Abjuration when it should be Necromancy.

Many cursed items show up as a beneficial school of magic when in reality, they do something that corresponds to a different school of magic. If this did not happen, a simple Detect Magic would often make players wary of cursed items before they actually use them (and partially defeat the point of cursed items in the game).



			
				irdeggman said:
			
		

> Well magical traps can be easily detectd via Detect Magic (it is in the traps section) - but they only detect the presence (and location) of the aura, not what the trap is.




Or that it is even a trap.



			
				irdeggman said:
			
		

> _All _ traps have a means of identifying them and disabling them (that is the entire nature and design of the system) - the only factor is using the "proper tools" to accomplish that task. And by tools I mean to include skills and spells not just physical trap finding tools.




Precisely. One has to use the proper tools. The OP defined these as magical traps, hence, trap sensing tools should be used. Identify is not one of those tools. And Detect Magic merely detects magical auras, not the properties of those auras (beyond location, strength and school of magic).


----------



## irdeggman (Feb 8, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It's in the Curse section under Opposite Effect and Completely Different Effect.
> 
> As an example, a Scarab of Death uses the Abjuration school, even though it is not Abjuration. More like Necromancy. Armor of Rage is Necromancy when it should be Enchantment/Abjuration. Cloak of Poisonness is Abjuration when it should be Necromancy.
> 
> Many cursed items show up as a beneficial school of magic when in reality, they do something that corresponds to a different school of magic. If this did not happen, a simple Detect Magic would often make players wary of cursed items before they actually use them (and partially defeat the point of cursed items in the game).




But they radiate magic according to the spells/properties used to create them. Not something else.  Saying the effect is like some thing else has no real bearing on the use of Detect Magic in this case.




> Precisely. One has to use the proper tools. The OP defined these as magical traps, hence, trap sensing tools should be used. Identify is not one of those tools. And Detect Magic merely detects magical auras, not the properties of those auras (beyond location, strength and school of magic).





And Detect Magic spell is listed a means for determing a trap is present, just not exactly what the trap is.  That was all I was getting at.  Telling me that my methodolgy is wrong and can be bypassed has nothing whatsoever to do with the feasability of such a system, special precasutions (and spells) not withstanding.

I have not stated that using Identify is the proper "tool" to use here, I only listed a relatively common tool available that could be used effectively at least most of the time.

Somehow I think that the spells involved in creating this "trap" were of substantial level - most likely above those of the characters they are being used against.  Otherwise why not use the spell Analyze Dweomer which is far superior to Identify (also it does not require "touching" only "sight".


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 8, 2008)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> But they radiate magic according to the spells/properties used to create them. Not something else.  Saying the effect is like some thing else has no real bearing on the use of Detect Magic in this case.




Bestow Curse is used to craft every cursed item listed. Bestow Curse is Necromancy, but the auras of the items listed are not always Necromancy. I do not think this supports your interpretation on what spells were used to craft the items because only Bestow Curse was used.


Even in the case of accidental curse, I understand what you are saying here and could even buy into your argument, but I have an issue with it. How can Enhancement magic perform Necromancy? How can Divination magic perform Abjuration?

Allowing this to be the case implies that any school of magic can actually do anything which is not quite what the game rules indicate.

I prefer an interpretation that cursed magic is distorted, *including* its aura. Not that its aura is intact, but the rest of the magic of it is distorted which is what you appear to be claiming. The magic is changed. Not, some portions of the magic are changed, but others are not. YMMV.

But, both your interpretation and mine here are merely interpretations. Since they are not actually called out in the rules, the OP's items could be cursed items since the rules do not prevent them from being so.



			
				irdeggman said:
			
		

> And Detect Magic spell is listed a means for determing a trap is present, just not exactly what the trap is.




Where do the rules state this?

Detect Magic detects magical auras. It does not detect traps. Sure, you can see that there is magic there, but how does Detect Magic determine a trap is present? It might not be a trap, but other magic. I could find no such rule in the Trap section or the Detect Magic spell or the general spell section. Detect Magic must be used with other means to actually detect it is a trap.

Players can assume a magical aura is a trap, but Detect Magic does not tell them this.



			
				irdeggman said:
			
		

> That was all I was getting at.  Telling me that my methodolgy is wrong and can be bypassed has nothing whatsoever to do with the feasability of such a system, special precasutions (and spells) not withstanding.




Where did I state that your methodology is wrong?

I merely stated that Detect Magic and Identify could not be used as written to explicilty detect magical traps.

I also stated that if one assumes PCs have knowledge of level limits on Potions, that they should also have knowledge of Elixers not having level limits.



			
				irdeggman said:
			
		

> I have not stated that using Identify is the proper "tool" to use here, I only listed a relatively common tool available that could be used effectively at least most of the time.
> 
> Somehow I think that the spells involved in creating this "trap" were of substantial level - most likely above those of the characters they are being used against.  Otherwise why not use the spell Analyze Dweomer which is far superior to Identify (also it does not require "touching" only "sight".




Maybe because the PCs do not have access to Analyze Dweomer?


I don't see where you are getting that this has to be a high level effect. Summon Monster I can be used to summon a monster and could make a very low level CR 1 trap. One only has to go to Summon Monster II to get multiple monsters. A multi-monster trap can be created as early as level 3 (Summon Monster II and Craft Wondrous Item).


----------



## Kraydak (Feb 8, 2008)

As has been stated earlier in the thread, Detect Magic would indicate that these were magical bottles, not non-magical bottles containing magical liquids.  The only reason someone doing ID activities would open the bottles before IDing the bottles proper is if someone (maliciously) told them that they were potions and the IDer decided not to cast his own Detect Magic.  This feels like a case of mistaken DM description, and is a good retcon candidate.  Players should not suffer if they take action based on mistaken descriptions.

Normally, talking about potions as "magical vials" is an acceptable short-hand.  That isn't the case here.  *shrug* No biggie unless people insist on making it one.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 8, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> As has been stated earlier in the thread, Detect Magic would indicate that these were magical bottles, not non-magical bottles containing magical liquids.




So based on this, are you claiming that Detect Magic would show a normal potion bottle as being non-magical bottles containing magical liquids? When the caster casts Detect Magic, he definitively knows this?


----------



## irdeggman (Feb 8, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So based on this, are you claiming that Detect Magic would show a normal potion bottle as being non-magical bottles containing magical liquids? When the caster casts Detect Magic, he definitively knows this?





Are they separate "items"?

If so then the answer must be yes since, as I quoted before,



> 3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the *items* or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura; DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + half caster level for a nonspell effect.)
> 
> Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras




Now if they are not separate items a simple Identify should work since touching the bottle is the same as touching the liquid.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 8, 2008)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Are they separate "items"?
> 
> If so then the answer must be yes since, as I quoted before,




So, this separate items interpretation then indicates that Potions cannot have their School of Magic identified with Detect Magic unless the vials are made of glass.

Hmmm. Interesting.


----------



## irdeggman (Feb 8, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, this separate items interpretation then indicates that Potions cannot have their School of Magic identified with Detect Magic unless the vials are made of glass.
> 
> Hmmm. Interesting.




Well the item must be within line of sight to do the Spellcraft check for school.  But there is no requirement for "touching" for this purpose.

Note that in order to block the presence (and relative strength) of the aura the "shielding" must be pretty substantial (1 ft of stone, 1 " of common metal, a thn sheet of lead {what thin is is left up to interpretation} or 3 ft of wood or dirt).


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 8, 2008)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Well the item must be within line of sight to do the Spellcraft check for school.  But there is no requirement for "touching" for this purpose.
> 
> Note that in order to block the presence (and relative strength) of the aura the "shielding" must be pretty substantial (1 ft of stone, 1 " of common metal, a thn sheet of lead {what thin is is left up to interpretation} or 3 ft of wood or dirt).




Agreed, but you might have missed what I was saying. I was not talking about touching at all.

Just because one can detect the aura through ceramic potion bottles (due to the penetrating rule) does not mean that one can do a Spell Craft check. The Line of Sight rule for a Spell Craft check is to the item, not to the aura. The Spell Craft rule explicitly states that line of sight to the item is required, hence, the penetrating rule does not trump it.

As I stated, from this, the two item interpretation would mean that School of Magic could not be detected for Potions.

So, which do you support? Two item interpretation or one item interpretation?


----------



## Kraydak (Feb 8, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, this separate items interpretation then indicates that Potions cannot have their School of Magic identified with Detect Magic unless the vials are made of glass.
> 
> Hmmm. Interesting.




Correct (if by glass you mean transparent).  You also can't School ID spells on invisible creatures/objects (unless you can see invis).  Note that you can't School ID a spell anchored in space (rather than on an object).  I'll leave the possibility of transparent liquids that you can't pick out visually, but which aren't magically invisible, to those more rules-versed than I.

Oh, and it *isn't* (at least in the SRD) a line of sight issue.  It is a *sight* issue, generally more restrictive, but does Clairvoyance grant line-of-sight?  It does grant sight...


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 9, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Oh, and it *isn't* (at least in the SRD) a line of sight issue.  It is a *sight* issue, generally more restrictive, but does Clairvoyance grant line-of-sight?  It does grant sight...




Actually, it is a line of sight issue in the SRD:



> If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in *line of sight*




As to Clairvoyance, it does grant sight. But it does not grant line of sight:



> Clairaudience/clairvoyance creates an invisible magical sensor at a specific location that enables you to hear or see (your choice) almost as if you were there. You don’t need *line of sight* or line of effect




The entire purpose of Clairvoyance is to grant sight where one does not have line of sight. Also, Detect Magic does not work via Clairvoyance. You might be thinking of Scrying which can allow Detect Magic to work through it.


----------



## irdeggman (Feb 9, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Just because one can detect the aura through ceramic potion bottles (due to the penetrating rule) does not mean that one can do a Spell Craft check. The Line of Sight rule for a Spell Craft check is to the item, not to the aura. The Spell Craft rule explicitly states that line of sight to the item is required, hence, the penetrating rule does not trump it.




Ahh but now you would be able to readily narrow down exactly where the aura is coming from if the potion bottle is not transparent - right? Making use of Detect Magic much more useful after all.




> So, which do you support? Two item interpretation or one item interpretation?




I think there is reasonable justification for either interpretation.

For simplicity I would go with the single item - but a spellcraft check for the potion (in lieu of an identify spell) should, IMO, require touching, tasting, smelling, etc. - since it is after all only a skill check and not a spell, it should be more involved.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 9, 2008)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Ahh but now you would be able to readily narrow down exactly where the aura is coming from if the potion bottle is not transparent - right? Making use of Detect Magic much more useful after all.




Not necessarily. Did the spell craft check fail because it was unsuccessful, or impossible?


----------



## irdeggman (Feb 9, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Not necessarily. Did the spell craft check fail because it was unsuccessful, or impossible?




Hmm you didn't make the check at all?


Now if the DM is making all skill checks instead of the player than that "option" used will not tell the difference.

But Spellcraft is not a skill that states the DM should always be making the check (unlike Disable Device) and the default is that the players make their own skill checks - so in a normal game you woldn't even be able to make the check at all.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 9, 2008)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Now if the DM is making all skill checks instead of the player than that "option" used will not tell the difference.
> 
> But Spellcraft is not a skill that states the DM should always be making the check (unlike Disable Device) and the default is that the players make their own skill checks - so in a normal game you woldn't even be able to make the check at all.




Agreed. I was pulling your chain a bit, but it does bring up an interesting idea from the PC's POV.

The literal interpretation of the rule here seems excessive. If the PC can see the item or not should be irrelevant, just seeing the aura should be sufficient to get a spell craft check. So from the PC's POV, the aura is slightly different based on whether he can see the item or not. It is at least different enough that he cannot ever determine the school of magic if he cannot see the item. Also, from the PC's POV there is no difference between not getting a check and failing the check. That difference is one for players.

In fact, the entire concept of spell craft checks for this is a bit stupid. If differences can be detected via the auras, then Spell Craft checks should not even be required. Green Aura means Divination, Black Aura means Necromancy, etc. The sheer number of basically worthless rolls in 3E seems excessive and I am hoping that 4E does not migrate these types of rolls. Just let Detect Magic give x amount of info and be done with it.


----------



## Menexenus (Feb 9, 2008)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> OP - since the bottles were "traps" did the party get (or attempt) search checks (those with trapfinding that is) to determine if they were traps?




No, the party did not make search checks to check for traps.  (And, of course, if I had prompted them to do so, that would have given away the whole ball of wax.)  All they did was use detect magic to find out what in the room was magical.  When they heard that the bottles were radiating magical auras, they immediately assumed they were potions, scooped them up, and put them in a swag bag.  I was never asked what schools of magic the auras were and I was never asked for the intensity of the auras.  (Again, I was playing this as a trap.  So I was not volunteering information to the party that would give that fact away.)

If anyone is interested in what finally happened in my game...  The player who said he was going to identify the bottles at the end of the last session did not make it to the subsequent session.  Since it seemed unfair to put his character in jeopardy when the player wasn't present, I ruled that he could identify the bottles by merely touching them, i.e. without opening them.  The party now knows that the bottles are magical containers of some kind, but they don't know what the bottles contain.

Thanks again for everyone's help.


----------

