# How a ****ing cantrip exterminates an entire school of magic. NO MORE OF THAT!



## Jimlock

I just worship the illusion school. Silent Image, Phantasmal Force (AD&D), are my favorite spells. Illusions are, (the way I see it anyway) the epitome of magic. When we say that a wizard can distort reality, illusions are the first thing that spring to my mind.

Illusions = Creativity let loose.

Yet, no matter how cool those illusions are, or how powerful they might look... the end result is that they ALL get tramped by a single cantrip ... *the accursed DETECT MAGIC* (and its big brother = Arcane Sight)

I 've been searching about this in the web the past few days (on old threads of the site ...and of others), and thankfully I found out that there are a lot of gamers out there who share the same opinion, and they were mostly DMs, whining about how they can't make a proper trap or decent illusion based encounter without having this cantrip ruining it for them. Worst case scenario? A character who gets a permanent detect magic/arcane sight on him. This is bye bye to the DMs plans.

Examples of this tiny divination thwarting every possible encounter based on illusions are endless (traps, disguises, secret doors etc etc etc...). Admittedly, this sucks.

The simplest explanation one can give, as to why this happens is the following:

The power of an illusion is that it deceives you for being real. Once you know its an illusion, it loses all it's power. And Detect Magic, this 0 level miracle, grants you this ability without even a miss chance, not to mention arcane sight....
All other schools of magic do not lose their power once detected. Even abjurations, or other traps with necromancy, enchantment and stuff do not get all that weakened, because even if you detect them, you still have to find a way to overcome the actual effect. Illusions on the other hand, are COMPLETELY useless once detected.

To be more precise, so as to fathom the full extent of this problem, lets see which (and consequently the big number of) spells that get thwarted by Detect Magic and its derivatives.

1st level: 
Disguise Self (100% busted)
Silent Image (100% busted)
Ventriloquism (it is arguable... but still possible in some situations)

2nd level: 
Minor Image (100% busted)
Phantom Trap (100% busted)
Invisibility (Very difficult to thwart during combat because of the 3 round process and the rotation of the cone which might cost more time. Outside of combat though, an infiltrator gets 100% busted, no matter the 50% miss chance. He's busted. Arcane sight tears Invisibility apart. You instantly get to pinpoint and allow for attacks with a 50% miss chance as well as area effects. Also 100% busted in case of infiltration)
Mirror image (Almsot Impossible to thwart in combat. Arcane Sight nails it if the real PC "carries" other auras on him... which is the case 99,999% of the time...)

3rd level:
Invisibility Sphere (As Invisibility)
Illusory Script (100% busted)
Major Image (100% busted)

4th level:
Hallucinatory Terrain (100% busted)
Illusory Wall (100% busted)
Invisibility, Greater (Detect magic will prove to be almost worthless cause this one is used in combat only, Arcane sight though, breaks it, as usual)

5th level:
Mirage Arcana (100% busted)
Persistent Image (100% busted)
Seeming (100% busted)

6th level:
Mislead (100% busted)
Permanent Image (100% busted)
Programmed Image (100% busted)
Veil (100% busted)

7th level:
Invisibility, Mass (As Invisibility)
Project Image (Only Arcane sight can truly help here... it's VERY helpful to know you are not fighting the real thing)

No need to mention that the minimum 3 round process of detect magic is NO PROBLEM AT ALL in situations outside of combat (Most of the above spells will be detected in situations outside of combat). When searching rooms, interacting with disguised NPCs and stuff a character usually has  enough to plenty of time to use Detect Magic.

Now a few solutions I've found to this problem, in order to balance out Illusions and Detect Magic (+ Arcane Sight accordingly), are the following possible house rules:


(Those are not to be combined. Each one is a separate solution)



> 1. When Detect Magic and derivatives are about to detect Illusions, the caster gets a chance to disbelieve. If the roll succeeds the detection spells function as per RAW.
> If the roll fails, the caster get's no reading at all (no auras are detected).






> 2. Illusions have no magical auras. Detect Magic and derivatives are useless on illusions. In this scenario Illusions can only be thwarted through disbelief when possible as per RAW and through all other spells such as See Invisibility, True Seeing etc.






> 3. A caster casting an Illusion spell has the possibility to set whatever magical aura he wishes to the effect he creates/manifests (no further action required, as part of casting the spell). The caster if he so wishes may not implement an aura at all. When detect magic and derivatives get a chance to detect illusions they detect auras as set by the caster of the illusion, or no aura at all (no reading at all), if the caster of the Illusion had decided to put no aura to his spell.






> 4.A caster casting an Illusion spell has the possibility to set whatever magical aura he wishes to the effect he creates/manifests (no further action required, as part of casting the spell). The caster if he so wishes may not implement an aura at all. When Detect Magic and derivatives are about to detect Illusions, the detection caster gets a chance to disbelieve. If the roll succeeds the detection spells function as per RAW.
> If the roll fails, the caster get's to read the aura set by the caster of illusion (if another aura was set) or no reading at all (if no aura was set).
> 
> This is a combination of 1 and 3





....Personally I prefer #3. Surely the most advantageous to Illusions.

Tell me what you think.


----------



## Jack Simth

First off, a handful of your notes on busted spells are dead wrong - for instance: Simulacrum is an Instant spell, not a Permanent one - which means that after the time wears off... there is no aura of illusion anymore.

Secondly, a handful of your notes on busted spells are partially wrong - for instance: mirror image only lets the caster of Arcane Sight know what's up; everyone else still has to suck up the miss chance.  

Additionally, the vast majority of these bustings depend on a particular DM interpretation - that knowing there's an aura of illusion about meets the 'no save required' clause in will disbelief; this is not necessarily true, and will vary by DM.

Further, you can foil a lot of things with other spells and simple tactics; Magic Aura will change the aura of items, and Misdirection will do it for yourself or creatures (with no save to either, I might add).  The combination lets you have any magical aura you want (set a nearby rock to the aura you'd like via Magic Aura, give that to yourself via Misdirection), and have anyone else have any magical aura you want (same method, but you cast Misdirection on the other person).  What good is it knowing who all has an aura of illusion on them when almost everyone does?  

Finally, there's a number of ways to beat divinations - Nondetection specifically opposes "detect spells", the Insidious Magic feat (Player's Guide to Faerun), and probably a few other methods will do so.

So really, the issue isn't "Detect magic is Uber!" it's "Spellcasters play chess when they're opposing each other, and you're not sufficiently familiar with the rules of the game to work the illusion angle properly when opposing another spellcaster"

Edit: Oh yes, and there's a number of non-sneaky items that have an aura of illusion about them - the Cloak of Displacement (lesser or greater), the Elixer of Swimming, or the Robe of Scintillating Colors.  Just because someone is carrying an aura of illusion does not mean they're not who they say they are.


----------



## Crothian

That's really bad luck if you have a disguise self spell up and someone happens to be in the area and casts detect magic.  And then you stand around in range for three rounds so the caster can precisely determine where the magical aura is and make his spellcraft check to it is of the illusion school.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER

Just another reason why Warlocks are Awesome.


----------



## Jimlock

Jack Simth said:


> Simulacrum is an Instant spell, not a Permanent one - which means that after the time wears off... there is no aura of illusion anymore.




busted  You are correct sir.
I'll edit that.



Jack Simth said:


> Secondly, a handful of your notes on busted spells are partially wrong - for instance: mirror image only lets the caster of Arcane Sight know what's up; everyone else still has to suck up the miss chance.



Yep, but being (probably) a caster he can end this with numerous spells + he can shout directions, Like "Corgan! the one on your left!" or "The middle one!" or "The next to the door!"... players playing before the enemy will get it right easily.

another example?



Jack Simth said:


> Additionally, the vast majority of these bustings depend on a particular DM interpretation - that knowing there's an aura of illusion about meets the 'no save required' clause in will disbelief; this is not necessarily true, and will vary by DM.




Oh.. come on...  once you know it's an illusion, its game over. It's automatic success. Every time this has happened in my games the illusion was worthless afterwards.

as for disbelief:
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)
Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

If a DM says that identifying something as an Illusion does not count as interacting with this something in some fashion, is CLEARLY houseruling.

Perhaps you can provide an example encounter that counters this somehow?



Jack Simth said:


> Further, you can foil a lot of things with other spells and simple tactics; Magic Aura will change the aura of items,




As you said it: "of items". Very restricted as most of illusions are not applied on items.
Plus, do you know how many such spells you need to cast on an average PC so that he registers no auras at all?




Jack Simth said:


> and Misdirection will do it for yourself or creatures (with no save to either, I might add).




again, it only applies to person or item. Majority of Illusions can't benefit from this.




Jack Simth said:


> Finally, there's a number of ways to beat divinations - Nondetection specifically opposes "detect spells"




again, it only applies to person or item.




Jack Simth said:


> the Insidious Magic feat (Player's Guide to Faerun), and probably a few other methods will do so.




Yeah... like every body uses the shadow weave... something reserved almost exclusively for Sharans.


----------



## Jimlock

Jack Simth said:


> So really, the issue isn't "Detect magic is Uber!" it's "Spellcasters play chess when they're opposing each other, and you're not sufficiently familiar with the rules of the game to work the illusion angle properly when opposing another spellcaster"




I'm afraid you are missing the point of my post... entirely.

Sorry to say so but this has nothing to do spell casters batting it out.

The point is that a 0 level spells gets its way with an entire school of magic.

Also note that my suggested houserules do not make the spells you mentioned useless, for they can be used for many a school of magic.


----------



## Jimlock

Crothian said:


> That's really bad luck if you have a disguise self spell up and someone happens to be in the area and casts detect magic.  And then you stand around in range for three rounds so the caster can precisely determine where the magical aura is and make his spellcraft check to it is of the illusion school.




This has nothing to do with luck...

You are suspicious of someone being magically disguised? You cast detect magic...and... voila!


----------



## Tovec

Out of order, sorry.



Jimlock said:


> This has nothing to do with luck...
> 
> You are suspicious of someone being magically disguised? You cast detect magic...and... voila!




First, if the illusionist is giving them a reason to be suspicious then they're doing it wrong.
Second, if that person casts detect magic they have to wait three rounds.
Third, if the illusionist is in some fashion a CASTER then they have 3 rounds to cast.... ray of enfeeblement, fog, finger of death..... whatever they need to get away with the deed and/or get away.



Jimlock said:


> Yep, but being (probably) a caster he can end this with numerous spells + he can shout directions, Like "Corgan! the one on your left!" or "The middle one!" or "The next to the door!"... players playing before the enemy will get it right easily.




Well, with mirror image, its never as simple as 'the middle one'. Plus if that information helps it is only during the caster's turn. The mirror images stick close and are constantly moving to re-scatter the effect. The caster will also be able to tell the spell is probably mirror image but a good spellcraft check does that anyway. Keep in mind detect magic says (after three rounds) that the spell is an illusion. It doesn't automatically tell you what kind, where, how long, etc.




> Oh.. come on...  once you know it's an illusion, its game over. It's automatic success. Every time this has happened in my games the illusion was worthless afterwards.



IT IS CERTAINLY DM INTERPRETATION.
Worthless, sometimes sure. Always I'd have a hard time believing. Keep in mind, in 3.5 they can only cast detect magic so often. Yes if they THINK they're encountering illusions then they're going to detect to be sure but then the spell duration expires and they have to cast it again. If you give anyone a reason to think its an illusion then you are sunk. The caster just happens to be better at defeating illusions because they can cast them.

If the enemy, even an illusionist, is giving the party precious time during combat not to fight but to cast cantrips then they are doing something seriously wrong.



> as for disbelief:
> Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)
> Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
> 
> If a DM says that identifying something as an Illusion does not count as interacting with this something in some fashion, is CLEARLY houseruling.




Once again, I disagree. Until the caster goes and walks through the dragon they aren't encountering it. They can "know" its an illusion the same way then can tell others it is an illusion but until they interact with it - you didn't bold the interact part - then they can't see through it. Interactions with illusions and conveying this knowledge provides a +4 bonus for other people if you tell them. I'd give a caster that same bonus for themselves for being clever enough to try it. Granted, they have to wait 3 rounds to do it but I think I've made my point on the subject.

From the SRD:


> A failed saving throw  indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A  character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving  throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and  communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw  with a +4 bonus



If I had a real issue this is the closest I'd have to houserule it.



.. 


On everything else, I'm not getting into that. But whenever I've used illusions in my game it has been very effective, be it as a player or DM. As either, I pick my spots and make sure not to use them when they'll be easily detected. Don't give them a reason to detect magic or give them too many and the illusions are great again.
Throw in some REAL things too.

Plus I do know for a fact there are countless bonuses to add to illusions to make them really effective even if they are detected. Yes a few are cherry picked from obscure books but the fact remains that if you make it correctly a successful saving throw still grants them 60% of the damage, and 130% if they fail - and not everyone has detect magic to beat the effect.


----------



## Jack Simth

Jimlock said:


> busted  You are correct sir.
> I'll edit that.
> 
> 
> Yep, but being (probably) a caster he can end this with numerous spells + he can shout directions, Like "Corgan! the one on your left!" or "The middle one!" or "The next to the door!"... players playing before the enemy will get it right easily.



Ah... you're looking at from 3-9 targets to distinguish from, which aren't generally going to be nicely lined up.  Try tossing out a handful of identical marbles in close proximity to each other and then telling someone which one you want in a handful of seconds in such a way that the other person gets it right reliably.  And, of course, there's other methods for making sure that the only aura that registers on you is one of minor illusion, so even the Wizard can't tell... despite the little issue that several of your things should have Transmutation, Abjuration, or Evocation auras.  Incidentally, they're also Illusion spells.


Jimlock said:


> another example?



Project Image.  Sure, it's useful to know what you're facing isn't real... but a critter produced by Greater Shadow Conjouration has the same aura as does a projected image... and both can kill you.  Just because it's not real doesn't mean you can ignore it.  It's also a really fun way of shooting people from around corners.  







Jimlock said:


> Oh.. come on...  once you know it's an illusion, its game over. It's automatic success. Every time this has happened in my games the illusion was worthless afterwards.



Detect Magic penetrates barriers.  How do you tell the difference between someone who's wearing a hat of disguise, and someone who has an Elixir of Swimming in his pocket?    You just learn that there's an illusory effect there.  Oh, wait: Part of that depends on the definition of pinpointing an effect.... DM's call... so if it's bothering the DM....


Jimlock said:


> as for disbelief:
> Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)
> Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
> 
> If a DM says that identifying something as an Illusion does not count as interacting with this something in some fashion, is CLEARLY houseruling.
> 
> Perhaps you can provide an example encounter that counters this somehow?



Ah, you misunderstand.  I didn't say it doesn't justify a save, I said it doesn't necessarily permit an auto-pass.  


Jimlock said:


> As you said it: "of items". Very restricted as most of illusions are not applied on items.
> Plus, do you know how many such spells you need to cast on an average PC so that he registers no auras at all?



Depends on your caster level.  In general, you can likely get by with just one or two castings per person per day.  And it's a first level spell.  

But really, if someone is depending on Detect Magic to tell that it's a Phantom Trap?  You can be downright evil.  There is a Phantom Trap on door # 1.  Door # 2 has a mechanical trap, with magic aura on it to make it seem illusory.  Door # 3 has a Phantom Trap (which does affect an object), with Magic Aura to remove the magical aura.  Door # 4 has a mechanical trap.  Door # 5 has a Magic Aura spell cast on it, to make it have an aura of faint Evocation.  Door # 6 has a Fireball trap.  Door # 7 has a Fireball Trap and a Magic Aura spell to make it seem nonmagical.  Door # 8 is completely mundane.

Detect Magic isn't going to tell you which is which.  Doors 1 & 2 detect as illusion; Doors 5 & 6 detect as evocation.  Doors 3, 4, 7, and 8 don't register.  The safe ones are 1, 3, 5, and 8 (fully half of them).  A skilled Rogue will tell you that doors 5 and 8 are safe.  

Good luck distinguishing.  You're going to need to expend more resources to tell which doors are safe and which aren't without actually, you know, trying them.  



Jimlock said:


> again, it only applies to person or item. Majority of Illusions can't benefit from this.



That's because you're not used to playing chess in this manner.  The basic method above for Phantom Trap?  There's related methods (using Magic Aura, Misdirection, or both) that work for Illusory Script, Illusory Wall, Disguise Self (and related), Invisibility (and related), and even the Image line.  OK, yes, it's really tricky to make a Minor Image not register as illusory.  But it's not all that hard to give a real creature an aura of Illusion.  If the party is completely ignoring something in battle because Mr. Wizard says it's illusory... and it's not... well... they're not going to be trusting what Mr. Wizard says for very much longer.



Jimlock said:


> Yeah... like every body uses the shadow weave... something reserved almost exclusively for Sharans.




Not everybody, no.  But there's more than one way to go about it.


Jimlock said:


> I'm afraid you are missing the point of my post... entirely.
> 
> Sorry to say so but this has nothing to do spell casters batting it out.
> 
> The point is that a 0 level spells gets its way with an entire school of magic.
> 
> Also note that my suggested houserules do not make the spells you mentioned useless, for they can be used for many a school of magic.



I didn't say they're battling it out.  I said they're playing chess.  If you don't have someone casting Detect Magic... then clearly, the only caster is the illusionist making the illusions.

If you do have someone casting Detect Magic in such a way as to try and foil the illusions... then clearly you've got two opposed casters.  Are the battling?  Not necessarily directly.  But they are attempting to counter one another.


----------



## Greenfield

Detect tells them that there's magic, and it tells them the school if they make the spellcraft check.  Presume that they did.

I've heard people argue that Detect Magic shouldn't blow invisibility.  There's a 2nd level spell that does that, and it shouldn't be replaced by the cantrip.  My own jury's still out on that one.

Knowing that there's an illusion and seeing through it are two different things.  The knowledge gives you reason to make the Save, when one is permitted, and grants you a +4, but that's it.

The fact is that, under the interpretation of many DMs, Illusion is always given away because the players get a Save, and they know they're rolling dice for something.  The idea of an automatic Save is wrong, in my opinion, but my opinion only counts when I'm the DM.

Many have played that any physical contact dispels the illusions.  That's not in the rules anyplace, and never was, but many still argue that a simple handful of sand tossed at questionable items or objects effectively ends the spell.

So, while Detect Magic is a pain to deal with, it's hardly the end of Illusions, nor does knowing that they're there always constitute a good thing.  Further, unless you're playing Pathfinder, there's a limit on how many Detect Magic's they can have per day.  So don't let them have always-on detects or detect items if you're the DM, and deal with their obsession with Detect Magic by simply giving them lots of opportunities to burn through their limited supply.  Also, for those who have to prepare spells, make them wish they'd taken something else in that Cantrip slot.


----------



## Greenfield

Here's a silly proposal:  Invent a new Feat - Mask Illusions.

The effect is that the caster of an illusion has developed such an understanding of how magics interact that he can include in his spells the magical aura he'd like someone else to see under Detect Magic.  In essence, his illusions include an illusion of some spell school, other than Illusion.

Make it a contested Spellcraft check to see through the illusory magical aura, though the caster of the illusion is at a penalty if they try to include the lack of a magical aura as their mask.

This allows the determined illusionist another layer to their deceptions.  Not sure if specialization in illusions should be a prerequisite for the feat, or simply give a bonus on the contested roll.

Q: Should it be a contested roll at all, or should it be a case of 10 + Illusionist's spellcraft to set the DC for the other caster to see the real aura?

A:  My observation has always been that, while players like to roll dice, they don't like to roll too many dice.  I'd probably go with the 10+spellcraft option.


----------



## Vegepygmy

I've never had a problem with _detect magic_ trumping illusion magic in my games, for all of the reasons others have pointed out and maybe more. Once in a great while, if used correctly, _detect magic_ foils an illusion. For me, that's a feature, not a bug.


----------



## Empirate

The thing is, Detect Magic is so necessary that making it a non-cantrip s with the whole party. It was a 1st level spell in AD&D, and that was a pain. Except for high-level play, you were almost always forced to fill a goodly amount of your first-level slots with Detect Magic. You hated that, but you needed the spell. In low-level play, this sucked majorly. In my book, it's a good thing that Detect Magic is a mere cantrip now. It also seems to make sense that the detection of magic in its most general form would be a cantrip known to everybody who can cast spells at all.

Now on to what the spell does: first of all, you only get a general idea that "something's magical". After concentrating for a few rounds, you can ascertain the number, location and strength of magical auras. But standing still and concentrating real hard will certainly give away that you're doing a detection sweep of the area. Anybody invisible or magically disguised should take their cue from that and move about a little - this is quite often a very good option, since it's rather easy to leave a 60' cone. Even a Silent Image can often be moved from the area of detection, since its own area is quite large. Other illusion spells are either not practically affected, like Mirror Image (you can't at the same time concentrate on Detect Magic, and do something with your newfound knowledge of which one is the real caster), or Simulacrum (for reasons already spelled out upthread).

Most of the time, the only real knowledge you gain from Detect Magic is the fact that, yes, there is an illusion spell working on the subject - if you manage to study them for the full three rounds and make you Spellcraft check. Now this might or might not be useful to you, since it doesn't tell you what illusion is being employed. Or, in the case of magical disguises, what the disguised person really looks like (maybe it's actually a Warforged with laser cannons for arms? Or maybe only the eye color is changed?). Occasionally, it will be obvious what's up once you know an illusion is being employed. At other times, it will keep you guessing (magically shrouded alignment? Magic item being concealed? Disguise? Not a real person at all?), merely providing a hint that guessing might be in order at all.

While the overall utility of Detect Magic is immense, it's far from a direct counter to the illusion school of magic. In fact, it may help from time to time (which is as it should be in my book), but it takes a lot of setup and just the right circumstances to work. What's more, it's easily foiled by counter-countermeasures like Nondetection or a simple lead sheet.


----------



## akbearfoot

casting detect magic in order to detect an invisible attacker essentially amounts to having to use 3 combat rounds worth of actions.

Scenario 1:  Round 1 Someone in the party makes a listen check to hear someone casting a spell, but nobody can see anything so wizard casts detect magic.   Round 2  2 or 3 summoned creatures appear next to the wizard who is concentrating very hard on his detect magic and knock the crap out of him.  Everyone else spends their turn moving back to the wizard to try and protect him from the summoned monsters.  The party still needs 2 more rounds before they can pinpoint the invisible guy at this rate, and they are all nicely clustered for a wall of fire or whatever.   This is in not how the party ever wants combat to begin.

Scenario 2:  Round 1 second verse, same as the first, except this time the wizard casts See invis.  The wizard still gets mauled by the summoned monsters for a round, but can spend his next turn glitterdusting, or dispelling, or telegraphing a location to the druid for a faerie fire, or disintegrating or whatever on the enemy spellcaster.


----------



## Crothian

Jimlock said:


> This has nothing to do with luck...
> 
> You are suspicious of someone being magically disguised? You cast detect magic...and... voila!




And all you see is that there is magic in area.  The person disguised though and everyone around sees you cast a spell and gets suspicious of you.  Or the person disguised accidentally runs into the caster or causes a distraction so the spell doesn't go off immediately.  In the chaos the person who may or may not have a magical disguise on leaves the area.  This also goes on the assumption that someone with detect magic is going to become suspicious.

A smart illusionist doesn't need the rules changed for this.  Now, if you are playing an illusionist and every one of your illusions gets defeated by detect magic then the problem is really the DM.


----------



## airwalkrr

Actually, Jimlock, I'd say that there's a pretty good case to be made that your solution #1 is RAW already. An illusion is generally meant to deceive the senses. Detect magic allows you to "see" auras. If you cast detect magic, I would say that at least qualifies as studying the illusion, so you get a saving throw. But if you fail, your magical "sight," such as it is, would be deceived by the illusion and you don't detect the presence of an illusion. I've generally run illusions that way IMC and never seen a balance issue from it.

Second of all, your thread title is utter hyperbole. It takes time to cast detect magic. It takes time to identify the location of an aura. It takes time to get that Spellcraft check. If you are talking about combat illusions, that is time the caster should probably be spending doing something else. If he even suspects it is an illusion, he should probably try to cast dispel magic instead. If you aren't talking about combat illusions, then a lot of illusions are by their very nature combat effects. Color spray? Phantasmal killer? Blur? Even if detect magic is helpful in determining that some effect is an illusion, it isn't going to really help you against any of those. Calm the heck down.


----------



## cjosephs1s

Ok so I didn't take the time to read but a few of the posts in this thread having solved the problem by then so I may be repeating the solution.  

Ok Detect magic does exactly what it says and I think we all agree on that so lets focus on Illusions.  First off lets define Illusions and to do so forget what SRD says and use the PHB as this is the offical source not the ammended paraphrased source.  Illusions are basically tricks of the mind and that is the key.  So even if you conjure an illusion such as a _silent image_  its not the image that gives off magic as this is not where the magic is directed.  If it was then this would be a conjuration spell.  The way this spell works is you try to trick those around you to believe there is something there, hence the magic is affecting their minds.  So even if they detect magic they will only get at most that it is an illusion on their minds but won't know what, or where and must still save or see it.  

The key to almost all Illusions (shadow spells not included) is that they are tricks on the subjects mind, not actual things going on.  They are mind effecting spells and nothing more so the magic is directed at the PC's mind, not the actual thing the spell does.  This is why on many illusions you must interact with it for your mind to understand that it is not real (as it is very possible with magic or just in general that it could be.  Who is the common peasant to say that the red dragon at the edge of the city isn't real and ready to burn them to bits)  

Even you or I can fall subject to Illusions of today.  Think of mega superstar magicians such as Hoodini, David Copperfield, and Chris Angel.  Are these tricks really magic or Illusions?  If magic actually did exist who would be able to tell that?  We know it doesn't so we know somehow they tricked our mind but becuase we can't figure it out we have all failed our saving throws even though we know its not real..it still looks real, acts real, and feels real.  Heat waves coming off the road cause it to wave and distort in the distance.  Is the road really moving?  Physics tells us no but our mind still sees it.  Just as a magic illusion works the same.  We see the red dragon but once we walk through it our mind realizes it is an Illusion even though we can still see it, but we no longer believe it.  Why?  because the magic is still trying to affect our minds and this is why I may know it is an Illusion but you may not.  

So does Detect magic negate Illusions?  no.  Could it give a bonus to a saving throw?  Yes but only if the person knows what to look for that could be the illusion which means they are studying the illusion anyway and think it might not be real.  

This is why Detect Magic does not detect most Illusion spells unless they actually conjure something(such as shadow spells) but True Seeing does as this spell lets you see the world as it really is.


----------



## Greenfield

I'm afraid I'm about to blow that out of the water.

Look at any of the Illusion spells described in the PHB.  Find one that lists the people to be fooled as the targets, or says that they must be within the range of the spell or it's area of effect.

The lower level versions describe themselves as being "visual only", with the higher level ones adding auditory, thermal, olfactory or tactile elements.

Note that none of them say "mental", and that Saves aren't automatic, as they would be if someone was implanting a suggestion in a character's mind.

Audible Glamer, as an example, will serve to distract a Golem.  The mindless creature can and will be fooled by it, even though it's immune to mind affecting spells.  Why?  Because the spell isn't listed as "mind affecting".  

So when someone casts Detect Magic, they'll pick up the magical aura right in the area where the illusion appears to be, and it will show a school of Illusion.  Why?  Because that's the designated area, as laid out in the spell's description block, where the illusion was cast, and where it appears to exist.


----------



## cjosephs1s

Ahhh..Seems an Illusion has been performed right infront on our eyes and Greenfield is both the caster and the one being fooled.  He sees what he wants.  

I cast Trueseeing on you so you may see the truth of my words!  

Apperently you missed the part where I said to ignore SRD and use the PHB.  Read the section on Illusion spells on pg 158 in the PHB 3.0.  Or if you're a 3.5 person its on pg 173 in the PHB.  

Several of them are direct mind affecting spells.  Phantasmal killer is one.  

Ok so if illusions aren't tricks of the mind then how do they work?  They aren't really there.  Are they _conjurations_ of images?  If so then they should be in the conjuration school of magic.  They are all lies and how do you believe a lie?  with your mind.  This magic affects your sense, hence it affects your mind (you can't see without your brain recieving electrical impulses)  

So if Illusions aren't tricks of the mind then we stop looking at them do we cease to believe what we just saw?  No we still believe it because it is a magic of the mind.  How can it produce heat if no heat exists?  The magic fools our mind to make it think it is warmer than it really is.  This is why illusions are considered mind affecting spells.  Because without the mind it will do nothing to you.  Think of a dead body.  Will an illusion warm the dead body?  no,  Will it harm a dead body, no.  Will it do anything to a dead body?  no.  And we can see the effects of it doing nothing on the dead body.  This is why illusions are mind affecting.  Dead bodies have no working minds.  The living mind makes the illusion real.  

Think of the Matrix.  "Your mind makes it real"  "It's a system of control"


----------



## Vegepygmy

cjosephs1s said:


> Apperently you missed the part where I said to ignore SRD and use the PHB.



Yeah, you're still completely wrong.



			
				cjosephs1s said:
			
		

> Several of them are direct mind affecting spells. Phantasmal killer is one.



Yep. _Phantasmal killer,_ like all mind-affecting spells, has the [mind-affecting] descriptor. Illusion spells that don't have that descriptor aren't mind-affecting; the illusion isn't just in the perceiver's mind, it really is there.


----------



## Greenfield

CJ, please look at _Silent Image_, or _Disguise Self_ in either the 3.0 or 3.5 player's handbook.  Do either of the descriptions include that wondrous phrase "Mind Affecting"?

How about _Hallucinatory Terrain_?  _Permanent Illusion_?  _Programmed Illusion_?

Any of them have that descriptor?  How about _Invisibility_?  _Greater Invisibility_?  _Invisibility Sphere_?  No?

The fact is the there are very few _Illusion_ spells that are also considered "mind affecting".  At least according to the PHBs that I own.

So the illusion exists, and is detected, at the range and within the area specified in the spell, not in the mind of the observer.

And while it's flattering to think that I could conjure a mass illusion over the internet, the fact is, you were just fooling yourself.


----------



## cjosephs1s

Well this is where I'm using logic and not just the rules.  Ok..So your saying that most illusions are real?  If they are real then they shouldn't be illusions now should they?  They should be conjurations (such as mage hand) or evocations (such as fireball).  But they aren't real and thus not really there.  Of if they are then the rules contradict themselves, logic, magic, and physics.  How can something be there and not be there but have an effect on the world around it if its not there but is there?   Is this what you are saying?  This is the part that I can't comprehend.  I'm not fooling myself.  I'm just not a supergenious and able to understand how to break all the rules all at once and still have something work.  So i've found a solution to my problem (and yours) that does make sense, it works, it follows a line of logic better than most, still allows physics to works and still allows the rules to function just fine and is relatively simple.  Or you can disregard the school of Illusion magic?  Make more sense now?


----------



## Empirate

As another patron is fond of saying: Imagine Harder! You don't put too much work into the task of imagining how illusions can be real, but fake. 

Is a lie a real statement? Yes, it is. You use verbal speech to convey it. It is quite real, it just isn't factual. Extend the concept to physical objects and forces, and you have illusion spells.

If that's too hard, think Star Trek holodeck. Once you find out that it's just holograms, and safety protocols are in effect, you're no longer fooled - although the photon constructs are still perceivable (is that a word?).


----------



## cjosephs1s

Well the holodeck is a bad example as those things actually have matter and thus can be interacted with (this is why Worf can do combat simulation and still hit them)  but the lie thing kinda makes sense.  I still think my approach (even if you all say its not how the rules work) fixes the problem of a cantrip negating a school of magic.  As I think in the spirit of things this is not the way WotC wanted it to be.  I guess I should go invest in some goggles of detect magic for a few hundred gold if this is the case.  

And yes Perceived is a word and you even got the spelling correct.


----------



## Tovec

cjosephs1s said:


> Well the holodeck is a bad example as those things actually have matter and thus can be interacted with (this is why Worf can do combat simulation and still hit them)  but the lie thing kinda makes sense.  I still think my approach (even if you all say its not how the rules work) fixes the problem of a cantrip negating a school of magic.  As I think in the spirit of things this is not the way WotC wanted it to be.  I guess I should go invest in some goggles of detect magic for a few hundred gold if this is the case.
> 
> And yes Perceived is a word and you even got the spelling correct.




Actually, the holodeck is fairly decent example in a couple of ways.. well I'm using holograms and not the deck but you'll get the idea.

If Worf had a tricorder, a reasonably common device to detect what things truly are, then he would know the hologram is not indeed a real flesh and blood person. Does that make dealing with that hologram any easier? No. Does it mean that he can simply walk through a holographic wall any easier? No. Determining something IS a hologram can help in a few ways but it doesn't help when interacting with them. It tells Worf that something ain't right with what he is seeing but it won't tell him what the hologram is doing. It doesn't say if the hologram is the person, or what they look like, or an object they carry. It doesn't give him anything on what that hologram can actually do. It doesn't tell him (by itself) if the safety protocols are turned on or off and how deadly  (phantasmal) a hologram may be. A worse example not involving a person would be; it doesn't tell him if the console is the hologram or if what is being displayed is fake.


----------



## Greenfield

cjosephs1s said:


> Well this is where I'm using logic and not just the rules.  Ok..So your saying that most illusions are real?



And this is where I'm using logic instead of jumping to conclusions.

No, I'm not saying that they're real.  They're illusions, but the location of that illusion, the place where it can be detected, is exactly where the observer perceives it to be.  That is, at the location specified by the spell caster, which is withing the limits of the range and area described in the spell in the PHB.  Not in the minds of the observers.



> Is this what you are saying?



No.  See above.


> This is the part that I can't comprehend.  I'm not fooling myself.



Well, you are fooling yourself if your eyes see the words I wrote, and your mind concludes that I was saying something else.  I never said they were conjurations, I never said they were "real".

And, while I won't comment on your status as a super genius, I will point out that I'm not trying to "break all the rules at once".  I'm following the rules, exactly as written in the PHB.  The only person here who seems to be advocating anything other than RAW is you.



> So i've found a solution to my problem (and yours) that does make sense, it works, it follows a line of logic better than most, still allows physics to works and still allows the rules to function just fine and is relatively simple.  Or you can disregard the school of Illusion magic?  Make more sense now?



How to respond to this...  

This is the first (and I hope last) attempt I've seen to bring physics into the discussion.  Physics has no place in a discussion of magic.  I'll break out the hamster cannon to prove it, if necessary.  (Don't make me go there.)

Is your line of logic better than simply reading the rules and following them?  That's a matter of opinion, obviously.  You think so, I don't.

Do the rules, as written, make illusions severely weak?  Yeah, and maybe that's an overcompensation for them being obscenely strong without some kind of damper.  The sheer versatility of the illusion spells makes them powerful far beyond their levels.  Used subtley they'll slide right past the _Detedct Magic_ issue without a blip and still wreak havoc on adversaries.


----------



## Vegepygmy

cjosephs1s said:


> Ok..So your saying that most illusions are real? If they are real then they shouldn't be illusions now should they?



You seem to be conflating "illusionary" with "imaginary." There _really is_ some magical force that exists where the illusion appears; that magical force just isn't what it _seems to be_.

Really, the PHB itself addresses this issue in its discussion of figments (page 173): "Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.)"

And then it distinguishes patterns from figments: "Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells."

You see? A figment that affects one's mind isn't a figment, it's a pattern. Not all illusions are patterns, though; some are figments, which are different from patterns in that they _don't_ affect the minds of those who see them.


----------



## Empirate

Solid rules quotations for the win, Vegepygmy. Sorry I can't XP you right now.


----------



## Visigani

Invisibility makes flaming swords invisible. A flaming sword is a sword with a magical aura that is naturally visible. Despite this invisibility also makes the MAGIC inherent to the sword invisible.

It can be assumed then that if you cast detect magic and viewed an invisible person wielding a magical weapon you would not be able to detect that invisible weapon as the spell of invisibility itself would make the aura imperceptible, just as it makes the flaming aspect of the flaming sword aura imperceptible.

This then, can be assumed of all Illusion (Glamer) spells. That the spells inherent sensory altering abilities supersede detect magic.

This would also hold true of pattern, and phantasm spells due to the nature of how they work.

Shadow and Figment spells, however, would have auras and would appear to be magic.


----------



## kitcik

Hmm







.


----------



## Visigani

kitcik said:


> Hmm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .






Guffaw! The Internet: Helping unfunny people try to be witty since 19XX.



More to the point, Patterns, Glamers, and Phantasms are mind affecting or adjust the sensory properties of a thing. If you had a spell "detect red" and then cast invisibility on that item the red would be just as invisible as the rest of the item. This can be assumed because invisibility makes all the PROPERTIES of the item in question just as invisible as the item itself.

Further, if something is "only in your mind" you can't "detect magic" on it because what you're seeing isn't actually there and so has no "properties" to speak of. You would have to know that the object, creature, or whatever in question was magic to begin with otherwise your mind would not assign it an aura of magic.


For example, let's say I created a phantasm of an orange in your mind. You use detect magic to see if the orange is magic but because the orange doesn't exist in the first place (unlike a figment which does exist outside the viewer) it cannot give off an aura of magic.


----------



## Arrowhawk

Let's see if I can help...



> So your saying that most illusions are real? If they are real then they shouldn't be illusions now should they?




I submit that this is the source of your problem.  The rules of D&D contradict themselves and exhibit gross incongruities at many junctures.   It is an unavoidable consequence that games which introduce elements that have no basis in reality e.g. "magic"....will not not pass a credibility test at one point or another.   The mechanics in D&D are concoctions and in many cases wholly arbitrary.   Debating that "magic", a thing which does not exist, should work any particular way, is worse than arguing how aliens from another planet are going to act.   Trying to argue how it should really work is an exercise in futility. 

The authors make an effort to incorporate some internal consistency in the rules engine, but they are only human.  Ergo, they fail at various times.   Arguing "reality" or getting hung up on word definitions is a lose-lose proposition.  The best you can do is to make an attempt understand the thought process of the authors and see if the rules as written make the game more playable or less.  It's a subjective call.


----------



## kitcik

Visigani said:


> This can be assumed because invisibility makes all the PROPERTIES of the item in question just as invisible as the item itself.






			
				SRD said:
			
		

> While they can’t be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.






			
				SRD said:
			
		

> An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light spell (or similar spell) cast upon it.






			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Invisibility does not thwart _detect_ spells.




I would make a joke here, but I think by now any reader is already LTAO.


----------



## Visigani

kitcik said:


> I would make a joke here, but I think by now any reader is already LTAO.




Well, I stand corrected. You know more about dungeons and dragons than I do. You're still an online prick that's looking to instigate a fight. So, I'll take mild comfort in that at least.

*Mod note:*  That's quite enough name calling.  Rule #1 is "Keep it civil", and Visigani here has failed to do so.  He won't be part of this conversation any more.  Needless to say, anyone continuing in this vein can expect to get worse than he did.  I hope that's clear enough.  If it isn't, please take it to e-mail or Pm with a moderator discuss.  ~Umbran


----------



## xigbar

Visigani said:


> You're still an online prick that's looking to instigate a fight.




I just want to capture the irony of this statement by itself. That's all. You can ignore me.


----------



## Vegepygmy

Visigani said:


> Invisibility makes flaming swords invisible.



Okay.



			
				Visigani said:
			
		

> A flaming sword is a sword with a magical aura that is naturally visible.



Nice try. That "naturally visible magical aura" is called fire. The sword's _actual_ magical aura remains invisible, except to things like _detect magic_.



			
				Visigani said:
			
		

> Despite this invisibility also makes the MAGIC inherent to the sword invisible.



Incorrect. The magic inherent to the sword is _already_ invisible, except to things like _detect magic_.



			
				Visigani said:
			
		

> It can be assumed then that if you cast detect magic and viewed an invisible person wielding a magical weapon you would not be able to detect that invisible weapon as the spell of invisibility itself would make the aura imperceptible, just as it makes the flaming aspect of the flaming sword aura imperceptible.



Your incorrect premise (that a flaming sword's flame is a "naturally visible magical aura") leads you to an incorrect conclusion.


----------



## Tovec

Visigani said:


> More to the point, Patterns, Glamers, and Phantasms are mind affecting or adjust the sensory properties of a thing. If you had a spell "detect red" and then cast invisibility on that item the red would be just as invisible as the rest of the item. This can be assumed because invisibility makes all the PROPERTIES of the item in question just as invisible as the item itself.




On invisibility. Even if that's not RAW then it should be RAI. I've  always used it that way. If you are looking for a cantrip to bypass  invis then use glitterdust not detect magic.



> Further, if something is "only in your mind" you can't "detect magic" on it because what you're seeing isn't actually there and so has no "properties" to speak of. You would have to know that the object, creature, or whatever in question was magic to begin with otherwise your mind would not assign it an aura of magic.
> 
> 
> For example, let's say I created a phantasm of an orange in your mind. You use detect magic to see if the orange is magic but because the orange doesn't exist in the first place (unlike a figment which does exist outside the viewer) it cannot give off an aura of magic.



What??


@Vegepygmy

What?

Okay, forget the visible magical aura thing. Go with the spell descriptions for invisibility and detect magic. Cone-shaped emanation I always took to be from the spellcaster's eyes SEEING the aura of things as opposed to smelling, tasting or hearing them. I've always said magical auras look like cotton candy. Not important. However, the  "vanishing from sight" would be important. How can you see something through detect magic if they're not there to be seen.

Invisibility Spell


> The creature or object touched becomes invisible, vanishing from sight, even from darkvision.  If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If  you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see  the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ  magic to do so.
> Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible;  items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by  the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a  source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with  no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but  that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible.
> Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other  conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as stepping in a  puddle). The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For  purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or  whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on  the invisible character’s perceptions.) Actions directed at unattended  objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an  attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb  stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a  rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps,  open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject  attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all  its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.
> Invisibility can be made permanent (on objects only) with a permanency spell.



Besides then there'd be no need for.. the See Invisibility spell.



> You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are ethereal,  as if they were normally visible. Such creatures are visible to you as  translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference  between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures.
> The spell does not reveal the method used to obtain invisibility. It does not reveal illusions or enable you to see through opaque objects. It does not reveal creatures who are simply hiding, concealed, or otherwise hard to see.
> See invisibility can be made permanent with a permanency spell.


----------



## Dandu

Well, if you want to see an invisible creature to shoot it, Detect Magic would hardly be the best spell for the job.



> The  "vanishing from sight" would be important. How can you see something through detect magic if they're not there to be seen.



In the same way that Romulan Warbirds can be detected via their tachyon emissions when their cloaking field is active? (Star Trek: The Next Generation Season 5, Episode 1: Redemption, Part II)


----------



## xigbar

Dandu said:


> Well, if you want to see an invisible creature to shoot it, Detect Magic would hardly be the best spell for the job.
> 
> 
> In the same way that Romulan Warbirds can be detected via their tachyon emissions when their cloaking field is active? (Star Trek: The Next Generation Season 5, Episode 1: Redemption, Part II)




I'm sorry, you lost me there.


----------



## Ranger19k

Tovec said:


> Besides then there'd be no need for.. the See Invisibility spell.




This was addressed in the FAQ, for whatever that's worth.  Spending three rounds to pinpoint an invisible creature while hoping that he doesn't move isn't a very efficient strategy, so IMHO there is still plenty of need for the See Invisibility spell (or better yet, glitterdust).



> *Is it possible to use a spell such as detect magic or detect
> evil to detect an invisible foe?*
> 
> Yes, but not very efficiently. Let’s say a character uses a
> detect magic spell; the spell reveals nothing about the invisible
> foe unless the character happens to aim the spell at the area
> containing the invisible foe. If the foe is using an invisibility
> spell, a spell-like invisibility power, or a supernatural
> invisibility power, the detect magic spell merely reveals that
> there is magic somewhere in the area. The detect magic caster
> has no idea where the magical aura is, what sort of creature or
> object bears the aura, or if the aura is in motion or not.
> 
> One round later, the detect magic user can search for magical
> auras again. If the user aims the spell at the invisible foe again,
> detect magic spell will reveal the number of magical auras on
> the foe and the strength of the strongest aura. (The user has
> scanned the same subject for 2 consecutive rounds.) The detect
> magic user still has no idea exactly where the foe is, what the
> foe is like, or whether the foe is moving.
> 
> After another round goes by, the detect magic user can scan
> for magical auras once again. If the user is lucky enough to
> catch the invisible foe for a third time, she will have scanned
> the same subject for 3 consecutive rounds. The detect magic
> spell now reveals the strength and location of each aura. The
> detect magic user still does not “see” the foe and does not know
> whether it’s moving or not. She only knows the strength and
> locations of magical auras during her turn in the initiative
> order. In this case a “location” is the 5-foot square that contains
> the aura. If the creature or item bearing the aura takes up more
> than one square, the detect magic user can get some idea of its
> size. (See Big and Little Creatures in Combat in Chapter 8 of
> the Player’s Handbook.) It is possible for the detect magic user
> to attack the location of one of the auras the spell has revealed.
> If the spell revealed auras in different locations, the detect
> magic user still might not choose the right location to attack.
> Even if she does, the foe has 100% concealment and the attack
> has a 50% chance to miss no matter what the attack roll is.
> 
> Remember that all of the foregoing depends on the detect
> magic spell user scanning the invisible foe for 3 consecutive
> rounds. If the detect magic user guesses wrong about where to
> scan even once, she’ll have to start the process of zeroing in on
> the invisible foe all over again.


----------



## kitcik

Ranger19k said:


> This was addressed in the FAQ, for whatever that's worth. Spending three rounds to pinpoint an invisible creature while hoping that he doesn't move isn't a very efficient strategy, so IMHO there is still plenty of need for the See Invisibility spell (or better yet, glitterdust).




This was a good find and addresses the question perfectly.

However, as usual with the FAQ, you have to take it with a grain of salt.

In particular, this passage: "In this case a “location” is the 5-foot square that contains the aura."

I don't buy this for a minute. So if you cast Detect Magic on a (medium sized) corpse, all you're going to find out is it has 3 magic items (auras)? You're not going to find out it has a magic cloak, ring and boots? To me, this is ludicrous and "location" means EXACT location.

However, this in no way changes the point of your post, which remains completely correct (DM is very inefficient at finding invisible stuff).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Regardless of DM interpretation -- including the bizarre "a cantrip invalidates the need for a second-level spell" interpretation -- the advice about a smart illusionist is key. Play any multiplayer game (computer or otherwise) where a player's character/piece can turn invisible, and you'll see the obvious play is to not stand still and let your foes zero in on you or what you're doing.

This is as applicable to illusions as it is to PvP in WoW or when you used to cheat playing Battleship with your brother in elementary school.


----------



## Tovec

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Regardless of DM interpretation -- including the bizarre "a cantrip invalidates the need for a second-level spell" interpretation -- the advice about a smart illusionist is key. Play any multiplayer game (computer or otherwise) where a player's character/piece can turn invisible, and you'll see the obvious play is to not stand still and let your foes zero in on you or what you're doing.
> 
> This is as applicable to illusions as it is to PvP in WoW or when you used to cheat playing Battleship with your brother in elementary school.




Why would you play your brother in elementary school? Battleship takes time, especially when you cheat by moving the ships. Far too much time to play it during school effectively.

And I loved moving them. We came up with variant rules in the 4th or 5th grade which did allow you to move them.

[MENTION=98621]Ranger19k[/MENTION] if by "take it with a grain of salt" you mean it wasn't found in the PHB rules and should therefore not be considered how to the RULES work for the purposes of this discussion, I will.

I just want to clarify, I wasn't saying that isn't how the rules work or that Detect Magic doesn't work in that way. I'm saying that isn't how they should work. Given how invisibility conceals things it doesn't make sense to me for it to be countered except by very specific magics or tactics.
Especially when there are a number of tactics which can be used very effectively, bags of flour, glitterdust and see invisibility being three such ideas. Added onto the fact that the spell itself is countered as soon as the person attacks.


----------



## Ranger19k

Tovec said:


> @Ranger19k  if by "take it with a grain of salt" you mean it wasn't found in the PHB rules and should therefore not be considered how to the RULES work for the purposes of this discussion, I will.




<<Shrug>>
I said "for whatever it's worth."  If you deem it to be worth nothing, than that is certainly your prerogative.  When there is ambiguity in the rules, I find the FAQ to sometimes be a useful clarification.  Sometimes it's not worth the paper it's written on.  All depends.  

Of course you seemed to be interested in RAI when you said:


> On invisibility. Even if that's not RAW then it should be RAI. I've   always used it that way. If you are looking for a cantrip to bypass   invis then use glitterdust not detect magic.




FAQ and Sage advice do give us some insight into RAI, if not RAW, since its the same writers.  It seems a little odd to me that you reject it out of hand for not being RAW rather than first consider what he said and then make a decision, but that's certainly your call.


----------



## Dandu

xigbar said:


> I'm sorry, you lost me there.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98iNFU0IDo0"][Star Trek: TNG] Redemption part 2 ~ Data in Command - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Vegepygmy

Tovec said:


> @Vegepygmy
> 
> What?
> 
> Okay, forget the visible magical aura thing. Go with the spell descriptions for invisibility and detect magic. Cone-shaped emanation I always took to be from the spellcaster's eyes SEEING the aura of things as opposed to smelling, tasting or hearing them.



Not necessarily. Read the spell description again, and note what is learned after two rounds of concentration: (1) whether there are any magical auras in that particular area, (2) how many of them, and (3) the strength of the most powerful one. Nothing in that list would require sight.

Now look at what is learned after the third round of concentration (strength and _location_ of each aura), and pay particular attention to this sentence: "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."

So it's quite clear that the detection of magical auras isn't primarily sight-based, because you can do it even if the things are not in your line of sight (remember that the spell can penetrate barriers, but is blocked by 3 feet of wood or dirt, 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, or a thin sheet of lead). But if you _can_ see the aura, then you can gather even more information about it (because you can see its color, I've always assumed).

But as you say, that's not really important.



			
				Tovec said:
			
		

> I've always said magical auras look like cotton candy. Not important. However, the "vanishing from sight" would be important. How can you see something through detect magic if they're not there to be seen.



I don't think "vanishing from sight" means what you think it means. An invisible item or creature is still _there,_ it's just not _visible._ So of course you can detect its aura using _detect magic;_ it's there, and that's what _detect magic_ does, is detect auras that are there.


----------



## Tovec

[MENTION=40109]Vegepygmy[/MENTION] The only thing I actually needed was for you to clarify your statement directly preceding my "What".

As far as the ruling on the spell it seems I have been proven wrong and shouted down. I still say it shouldn't work but it clearly appears to work so I have given up. In fact, for me the final nail in the coffin was a few AHEAD of my last post, I just missed it when reading through the first time.


----------



## Luigiana

Jimlock said:


> I just worship the illusion school. Silent Image, Phantasmal Force (AD&D), are my favorite spells. Illusions are, (the way I see it anyway) the epitome of magic. When we say that a wizard can distort reality, illusions are the first thing that spring to my mind.
> 
> Illusions = Creativity let loose.
> 
> Yet, no matter how cool those illusions are, or how powerful they might look... the end result is that they ALL get tramped by a single cantrip ... *the accursed DETECT MAGIC* (and its big brother = Arcane Sight)
> 
> I 've been searching about this in the web the past few days (on old threads of the site ...and of others), and thankfully I found out that there are a lot of gamers out there who share the same opinion, and they were mostly DMs, whining about how they can't make a proper trap or decent illusion based encounter without having this cantrip ruining it for them. Worst case scenario? A character who gets a permanent detect magic/arcane sight on him. This is bye bye to the DMs plans.
> 
> Examples of this tiny divination thwarting every possible encounter based on illusions are endless (traps, disguises, secret doors etc etc etc...). Admittedly, this sucks.
> 
> The simplest explanation one can give, as to why this happens is the following:
> 
> The power of an illusion is that it deceives you for being real. Once you know its an illusion, it loses all it's power. And Detect Magic, this 0 level miracle, grants you this ability without even a miss chance, not to mention arcane sight....
> All other schools of magic do not lose their power once detected. Even abjurations, or other traps with necromancy, enchantment and stuff do not get all that weakened, because even if you detect them, you still have to find a way to overcome the actual effect. Illusions on the other hand, are COMPLETELY useless once detected.
> 
> To be more precise, so as to fathom the full extent of this problem, lets see which (and consequently the big number of) spells that get thwarted by Detect Magic and its derivatives.
> 
> 1st level:
> Disguise Self (100% busted)
> Silent Image (100% busted)
> Ventriloquism (it is arguable... but still possible in some situations)
> 
> 2nd level:
> Minor Image (100% busted)
> Phantom Trap (100% busted)
> Invisibility (Very difficult to thwart during combat because of the 3 round process and the rotation of the cone which might cost more time. Outside of combat though, an infiltrator gets 100% busted, no matter the 50% miss chance. He's busted. Arcane sight tears Invisibility apart. You instantly get to pinpoint and allow for attacks with a 50% miss chance as well as area effects. Also 100% busted in case of infiltration)
> Mirror image (Almsot Impossible to thwart in combat. Arcane Sight nails it if the real PC "carries" other auras on him... which is the case 99,999% of the time...)
> 
> 3rd level:
> Invisibility Sphere (As Invisibility)
> Illusory Script (100% busted)
> Major Image (100% busted)
> 
> 4th level:
> Hallucinatory Terrain (100% busted)
> Illusory Wall (100% busted)
> Invisibility, Greater (Detect magic will prove to be almost worthless cause this one is used in combat only, Arcane sight though, breaks it, as usual)
> 
> 5th level:
> Mirage Arcana (100% busted)
> Persistent Image (100% busted)
> Seeming (100% busted)
> 
> 6th level:
> Mislead (100% busted)
> Permanent Image (100% busted)
> Programmed Image (100% busted)
> Veil (100% busted)
> 
> 7th level:
> Invisibility, Mass (As Invisibility)
> Project Image (Only Arcane sight can truly help here... it's VERY helpful to know you are not fighting the real thing)
> 
> No need to mention that the minimum 3 round process of detect magic is NO PROBLEM AT ALL in situations outside of combat (Most of the above spells will be detected in situations outside of combat). When searching rooms, interacting with disguised NPCs and stuff a character usually has  enough to plenty of time to use Detect Magic.
> 
> Now a few solutions I've found to this problem, in order to balance out Illusions and Detect Magic (+ Arcane Sight accordingly), are the following possible house rules:
> 
> 
> (Those are not to be combined. Each one is a separate solution)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....Personally I prefer #3. Surely the most advantageous to Illusions.
> 
> Tell me what you think.



As i said to others before you, having GMs complaining about the rules.

You are the GM, the GM are above the Gods. The GM makes the world, and by making the world, he makes rules!
If you dont like a rule, change it.
In this case, you dont like Detect Magic, create a counter rule. Either by saying this spellcaster can cast "Conceal Magic" (homebrewed spell concealing the magical aura)
or make a rule saying something like this "If the caster is more than 4 levels higher than you, you cant detect it.
Or use the rule "If the magical aura is too strong, you are dazed for X rounds" eventually improve it and say "You are dazed for X rounds, and your detect magic are cancelled before you got to see what magic it was"

thats how easy it is..
and if you care too much about rules, let me remind you about these two things. In DMs guide it says "The GM can alter the rules as he feel"

And this: Dungeons and Dragons are more like guidelines than actual rules 

personally i prefer the last one..


----------



## Arrowhawk

Luigiana said:


> As i said to others before you, having GMs complaining about the rules.
> 
> You are the GM, the GM are above the Gods. The GM makes the world, and by making the world, he makes rules!
> If you dont like a rule, change it.
> In this case, you dont like Detect Magic, create a counter rule. Either by saying this spellcaster can cast "Conceal Magic" (homebrewed spell concealing the magical aura)
> or make a rule saying something like this "If the caster is more than 4 levels higher than you, you cant detect it.
> Or use the rule "If the magical aura is too strong, you are dazed for X rounds" eventually improve it and say "You are dazed for X rounds, and your detect magic are cancelled before you got to see what magic it was"
> 
> thats how easy it is..
> and if you care too much about rules, let me remind you about these two things. In DMs guide it says "The GM can alter the rules as he feel"
> 
> And this: Dungeons and Dragons are more like guidelines than actual rules
> 
> personally i prefer the last one..



This reminds me of a saying:

The road to ruin is paved with good intentions.​
The fact is, and it is a fact, the authors of 3.5 have spent way more time playtesting the game than the average DM.  I don't mean playing the game, I mean specifically looking at what is commonly referred to as "game balance."

All too often, I've read a rule which on first blush seemed dumb, ill-conceived, or just plain broken because I was looking at it from one perspective.  A perfect example is the Flat Footed Rule.  But after broadening the scope of the analysis, you realize that in many cases, the authors are trying to create or preserve some aspect of the game and the rule in question is what allows them to do it. 

It is folly to go about changing rules on a whim because they don't suit some particular outcome you are trying to achieve or envision.  While many RPG's benefit from flexibility rather than rigidity in the rules, it is a mistake to think that something that is bent, will function just as well as before.  The rules aren't perfect, but one's changes may do more harm than good.

You can't "fix" this game, you can only change it.


----------



## Luigiana

Arrowhawk said:


> This reminds me of a saying:
> The road to ruin is paved with good intentions.​The fact is, and it is a fact, the authors of 3.5 have spent way more time playtesting the game than the average DM.  I don't mean playing the game, I mean specifically looking at what is commonly referred to as "game balance."
> 
> All too often, I've read a rule which on first blush seemed dumb, ill-conceived, or just plain broken because I was looking at it from one perspective.  A perfect example is the Flat Footed Rule.  But after broadening the scope of the analysis, you realize that in many cases, the authors are trying to create or preserve some aspect of the game and the rule in question is what allows them to do it.
> 
> It is folly to go about changing rules on a whim because they don't suit some particular outcome you are trying to achieve or envision.  While many RPG's benefit from flexibility rather than rigidity in the rules, it is a mistake to think that something that is bent, will function just as well as before.  The rules aren't perfect, but one's changes may do more harm than good.
> 
> You can't "fix" this game, you can only change it.



one thing is balanced, another thing is realism.. i think both is important.. but i have been game master for 7 almost 8 years, and ive changed alot of rules in the DND, and no1 thinks it has changed to the worse, on the contrary, all my changes are said by my players, that it has been improved for the better.. personally if i make a simple illusion that i dont want to be seen through by "Detect Magic" i just say to my player, that he cannot see anything..
And if a player asks me afterwards why he couldnt see it i jsut say "Because i didnt want you to"
maybe the mage who had cast the illusion had found a way to improve it so it couldnt be detected..


----------



## Arrowhawk

Luigiana said:


> one thing is balanced, another thing is realism.. i think both is important.. but i have been game master for 7 almost 8 years, and ive changed alot of rules in the DND, and no1 thinks it has changed to the worse, on the contrary, all my changes are said by my players, that it has been improved for the better.. personally if i make a simple illusion that i dont want to be seen through by "Detect Magic" i just say to my player, that he cannot see anything..
> And if a player asks me afterwards why he couldnt see it i jsut say "Because i didnt want you to"
> maybe the mage who had cast the illusion had found a way to improve it so it couldnt be detected..




First off, what makes the game more real or less real in D&D is entirely subjective, so we don't need to debate it.

Second, I would never play in a campaign where the DM felt they could change the rules willy-nilly in the manner you describe.   It wouldn't be D&D, it would be someone's arbitrary RPG where they don't have to even obey their own rules...they can make it up any time and any place and for any reason they want.   No thanks.  

My attitude is that the DM does not "own" the game...the DM is a guide.  As a player, I expect to play version X and if the DM or players want to play some other version or some modified version then we all have to agree in advance as to what those changes are going to be.  

I also don't believe in inventing stuff just to suit the outcome I want.  Fundamental to my perspective on D&D is the players create the story and I, as the DM, allow them to do that.  I expect the players will find ways to defeat the obstacles so I don't put myself in a position like the one you describe.  If the players cast detect illusion, then I deal with the outcome and let them feel rewarded for their clever thinking.  As maybe Greenfield or Jimlock said, I don't punish players for my not being prepared.


----------



## Vegepygmy

Tovec said:


> @Vegepygmy The only thing I actually needed was for you to clarify your statement directly preceding my "What".



I just went back and looked to be sure: there is no statement of mine directly preceding your "What?"

So I have no idea what you want(ed) me to clarify. If you care to quote my confusing statement, I'll be happy to try and clarify it, though.


----------



## DrunkonDuty

Here's a whole bunch of opinions on some of the topics that have come up in the thread so far.

*Regarding Detect Magic ****ing up a whole School of Magic*. 
Put me in the camp that says "Nope." For all those reasons along the lines of clever use of illusions will allow an illusionist to get away with a lot more than if they are used as a blunt instrument.

I like the various suggestions re. how Detect Magic interacts with Illusions. There are enough suggestions in this thread to satisfy pretty much everyone. Personally I'm of the opinion that Illusion Magic shows up as Illusion Magic. This does not mean that in all cases Detect Magic will make the illusion useless. A sensible wizard will still be careful here for the many reasons listed above about how Illusion Magic is not necessarily harmless.

*Regarding the difference between Figments and Phantasms*: 
I consider a Figment to have a physical presence. The illusion magic manipulates light and air to create image and sound. Instruments for detecting variations in light waves and air pressure (like, oh, eyes and ears) will react to these physical phenomena in the usual fashion. I would also say that magic has a physical presence and thus instruments that react to magic (like, but not limited to, Detect Magic) react to its presence in the usual fashion. (Because there is ongoing magic manipulating the Figment for the duration of the spell, and after of course. See the description of Detect Magic for more information.)

A Phantasm has no physical presence, it exists purely in the mind of the target. (Let's assume for the sake of fantasy rpgs that mind is a separate class of thing from the physical brain.) The magic "moves" the target's mind in a manner analogous to that in which it moves light and air. As the target's mind is fooled any sort of Detect Magic cast by the target will be interpreted in such a way as to not "see" through the Phantasm.* Of course someone else casting Detect Magic on the target of the Phantasm will detect Illusion magic on them.

Those of you who have not wandered away in boredom yet may have noticed that I am treating Magic as a force that straddles the gap between mind and the physical world. It is a physical force that can be manipulated by the (sufficiently trained) mind. Descarte would be so proud.  

*Regarding Invisibility*. (Um, is Invisibility a Figment? At work can't access books. I'm assuming it is.) 
Firstly I gotta disagree vehemently with whoever it was who said that invisibility disguises all all properties of the item on which it is cast. The example given was of a flaming sword. What so invisibility disguises things like it's weight? The heat given off by the flame? The light given off by the flame? The pain inflicted by the sword? No. There are limits to it.

What the players have to decide is what exactly those limits are. Me, I say it effects visible light** and a bit around it on the spectrum. So Infrared and Ultraviolet are effected as well. That's it. Magical aura is still there. 

The more difficult question is, is the light given off by the flaming sword effected? If the Figment warps light so it passes around the subject perhaps the torch throws strange warped shadows...

One of my (many) ongoing gaming projects*** is to re-write the DnD Schools of magic and spell descriptions so that they make more sense to me. One of the things that inspired me to try to do so was the difficult nature of Invisibility. I mean why the eff does it have some sort of moral outrage regarding violence?

What I dreamed up was this: Invisibility is actually a part of the Ethereal School. What the spell does is draw a thin veil of the Ether around the target. The veil goes around the character, what they are wearing and any small objects they pick up. This veil warps light around it. Light coming out from under this veil, say from a torch, is feint and warps in strange ways as the torch and the viewer move. The target can see the normal world in the same way as someone in the fringe of the Ethereal Plane can. That is to say the world appears unclear and shadowy. I would not allow an invisible character to make out fine detail. For instance read a book that it has not picked up. 

But this veil is delicate and easily torn by vigorous action. So any combat action and moving faster than base move per round tears it, ending the spell. In addition the veil provides no cover from beings in the Ether. In fact they can see you much more clearly. (A notable addendum to this is that I treat incorporeal undead as being partly in the fringe of the ether and thus they will see the invisible person much more clearly. Also they don't use visible light anyway but home in on life force. Guess the inspiration for this and win a fabulous No Prize.)

Wow, that's a bit of an essay that is.
Cheers if you got this far. Hell, have another No Prize if you did.


*Although I wonder is the target of the Phantasm within the AoE of their own cone of magic detection?
**that is light visible to humans; whatever the hell wavelengths that includes. 
*** read gaming stuff I'll probably never finish.


----------



## kitcik

DrunkonDuty said:


> The more difficult question is, is the light given off by the flaming sword effected? If the Figment warps light so it passes around the subject perhaps the torch throws strange warped shadows...




Do I really have to do this again? People should read the whole thread...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light spell (or similar spell) cast upon it.




and just for kicks I will repeat this one since I thought it ended the invisibility question for good.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Invisibility does not thwart detect spells.


----------



## DrunkonDuty

Maybe you should read my thread again? Or at least that bit that says "here's a whole bunch of opinions." I was not at any time quoting the SRD. 

Nor was I at anytime suggesting that Invisibility thwarted Detect Spells. Quite the opposite in fact.


----------



## Dandu

Just fyi, Invisibility is an glamer.


----------



## kitcik

DrunkonDuty said:


> Maybe you should read my thread again? Or at least that bit that says "here's a whole bunch of opinions." I was not at any time quoting the SRD.
> 
> Nor was I at anytime suggesting that Invisibility thwarted Detect Spells. Quite the opposite in fact.




You asked the question "Is the light from the flaming sword effected by invisibility?" That question has been asked and answered. In this thread.

That said, I agree with the rest of your post.


----------



## Luigiana

Arrowhawk said:


> First off, what makes the game more real or less real in D&D is entirely subjective, so we don't need to debate it.
> 
> Second, I would never play in a campaign where the DM felt they could change the rules willy-nilly in the manner you describe.   It wouldn't be D&D, it would be someone's arbitrary RPG where they don't have to even obey their own rules...they can make it up any time and any place and for any reason they want.   No thanks.
> 
> My attitude is that the DM does not "own" the game...the DM is a guide.  As a player, I expect to play version X and if the DM or players want to play some other version or some modified version then we all have to agree in advance as to what those changes are going to be.
> 
> I also don't believe in inventing stuff just to suit the outcome I want.  Fundamental to my perspective on D&D is the players create the story and I, as the DM, allow them to do that.  I expect the players will find ways to defeat the obstacles so I don't put myself in a position like the one you describe.  If the players cast detect illusion, then I deal with the outcome and let them feel rewarded for their clever thinking.  As maybe Greenfield or Jimlock said, I don't punish players for my not being prepared.



*TAKE NOTE THIS IS NOT FLAMING*
I wouldnt talk too much, and deny to try to play with a GM that alters the rules "Willy-nilly" as u call it..
i dont alter the rules without thinking of the consequences.
but why shouldnt a mage has found a way to make an illusion undetectable by normal magic?

also, if i were you, i wouldnt deny to try to play with a gm like me, before you have actually tried it.
For 2 weeks ago, i played with a player who had played DND For 7 years.. and he first thought it was weird, but he really liked it after the first few hours.

An old saying says "You dont know if you like the food before you have tasted it"

Rewritten it says "You dont know if you like a game master before you have played with him"


----------



## Arrowhawk

Luigiana said:


> *TAKE NOTE THIS IS NOT FLAMING*
> I wouldnt talk too much, and deny to try to play with a GM that alters the rules "Willy-nilly" as u call it..
> i dont alter the rules without thinking of the consequences.
> but why shouldnt a mage has found a way to make an illusion undetectable by normal magic?
> 
> also, if i were you, i wouldnt deny to try to play with a gm like me, before you have actually tried it.
> For 2 weeks ago, i played with a player who had played DND For 7 years.. and he first thought it was weird, but he really liked it after the first few hours.
> 
> An old saying says "You dont know if you like the food before you have tasted it"
> 
> Rewritten it says "You dont know if you like a game master before you have played with him"




If everyone is having fun, that's all that matters.


----------



## PlzBreakMyCampaign

screw illusions. Are you really trying to say anti-caster stuff is overpowered in 3.5???


----------



## Jimlock

Wow... there are so many wrong assessments and wrong readings in this thread, I don't even know how to begin....


Its funny how some... in order to counter the opinion that says that Detect Magic screws Illusions (because RAW, as they claim, has it all balanced already)... interpret Illusions and the sub schools however they please...  (CLEARLY Houserule-interperetations) so as to prove that DM is not that potent on Illusions...

I really do not get how some of you support that detecting an Illusion is "no big deal" and that Illusions don't get screwed by just that. Permit me to quote something here:



> Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)
> Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
> 
> *A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.*
> 
> A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.




Moreover, the text continues in the PHB (p173) :





> ....A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
> For example, a character making a successful saving throw against a figment of an illusionary section of floor knows the "floor" isn't safe to walk on *and can see what lies bellow (light permitting), but he or she can still note where the figment lies.*




The way I see it, that screws Illusions A LOT. You see figments and phantasms for what they really are.

What does that have to do with Detect Magic?

Let's quote again:




> Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)
> Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory *until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.*
> 
> A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
> 
> A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. *A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.*




Detecting an Illusion is *CLEARLY* a way of interacting with the illusion in some fashion. You see it, and you study it carefully once you've found the aura. End of story. Any other interpretation is a house rule.

No matter if the DM gives you a save, No matter if you fail the save.... you still know there is an illusion there so.... what do you do?

You throw a damn peddle at the illusion... or you poke it with a stick.... GAME OVER.

That's how a 0 level spell with 0% miss chance trumps a 6th level Permanent Image, a 6th level Programmed Image, a 5th level Mirage Arcana, a 4th level Illusory Wall, a 4th level Hallucinatory Terrain.... and so on...

and I repeat , with 0% chances of failing! All you to do is detect it and then throw a damn pebble at it and that's that.



I read another argument I did not get at ALL!!!

Arguments that say that by combining: Magic Aura, Nondetection and Misdirection you can get a satisfying result. 
First off, Misdirection can only be cast on oneself (you target another creature or object in order to get their aura on YOU - Target:	One creature or object, up to a 10-ft. cube in size). Moreover an "illusion" (Silent Image) is not an object. So any ideas of using such methods on the "Image line" (Silent Image... etc etc) are clearly house rules.
Now to answer to the argument:

I honestly do not understand how: By having to spend/cast MORE SPELLS (the original Illusion spell + Nondetection + Magic Aura + Misdirection + whatever have you.....) so as to NOT be detected by a cantrip proves that Detect Magic is NOT broken....

??????


That logic beats me!!! 

...sure... you can try to find a way around detect magic with a multitude of spells.... but ...but.... you got to spend a bunch of middle to high level spells...
in order to beat a Cantrip!!!! (and I insist, that even then, you never get to beat it completely... you simply get better chances against it!!!).

How is that GOOD game design? It isn't. It's Completely unbalanced.


ANOTHER argument I completely disagree with.

A lot have said: "One should use Illusions smartly!!! He should be clever so as to out smart the detectors...!!!!"

Ok.... So the 11th level Wizard who casts a 6th level Illusion spell... has to be smart about it...in order to hide it (as if the level of his magic is not enough..) while the 1st level PC can be as stupid as hell, because all he need is this 0 level spell...this damn cantrip... so as to get past the secret entrance created by the powerful wizard....??????

Does this really make sense to you?? Really????? shouldn't things be the other way around instead?

Shouldn't the 1st level PC prove his worth by outsmarting the powerful wizard?.... by using his wits so as to detect the Illusion????


I will repeat one thing again:

The Illusion is powerful only when it is not detected for what it is.
Once you detect it for what it is, it's power is GONE!.

I'm sorry, but I haven't read any arguments yet that could even tempt me in changing my mind.

I like the rules too... In general they are more than OK. But that doesn't mean they are perfect...
The holes are plenty and:

(one 0 level spell) VS  (An entire school of magic)
*Detect Magic* *VS* *Illusion*
(+Arcane Sight)



...is a big hole... and it certainly needs fixing.


----------



## Jack Simth

Jimlock said:


> The way I see it, that screws Illusions A LOT. You see figments and phantasms for what they really are.



If you succeed on the save, sure.  But that applies to a lot of magic. 







Jimlock said:


> Detecting an Illusion is *CLEARLY* a way of interacting with the illusion in some fashion. You see it, and you study it carefully once you've found the aura. End of story. Any other interpretation is a house rule.



Yes, so it permits you to roll your Will save.  Is Enchantment screwed over because people get a will save Vs. Charm, Suggestion, Dominate, et all?  How is this a problem, really?


Jimlock said:


> No matter if the DM gives you a save, No matter if you fail the save.... you still know there is an illusion there so.... what do you do?
> 
> You throw a damn peddle at the illusion... or you poke it with a stick.... GAME OVER.



Not really.

I use Magic Aura on an object.  It now has an aura of illusion for the next several days.  If I'm a high enough level caster that Permanent Image is viable, then I've got a caster level of at least 11.  If I Extend Magic Aura, it lasts 22 days.  

I now proceed to cast an Extended Magic Aura on every other item in the dungeon.  It lasts 22 days, so if I use, say, four 2nd level spells per day on maintaining this, by the time my 22 day limit rolls around and the number of affected item caps, I've got 88 false magical auras in the dungeon.  If I want to be funny, I also use Illusory Wall on real walls to make them look exactly like they already do.  That one's Permanent, incidentally, so I can stack it up as many castings as I have time to place.  If I'm high enough level, I also put in a few headache-inducing ones: Greater Shadow Conjouration(Wall of Stone) and Greater Shadow Conjouration(Wall of Iron) - both _Instant_ illusions that are partially real (and natively have no aura after they're done). 

How many castings of Detect Magic do you think the guy going through my dungeon will have prepared?  How many of those pebbles will make a sound to alert the occasional real creature in the dungeon that someone's coming?  

Now, I also put in some "regular" illusions - Illusory Walls over doors, for instance.  You throw a pebble, it bounces off the "wall" (which is really a door).  OK, you've got your interaction will save, sure.  But you don't have absolute proof that what you're looking at is an illusion sufficient to auto-spot the door.  Especially after having run into quite a few false illusory auras where poking it does exactly nothing, and your pebble did bounce off.

Or maybe I put in a couple of traps for you doing _exactly that_; I bury a few creatures behind illusory walls.  When the pebble goes sailing through the wall, the creature on the other side notes it's an illusion, sees through it, and goes and attacks the party.  Or the wall that's covered in illusion is a touch-sensitive trap that sets off an area effect sufficient to cover the entire area for which you've got line-of-effect to throw the pebble at the wall (AKA, a Lightning Bolt down that hallway).  Or maybe I include a few traps that go off if there are Divinations active in the area.  Or maybe I scatter a couple of trapped pebbles around (stones of weight, maybe), and use Magic Aura so they don't show up as trapped.  You pick up the pebble, throw it, and find it's still in your hand.

You haven't negated the school of magic, you've just used some resources of your own to increase the resource cost needed to make effective use of the school.  And in the doing, you've made your behavior predictable, which is a great way to let someone who is accustomed to playing that game of chess hurt you.


Jimlock said:


> That's how a 0 level spell with 0% miss chance trumps a 6th level Permanent Image, a 6th level Programmed Image, a 5th level Mirage Arcana, a 4th level Illusory Wall, a 4th level Hallucinatory Terrain.... and so on...
> 
> and I repeat , with 0% chances of failing! All you to do is detect it and then throw a damn pebble at it and that's that.



No, it's not.


Jimlock said:


> I read another argument I did not get at ALL!!!



Then you should probably re-read it, and attempt to address the spelled-out method point by point, like I've been doing with your posts so far.  Perhaps also ask questions on the aspects that you don't get.


Jimlock said:


> Arguments that say that by combining: Magic Aura, Nondetection and Misdirection you can get a satisfying result.
> First off, Misdirection can only be cast on oneself (you target another creature or object in order to get their aura on YOU - Target:	One creature or object, up to a 10-ft. cube in size).



You may wish to read the text of the spell, rather than just the target line.  It's in the SRD, so I'll post it here for convenience, and explain a bit:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> By means of this spell, you misdirect the information from divination spells that reveal auras (detect evil, detect magic, discern lies, and the like). On casting the spell, you choose another object within range. For the duration of the spell, the *subject of misdirection* is detected as if it were the other object. (Neither *the subject* nor the other object gets a saving throw against this effect.) Detection spells provide information based on the second object rather than on *the actual target* of the detection unless the caster of the detection succeeds on a Will save. For instance, you could make yourself detect as a tree if one were within range at casting: not evil, not lying, not magical, neutral in alignment, and so forth. This spell does not affect other types of divination magic (augury, detect thoughts, clairaudience/clairvoyance, and the like).



(Emphasis and *Emphasis* added)

Underlined portions are references to the secondary target.  *Bolded* portions are references to the primary target.  It's really quite clear that Misdirection is effectively a two-target spell; the primary to whom the effect applies, and a secondary from which the data presented to Divinations is gathered.  


Jimlock said:


> Moreover an "illusion" (Silent Image) is not an object. So any ideas of using such methods on the "Image line" (Silent Image... etc etc) are clearly house rules.



You give surface appearance of misunderstanding the method of using that type of thing to negate using Detect Magic and stuff that inherits from it for detecting illusions:

You give real critters an illusory aura, so that when something carries an aura of illusion, you gain no useful information from 


Jimlock said:


> Now to answer to the argument:
> 
> I honestly do not understand how: By having to spend/cast MORE SPELLS (the original Illusion spell + Nondetection + Magic Aura + Misdirection + whatever have you.....) so as to NOT be detected by a cantrip proves that Detect Magic is NOT broken....
> 
> ??????
> 
> 
> That logic beats me!!!
> 
> ...sure... you can try to find a way around detect magic with a multitude of spells.... but ...but.... you got to spend a bunch of middle to high level spells...
> in order to beat a Cantrip!!!! (and I insist, that even then, you never get to beat it completely... you simply get better chances against it!!!).



It's a game of chess.  Detect Magic is a resource expenditure (in terms of spell slots, feats, class features, XP, or whatever else you used to get it, plus the time needed to use it).  Yes, to counter one resource expenditure, you need to expend resources.

How does this not make sense?

Oh yes, and most of the methods used to beat Detect Magic?  They last a very long time (hours or days, and they're Permanent in some cases), and don't take any further resource expenditure for the duration.  Detect Magic lasts minutes/level, and you need to concentrate to make use of it.

The single most valuable resource in a conflict in D&D?  It's not spell slots.  It's combat actions.


Jimlock said:


> How is that GOOD game design? It isn't. It's Completely unbalanced.



D&D is full of a lot of unbalanced things.  This... doesn't really hold much of a candle to quite a bit of unbalanced things.


Jimlock said:


> ANOTHER argument I completely disagree with.
> 
> A lot have said: "One should use Illusions smartly!!! He should be clever so as to out smart the detectors...!!!!"
> 
> Ok.... So the 11th level Wizard who casts a 6th level Illusion spell... has to be smart about it...in order to hide it (as if the level of his magic is not enough..) while the 1st level PC can be as stupid as hell, because all he need is this 0 level spell...this damn cantrip... so as to get past the secret entrance created by the powerful wizard....??????



That only helps him find it... if he's looking in the right spot already... and if the Wizard was foolish enough to use a method of hiding that is automatically revealed by a probing search.  

A better way would be to hide the entrance halfway up a mountainside cover it with Illusory Wall, and make use of the Fly spell (or better: Overland Flight) whenever you need to get in or out.  Or even better: Wall of Stone to cover it, and use Dimension Door to get in and out.


Jimlock said:


> Does this really make sense to you?? Really????? shouldn't things be the other way around instead?



Considering the level of wit you're attributing to the 'powerful wizard', yes, yes, no.


Jimlock said:


> Shouldn't the 1st level PC prove his worth by outsmarting the powerful wizard?.... by using his wits so as to detect the Illusion????
> 
> 
> I will repeat one thing again:
> 
> The Illusion is powerful only when it is not detected for what it is.
> Once you detect it for what it is, it's power is GONE!.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I haven't read any arguments yet that could even tempt me in changing my mind.
> 
> I like the rules too... In general they are more than OK. But that doesn't mean they are perfect...
> The holes are plenty and:
> 
> (one 0 level spell) VS  (An entire school of magic)
> *Detect Magic* *VS* *Illusion*
> (+Arcane Sight)
> 
> 
> 
> ...is a big hole... and it certainly needs fixing.



No, not really.

Oh, and would you kindly try actually addressing things point-by-point, cut down on the heavy use of punctuation (especially the ???? and !!!!), and stop putting things in ALL CAPS and *BIG FONT*?  It's getting a tad on the annoying side, and I'm seriously considering stopping bothering responding to you on that basis.


----------



## Tovec

PlzBreakMyCampaign said:


> screw illusions. Are you really trying to say anti-caster stuff is overpowered in 3.5???




No.
They are saying (or not saying) a 0 level spell is overpowered when used as an anti-illusionist spell.



Jimlock said:


> Wow... there are so many wrong assessments and wrong readings in this thread, I don't even know how to begin....
> 
> 
> Its funny how some... in order to counter the opinion that says that Detect Magic screws Illusions (because RAW, as they claim, has it all balanced already)... interpret Illusions and the sub schools however they please...  (CLEARLY Houserule-interperetations) so as to prove that DM is not that potent on Illusions...
> 
> I really do not get how some of you support that detecting an Illusion is "no big deal" and that Illusions don't get screwed by just that. Permit me to quote something here:
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, the text continues in the PHB (p173) :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it, that screws Illusions A LOT. You see figments and phantasms for what they really are.
> 
> What does that have to do with Detect Magic?
> 
> Let's quote again:
> 
> 
> 
> Detecting an Illusion is *CLEARLY* a way of interacting with the illusion in some fashion. You see it, and you study it carefully once you've found the aura. End of story. Any other interpretation is a house rule.
> 
> No matter if the DM gives you a save, No matter if you fail the save.... you still know there is an illusion there so.... what do you do?
> 
> You throw a damn peddle at the illusion... or you poke it with a stick.... GAME OVER.
> 
> That's how a 0 level spell with 0% miss chance trumps a 6th level Permanent Image, a 6th level Programmed Image, a 5th level Mirage Arcana, a 4th level Illusory Wall, a 4th level Hallucinatory Terrain.... and so on...
> 
> and I repeat , with 0% chances of failing! All you to do is detect it and then throw a damn pebble at it and that's that.
> 
> 
> 
> I read another argument I did not get at ALL!!!
> 
> Arguments that say that by combining: Magic Aura, Nondetection and Misdirection you can get a satisfying result.
> First off, Misdirection can only be cast on oneself (you target another creature or object in order to get their aura on YOU - Target:    One creature or object, up to a 10-ft. cube in size). Moreover an "illusion" (Silent Image) is not an object. So any ideas of using such methods on the "Image line" (Silent Image... etc etc) are clearly house rules.
> Now to answer to the argument:
> 
> I honestly do not understand how: By having to spend/cast MORE SPELLS (the original Illusion spell + Nondetection + Magic Aura + Misdirection + whatever have you.....) so as to NOT be detected by a cantrip proves that Detect Magic is NOT broken....
> 
> ??????
> 
> 
> That logic beats me!!!
> 
> ...sure... you can try to find a way around detect magic with a multitude of spells.... but ...but.... you got to spend a bunch of middle to high level spells...
> in order to beat a Cantrip!!!! (and I insist, that even then, you never get to beat it completely... you simply get better chances against it!!!).
> 
> How is that GOOD game design? It isn't. It's Completely unbalanced.
> 
> 
> ANOTHER argument I completely disagree with.
> 
> A lot have said: "One should use Illusions smartly!!! He should be clever so as to out smart the detectors...!!!!"
> 
> Ok.... So the 11th level Wizard who casts a 6th level Illusion spell... has to be smart about it...in order to hide it (as if the level of his magic is not enough..) while the 1st level PC can be as stupid as hell, because all he need is this 0 level spell...this damn cantrip... so as to get past the secret entrance created by the powerful wizard....??????
> 
> Does this really make sense to you?? Really????? shouldn't things be the other way around instead?
> 
> Shouldn't the 1st level PC prove his worth by outsmarting the powerful wizard?.... by using his wits so as to detect the Illusion????
> 
> 
> I will repeat one thing again:
> 
> The Illusion is powerful only when it is not detected for what it is.
> Once you detect it for what it is, it's power is GONE!.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I haven't read any arguments yet that could even tempt me in changing my mind.
> 
> I like the rules too... In general they are more than OK. But that doesn't mean they are perfect...
> The holes are plenty and:
> 
> (one 0 level spell) VS  (An entire school of magic)
> *Detect Magic* *VS* *Illusion*
> (+Arcane Sight)
> 
> 
> 
> ...is a big hole... and it certainly needs fixing.





Okay, let me break this into parts, even knowing what I'm saying may be partially wrong. Using detect magic requires the following, taken directly from the PHB not the SRD, in order to defeat illusions.

1) Detect Magic lasts as long as you concentrate to a maximum of 1min/level. This means that you have to using the spell, every round or else it dispels. How many is the wizard preparing a day? The wizard is also going to go as slowly as the rogue is checking every 10 feet for traps. Slower still if he FINDS a spell.

2) It is a 60 foot cone. Anything outside of where he directly looking isn't seen. If he isn't TRYING to look at that illusory floor he'll fall right through it while battling the illusory dragon.

3) If he finds a spell in his vision then he has to spend the first round realizing it is magic. He then spends the next round finding out HOW MANY auras. He spends his third round finding each aura and then using a spellcraft check (which he may fail) DC 15 + spell level. More still he only gets that it is an illusion.

3b) Granted higher level casters will make this without fail. Those same higher level casters will have true seeing, see invisibility and arcane sight. 

3c) Lower level casters may not make the spellcraft DC (especially against higher level spells) and won't know its an illusion anymore than if they were conjurations.

4) What type of illusion? Phantasm or Figment? Safe or deadly.

5) Yes, that square has an illusion. Is it a modified appearance, an invisible person with an illusory double, a fake dragon, a concealed floor, etc. Detect Magic doesn't tell you.

6) There is nothing in Detect Magic which says it "interacts" with illusions (giving them an autosave). There is nothing that says the +4 bonus that people appear willing to give it either. I'd take the +4 while you can.

6b) It seems clear to me that this would have been fixed after several versions of the game. At least it should have come up in the years since 3e 
was released enough to get a line in the Pathfinder rules (in this circumstance PF is 3.75).

7) While the wizard is using detect magic he can't do other things.


----------



## Jimlock

Jack Simth said:


> If you succeed on the save, sure.  But that applies to a lot of magic. Yes, so it permits you to roll your Will save.




What you are obviously missing, is the fact that *THE WILL SAVE IS POINTLESS* It makes no difference whatsoever. Any player with an intelligence of 2 will throw something at the illusion, touch the illusion, probe it with a stick... once he has already detected it as an illusion. It's common sense really. I've yet to see a player who has detected an illusion and somehow still missed solving the puzzle. Knowing it's an illusion means you are 99% there... the other 1% requires nothing more than an infants intelligence.



Jack Simth said:


> Not really.
> I use Magic Aura on an object.  It now has an aura of illusion for the next several days.  If I'm a high enough level caster that Permanent Image is viable, then I've got a caster level of at least 11.  If I Extend Magic Aura, it lasts 22 days.




OK... lets see what you 've got so far --->

Permanent Image: 6th level spell
"Extended" Magic Aura: 1+1= 2nd level spell....

Up until now, we have a 6th level spell and a 2nd level spell at work... so as to face a mighty 0 level cantrip.... wow....



Jack Simth said:


> I now proceed to cast an Extended Magic Aura on every other item in the dungeon.  It lasts 22 days, so if I use, say, four 2nd level spells per day on maintaining this, by the time my 22 day limit rolls around and the number of affected item caps, I've got 88 false magical auras in the dungeon.  If I want to be funny, I also use Illusory Wall on real walls to make them look exactly like they already do.  That one's Permanent, incidentally, so I can stack it up as many castings as I have time to place.  If I'm high enough level, I also put in a few headache-inducing ones: Greater Shadow Conjouration(Wall of Stone) and Greater Shadow Conjouration(Wall of Iron) - both _Instant_ illusions that are partially real (and natively have no aura after they're done).




Jack... what you are suggesting is insane.... Listen to what you are saying!!

You are actually suggesting that a powerful wizard, in order to protect himself with his high level Illusions (4th - 5th -6th -7th level) from a 0 level cantrip, he has to expend all his 2nd level spells on a daily basis!!!! I mean not only can't he face the 0 level spell with those powerful spells as the are (levels from 4th to 7th) but he ALSO has to lose all 2nd level spells!!!!!

I'm not sure if you understand it... but your very arguments work against you.

*Oh... and one more thing... MAGIC AURA CANNOT BE USED WITH PERMANENT IMAGE, OR WITH ANY ANY OTHER "IMAGE" SPELL (SILENT, MINOR, MAJOR, PERSISTENT, PROGRAMMED) , OR WITH ILLUSORY WALL, OR WITH HALLUCINATORY TERRAIN, OR WITH MIRAGE ARCANA.*

I know you hate my fonts and letter size, but you insist on something CLEARLY wrong, and you better realize it now before you write another post based on the same false assumptions. Proof?...

Here you go:



> Magic Aura
> Illusion (Glamer)
> Target: *One touched object* weighing up to 5 lb./level




The above mentioned illusions, are CLEARLY not objects, nor are they cast on objects... they are simply cast in space without target. NOTHING can change their auras.

as for...


Jack Simth said:


> You give surface appearance of misunderstanding the method of using that type of thing to negate using Detect Magic and stuff that inherits from it for detecting illusions:
> 
> You give real critters an illusory aura, so that when something carries an aura of illusion, you gain no useful information from



.

Don't worry, I got it. Thing is you keep on hinting how Magic Aura can save the day, and you keep on mentioning Magic Aura alongside with Figment spells.

No matter how many illusion auras you manage to put on actual things (a costly process in and on itself), figments will always register as illusions, no matter what you do, and PCs will always try to find what they are. ALWAYS. Even if they 've run into illusion-like traps in the past they will still examine things.




Jack Simth said:


> How many castings of Detect Magic do you think the guy going through my dungeon will have prepared?




Now that it's CLEAR that your 88.000 Magic Aura's are worthless because they CANNOT be used with your Figments, lets see how many castings of Detect Magic the intruder(s) will have? 

....Including scrolls?... or... wands?.... I know any sane player/caster has a few detect magic scrolls on him. They are extra cheap and easy to get.

or... the possibility of a permanent Detect Magic? I'm sure that we can allow the intruder a single 5th level spell... when he's dealing with a wizard who can cast spells up to 7th level.... right?

...please... Detect magic is one minute per level. 10th CL X 3 = half an hour. In half an hour the intruder would have swiped the dungeon clean.




Jack Simth said:


> How many of those pebbles will make a sound to alert the occasional real creature in the dungeon that someone's coming?




Ohhh... come on Jack!!! I can throw flour at the damn thing! I can throw sand!! I can go ahead and touch it... barehanded or with a stick!!!! ....I can think of a 1000 ways of checking out the illusion without making a sound... do you really want me to spell them out for you?




Jack Simth said:


> Now, I also put in some "regular" illusions - Illusory Walls over doors, for instance.  You throw a pebble, it bounces off the "wall" (which is really a door).




Not so.

First, different sound (quite easy to figure out).

Second, any other dust like ingredient would work just fine. Poking it with a stick or barehanded gets the job done without a sweat as well.

Third, no door is aligned with its adjacent walls. In most cases the peddle would disappear before hitting the door. Someone who's got his eyes fixed on the peddle (because he wants to see how the peddle reacts to the surface), will easily notice any such weird incident.



Jack Simth said:


> OK, you've got your interaction will save, sure.  But you don't have absolute proof that what you're looking at is an illusion sufficient to auto-spot the door.




Not really, any of the above methods will prove that the wall is not real, and then I can instantly see the door behind the translucent figment.

See my previous post on how this happens by RAW.


....But all this discussion is pointless... 
it really is.. 
because you are wasting resources, powerful spells... you are throwing everything you've got so as to counter a single cantrip.

You are even creating traps/illusions (again through heavy spellcasting) so as to counter Detect Magic attempts ONLY.... 
....and you never really get the job done... because once "something" is detected, people are gonna get interested in it... and sooner or later they will get to it, no matter how layers you put one on top of the other. And again... those layers cost time, spells and probably money... while detect magic costs nothing.


PCs should be smart and come up with intelligent ways of revealing illusions in a dungeon... they shouldn't simply detect them. To me there is nothing fun or interesting in that.




Jack Simth said:


> You haven't negated the school of magic, you've just used some resources of your own to increase the resource cost needed to make effective use of the school.  And in the doing, you've made your behavior predictable, which is a great way to let someone who is accustomed to playing that game of chess hurt you.




As mentioned countless times above the analogy is SO bad. The Illusionist has to spent A LOT (of spells...money..time) in order to make his illusions effective against a PC using the cantrip. 

Meta game DMing? Really?

Wow... nice touch. Nice way to prove Detect Magic is not broken.





Jack Simth said:


> You may wish to read the text of the spell, rather than just the target line.  It's in the SRD, so I'll post it here for convenience, and explain a bit:
> (Emphasis and *Emphasis* added)
> 
> Underlined portions are references to the secondary target.  *Bolded* portions are references to the primary target.  It's really quite clear that Misdirection is effectively a two-target spell; the primary to whom the effect applies, and a secondary from which the data presented to Divinations is gathered.




I finally agree with this, although one could make a case that the subject is always the caster and that he casts it on one creature or object so as to get its aura...

But the spell is much more fun with your reading... (probably the correct one, I admit)




You talk about chess... and more chess.... and more chess...

IMHO, what you don't realize is that the only one who has to play the chess is the illusionist.

The detector, does not not even know the basics of chess. He simply casts Detect Magic... or has it permanently on him for his convenience...


----------



## Jack Simth

Jimlock said:


> What you are obviously missing, is the fact that *THE WILL SAVE IS POINTLESS* It makes no difference whatsoever. Any player with an intelligence of 2 will throw something at the illusion, touch the illusion, probe it with a stick... once he has already detected it as an illusion. It's common sense really. I've yet to see a player who has detected an illusion and somehow still missed solving the puzzle. Knowing it's an illusion means you are 99% there... the other 1% requires nothing more than an infants intelligence.



Yes, anyone will.

Which is a great way to make monkey-traps designed specifically for no other purpose than to get people to touch trap triggers.

Which, really, is the way to go with traps.  Any trap in an occupied area, realistically, needs a simple way to get past it for the people who occupy the area.  Whether that's a trap that won't hurt them (fire subtype critters with fire-based traps, undead and negative energy traps, cold subtype critters and cold traps, attuned Symbol spells, properly aligned Forbiddance zones, et cetera), a simple way to bypass it (a key, password, et cetera), or knowing what to ignore (which door to not try and open, where the illusion is located, and so on).  Without one of those (or perhaps something similar), the occupants will fall for them, and get killed.



Jimlock said:


> OK... lets see what you 've got so far --->
> 
> Permanent Image: 6th level spell
> "Extended" Magic Aura: 1+1= 2nd level spell....
> 
> Up until now, we have a 6th level spell and a 2nd level spell at work... so as to face a mighty 0 level cantrip.... wow....



1) Defense is harder than offense in general; this holds true in D&D as well.  A (Greater) Dispel Magic + Quickened Suggestion (possibly via Rod) is hard to defend against, for instance, and can very easily take down the Fighter who was depending on that Third Eye Conceal so that he wouldn't need to make Will saves vs. Murdering the party.  

2) In a dungeon, sure.  But then, consider: Have you ever stopped and calculated the costs of all those traps, all those doors, the walls, the tunnels, and all that treasure in a dungeon?  Seriously; try it sometime.  The Stronghold Builder's Guide is 3.0, but it'll get you started.  A modern tank costs several hundred thousand to build.  A tank-busting missile costs several thousand to build.  You do the math.

3) That was specific to a dungeon.  In a city, I don't need to worry about it - just my own illusion auras, which go away with one casting of Misdirection (or possibly Nondetection), which lasts pretty much all day.  If you're depending on Detect Magic to locate the assassin coming in disguise to hurt the king?  Well, I just Misdirect myself, and I no longer register as magic.  I walk blithly on by your checkpoint, murder the king, and leave.  Or maybe I giggle as I use the spell on someone important, so that they register as having an illusion aura... and you then interrogate them (or kill them, if you're not thinking sneaky) and now have the issue that you've ticked off someone important.


Jimlock said:


> Jack... what you are suggesting is insane.... Listen to what you are saying!!
> 
> You are actually suggesting that a powerful wizard, in order to protect himself with his high level Illusions (4th - 5th -6th -7th level) from a 0 level cantrip, he has to expend all his 2nd level spells on a daily basis!!!! I mean not only can't he face the 0 level spell with those powerful spells as the are (levels from 4th to 7th) but he ALSO has to lose all 2nd level spells!!!!!



Stop and calculate dungeon resource costs some time.  This is actually par for the course for building a dungeon.

And I can create a lot of meaningless illusion auras with assorted Permanent spells (Shadow Evocation(Continual Flame) is a favorite of mine, as is Phantom Trap and several others).  You never exactly responded to the door scenario, after all.


Jimlock said:


> I'm not sure if you understand it... but your very arguments work against you.



Not when you consider the expense of a dungeon in the first place, no.


Jimlock said:


> *Oh... and one more thing... MAGIC AURA CANNOT BE USED WITH PERMANENT IMAGE, OR WITH ANY ANY OTHER "IMAGE" SPELL (SILENT, MINOR, MAJOR, PERSISTENT, PROGRAMMED) , OR WITH ILLUSORY WALL, OR WITH HALLUCINATORY TERRAIN, OR WITH MIRAGE ARCANA.*
> 
> I know you hate my fonts and letter size, but you insist on something CLEARLY wrong, and you better realize it now before you write another post based on the same false assumptions. Proof?...
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> 
> 
> The above mentioned illusions, are CLEARLY not objects, nor are they cast on objects... they are simply cast in space without target. NOTHING can change their auras.



I never said you could.  Seriously.  Look back through my posts.  You don't make the aura on the real illusions go away.  You add the aura to things that are real, so that knowing something has an aura of illusion doesn't actually help (it has an aura of illusion about it?  OK... so have several real things you've run across.  How is knowing it's got an aura of illusion on it proof that it's not real?).  


Jimlock said:


> as for...
> .
> 
> Don't worry, I got it. Thing is you keep on hinting how Magic Aura can save the day, and you keep on mentioning Magic Aura alongside with Figment spells.
> 
> No matter how many illusion auras you manage to put on actual things (a costly process in and on itself), figments will always register as illusions, no matter what you do, and PCs will always try to find what they are. ALWAYS. Even if they 've run into illusion-like traps in the past they will still examine things.



Oh, yes.  The other half of that is to cause time issues for them.  In the middle of a fight, if you can't immediately tell which golem is real and which isn't (as they both look the same under detect magic), which way do you run?  If you spend several rounds concentrating, then throw a pebble at one, you've already let the beast walk up to you and found out which one's real because it hit you.  This is the other reason for mixing with creatures.

Illusions are used in conjunction with real stuff, not in isolation.


Jimlock said:


> Now that it's CLEAR that your 88.000 Magic Aura's are worthless because they CANNOT be used with your Figments, lets see how many castings of Detect Magic the intruder(s) will have?



Ah... I never said you use them on figments.  You put them on real stuff.  In such a way as to get the intruders in trouble.

Sure, you do the Illusory wall over a pit.  Repeatedly; it's fun and cheap.  

You also do Phantom Trap on locks.  Repeatedly; it's fun and cheap.

But you also incorporate real traps with illusory auras on locks (Like, say, Phantasmal Killer).  You also make a few real traps look illusory via Magic Aura.  You also make a few locks with Phantom Traps look nonmagical.  You also have a few regular spell traps with Magic Aura to make them look nonmagical or illusory.

The rogue says doors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are trapped.

Detect Magic says doors 2, 4, 6, and 8 have illusory auras.

Which door do you pick when the golem starts charging you?



Jimlock said:


> ....Including scrolls?... or... wands?.... I know any sane player/caster has a few detect magic scrolls on him. They are extra cheap and easy to get.
> 
> or... the possibility of a permanent Detect Magic? I'm sure that we can allow the intruder a single 5th level spell... when he's dealing with a wizard who can cast spells up to 7th level.... right?
> 
> ...please... Detect magic is one minute per level. 10th CL X 3 = half an hour. In half an hour the intruder would have swiped the dungeon clean.



You're forgetting: Continuous concentration.  To get by with three castings, the wizard has to not be doing anything else (or sinking more resources... like that 500 xp... or one of a number of feats).  Oh, hey.  You're spending more resources than just a cantrip....


Jimlock said:


> Ohhh... come on Jack!!! I can throw flour at the damn thing! I can throw sand!! I can go ahead and touch it... barehanded or with a stick!!!! ....I can think of a 1000 ways of checking out the illusion without making a sound... do you really want me to spell them out for you?



And when you touch some of them, they blow up in your face, and set off alarms for the real critters to come.

You keep treating these things like they're in complete isolation....


Jimlock said:


> Not so.
> 
> First, different sound (quite easy to figure out).



D&D includes lots of door materials - including stone.  You can't rely on being able to tell from sound alone.


Jimlock said:


> Second, any other dust like ingredient would work just fine. Poking it with a stick or barehanded gets the job done without a sweat as well.



Remember what I said about traps buried under illusions?


Jimlock said:


> Third, no door is aligned with its adjacent walls. In most cases the peddle would disappear before hitting the door. Someone who's got his eyes fixed on the peddle (because he wants to see how the peddle reacts to the surface), will easily notice any such weird incident.



Have you ever run across a secret door?  They exist in D&D.  If they were noticeably off from the wall, why would you need a search check?

Doors can be made flush with walls.  It's not really all that difficult, even.


Jimlock said:


> Not really, any of the above methods will prove that the wall is not real, and then I can instantly see the door behind the translucent figment.



They'll also get you killed.







Jimlock said:


> See my previous post on how this happens by RAW.
> 
> 
> ....But all this discussion is pointless...
> it really is..
> because you are wasting resources, powerful spells... you are throwing everything you've got so as to counter a single cantrip.
> 
> You are even creating traps/illusions (again through heavy spellcasting) so as to counter Detect Magic attempts ONLY....
> ....and you never really get the job done... because once "something" is detected, people are gonna get interested in it... and sooner or later they will get to it, no matter how layers you put one on top of the other. And again... those layers cost time, spells and probably money... while detect magic costs nothing.



Again: Take a look at the cost of building a dungeon sometime.  It's far, far more than the equipage of the heroes that raid it.  Defense is much more expensive than offense.   By a LOT.  This is actually expected.


Jimlock said:


> PCs should be smart and come up with intelligent ways of revealing illusions in a dungeon... they shouldn't simply detect them. To me there is nothing fun or interesting in that.



Well, you're discussing feelings, now, which are inarguable.


Jimlock said:


> As mentioned countless times above the analogy is SO bad. The Illusionist has to spent A LOT (of spells...money..time) in order to make his illusions effective against a PC using the cantrip.



Yes.  See comments about tanks vs. tank-busting missiles.  That's expected, really.


Jimlock said:


> Meta game DMing? Really?



All DM's metagame.  It's part of the job.


Jimlock said:


> Wow... nice touch. Nice way to prove Detect Magic is not broken.



I'm starting to get tired of the sarcasm.


Jimlock said:


> I finally agree with this, although one could make a case that the subject is always the caster and that he casts it on one creature or object so as to get its aura...



Personal spells specify "you" in them.  Read, oh, Overland Flight as an example:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> This spell functions like a fly spell, except you can fly at a speed of 40 feet (30 feet if wearing medium or heavy armor, or if carrying a medium or heavy load) with average maneuverability. When using this spell for long-distance movement, you can hustle without taking nonlethal damage (a forced march still requires Constitution checks). This means you can cover 64 miles in an eight-hour period of flight (or 48 miles at a speed of 30 feet).



 (emphasis added).  Spells that can affect other people use the subject, the target, those within the area, or similar, instead.


Jimlock said:


> But the spell is much more fun with your reading... (probably the correct one, I admit)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk about chess... and more chess.... and more chess...
> 
> IMHO, what you don't realize is that the only one who has to play the chess is the illusionist.
> 
> The detector, does not not even know the basics of chess. He simply casts Detect Magic... or has it permanently on him for his convenience...



At an expense of 500 xp... sure.  Again: He's spent more resources, and defense is much harder than offense.  This type of thing is expected.

Edit: Oh yes:
Pebbles are free.
If I throw a pebble at everything, I know whether or not it's an illusion immediately.  I don't need Detect Magic _at all_.  Are pebbles broken?


----------



## Crothian

Do Wizards just go around casting detect magic on everything?  I can see that once you cast the spell you have a good chance of detecting a stationary illusion.  Is this constant detect magic really a problem at people's games like those Paladins that Detect Evil on everything I hear about (but never actually see in happen)?


----------



## Particle_Man

As stated earlier, a more serious problem would be 2nd level Warlocks, who can detect magic at will without any expenditure of resources (except, I suppose, time).  Kinda like playing chess but you get to instantly replace any pieces your opponent captures.


----------



## Greenfield

I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask the obvious question:  Were in the rules does it say that any physical contact with an illusion, be it a poke or a pebble, dispels it?

I've known people who played this way, but I'm not familiar with any place in the rules where it actually says it.

In earlier editions it said that an illusion was dispelled if it failed to react appropriately to contact, but let's think about that:  What's the appropriate reaction of a stone wall to being poked?  It stands there like a stone wall.  A statue?  The same.  A floor?  A bridge?  A table? The same.  So an illusion of pretty much any inanimate object was immune to the poke test.

So I'm asking if there's an actual current rule on the subject that says you can literally hand-wave away illusions.  I honestly don't know of one, but I could certainly be wrong.


----------



## Vegepygmy

Greenfield said:


> So I'm asking if there's an actual current rule on the subject that says you can literally hand-wave away illusions. I honestly don't know of one, but I could certainly be wrong.



PHB, pages 173-174: "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. A character who falls through a section of illusory floor into a pit knows something is amiss, as does one who spends a few rounds poking at the same illusion."

That's not exactly the same as what Jimlock is claiming the rule is, but most of the time there's no practical difference.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> Do Wizards just go around casting detect magic on everything? I can see that once you cast the spell you have a good chance of detecting a stationary illusion. Is this constant detect magic really a problem at people's games like those Paladins that Detect Evil on everything I hear about (but never actually see in happen)?



_I've_ never seen it happen.


----------



## Greenfield

I agree that if you fall through an illusory floor, you know it.

But that's a long way from "touch it and it's gone".  Many Illusions specifically say that they have a tactile element.  That is, they feel like something when you touch them.  That means you can touch them without immediately knowing that they're illusions.

Under _Major Image_, it says, and I quote...

"The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately."

What's the appropriate reaction for a stone wall when touched or struck?  It stands there like a stone wall.  Poke at an illusion of a stone floor?  Same thing.  It isn't until you actually try walking on it that reality overrides the illusion and you go through.

Again, if there's some other rule that we've both missed in this, someone please point me at it.


----------



## kitcik

Vegepygmy said:


> _I've_ never seen it happen.




Practically all cantrips in our campaign are used by Detect Magic.

Great before and after an encounter.


----------



## Crothian

kitcik said:


> Practically all cantrips in our campaign are used by Detect Magic.
> 
> Great before and after an encounter.




How do the players know an encounter is about to happen so that they can cast Detect Magic?


----------



## Greenfield

I used to run a cowardly Wizard, and we'd joke that he tried to cast _Erase_ every time he saw battlemat lines appearing on the ground, because they always showed up just as trouble was about to start.

Maybe that's how they know.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER

I mentioned it a few pages earlier, but it bears repeating.  

For those asking who would prepare a large amount of _Detect Magic_ spells each day...

Warlock gets _Detect Magic _as an at-will ability at level 2.  Regardless of what you guys decide how this goes, there is an entire class that will be able to exploit whatever it is you conclude.


----------



## Arrowhawk

Let me offer a different perspective, Jimlock.  You claim that the entire Illusion tree of magic is rendered useless by Detect Magic.   What if it is?

My response is to challenge your fundamental assertion that this is a bad thing or somehow wrong.  I see nothing wrong with the proposition that a 0 level spell is proof against a line of magic that is based on illusions.  Considering that most creatures and the majority of classes will not have detect magic at will, illusions will be very effective in many cases.  I have no issue with 1st level casters being able to protect their party from illusions.


----------



## Jimlock

Greenfield said:


> I agree that if you fall through an illusory floor, you know it.
> 
> But that's a long way from "touch it and it's gone".  Many Illusions specifically say that they have a tactile element.  That is, they feel like something when you touch them.  That means you can touch them without immediately knowing that they're illusions.
> 
> Under _Major Image_, it says, and I quote...
> 
> "The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately."
> 
> What's the appropriate reaction for a stone wall when touched or struck?  It stands there like a stone wall.  Poke at an illusion of a stone floor?  Same thing.  It isn't until you actually try walking on it that reality overrides the illusion and you go through.
> 
> Again, if there's some other rule that we've both missed in this, someone please point me at it.





Don't forget that Vegepygmy's quote from the PHB ends like this:

A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. A character who falls through a section of illusory floor into a pit knows something is amiss, *as does one who spends a few rounds poking at the same illusion*.

Now, you might try to argue that poking something for a few rounds is not the same as throwing a pebble at it....and I agree,  but this is where  pragmatism has to come in.

Please tell me, how you describe (as a DM) a pebble going through an illusionary wall to the player who threw it and is paying attention to the result.

?

Let me try:

_"The pebble just vanished into the stone... perhaps even faster than a hot knife cutting into butter. But the rocky surface did not react. Bizarrely, the sound of the pebble hitting on the stony surface was...late. It was heard only after the small piece of rock had disappeared into the cave's wall for good..."_

Now IMHO opinion this is a decent, impartial, description of the effect an attentative PC experiences.

Now in my book this is enough proof to disbelieve an Illusion. Even more, I think this is proof that the illusion isn't real, thus making the save worthless. But even if you argue that the PC does not have enough proof to know that the illusion isn't real (??? - I 'm wandering how you could sell that to the players - ???) and you allow for a save... The PC will eventually get to it, either by trying again, either by throwing bigger things... either by poking it at close distance... EVENTUALLY he will know for sure. 

....So much for a 6th - 5th - 4th level Illusion spell... and it all started because of a cantrip detecting it without a sweat.



As for your assessment based on that single line("The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately.") .... it's wrong. Let me clarify:

Silent Image
Illusion (Figment)
This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you. The illusion does *not* create sound, smell, *texture*, or temperature. You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect.

Minor Image
Illusion (Figment)
This spell functions like silent image, except that minor image includes some minor sounds but not understandable speech.

Major Image
Illusion (Figment)
This spell functions like silent image, except that *sound*, *smell*, and *thermal illusions* are included in the spell effect. While concentrating, you can move the image within the range.
_The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately._ (we'll come back later to what that means...)

Persistent Image
Illusion (Figment)
This spell functions like silent image, except that the figment includes *visual, auditory, olfactory, and thermal components,* and the figment follows a script determined by you. The figment follows that script without your having to concentrate on it. The illusion can include intelligible speech if you wish.

Permanent Image
Illusion (Figment)
This spell functions like silent image, except that the figment includes *visual, auditory, olfactory, and thermal elements*, and the spell is permanent. By concentrating, you can move the image within the limits of the range, but it is static while you are not concentrating.

Programmed Image
Illusion (Figment)
This spell functions like silent image, except that this spell’s figment activates when a specific condition occurs. The figment includes *visual, auditory, olfactory, and thermal elements, including intelligible speech.*
You set the triggering condition (which may be a special word) when casting the spell. The event that triggers the illusion can be as general or as specific and detailed as desired but must be based on an audible, tactile, olfactory, or visual trigger. The trigger cannot be based on some quality not normally obvious to the senses, such as alignment. (See magic mouth for more details about such triggers.)

Illusory Wall
Illusion (Figment)
This spell creates the illusion of a wall, floor, ceiling, or similar surface. It appears absolutely real when viewed, but physical objects can pass through it without difficulty. When the spell is used to hide pits, traps, or normal doors, any detection abilities that do not require sight work normally. *Touch or a probing search reveals the true nature of the surface,* though such measures do not cause the illusion to disappear.

-------------
-------------

Figment
A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.) Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the image produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like.

Because figments and glamers (see below) are *unreal*, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly.

-------------
-------------



Hallucinatory Terrain
Illusion (Glamer)
You make natural terrain *look, sound, and smell* like some other sort of natural terrain. Structures, equipment, and creatures within the area are not hidden or changed in appearance.

Disguise Self
Illusion (Glamer)
You make yourself—including clothing, armor, weapons, and equipment—*look* different. You can seem 1 foot shorter or taller, thin, fat, or in between. You cannot change your body type. Otherwise, the extent of the apparent change is up to you. You could add or obscure a minor feature or look like an entirely different person.

The spell does not provide the abilities or mannerisms of the chosen form, nor does it alter the perceived tactile (touch) or audible (sound) properties of you or your equipment.

If you use this spell to create a disguise, you get a +10 bonus on the Disguise check.

A creature that interacts with the glamer gets a Will save to recognize it as an illusion.

Mirage Arcana
Illusion (Glamer)
This spell functions like hallucinatory terrain, except that it enables you to make any area appear to be something other than it is. The illusion includes audible, visual, *tactile*, and olfactory elements. Unlike hallucinatory terrain, the spell can alter the appearance of structures (or add them where none are present). Still, it can’t disguise, conceal, or add creatures (though creatures within the area might hide themselves within the illusion just as they can hide themselves within a real location).

-------------
-------------

Glamer
A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, *feel*, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

-------------
-------------


...so out of all those illusions, only Mirage Arcana is safe from touch detection.... and even then it won't hold long if a character pushes forward with his investigation. One might be able to "feel" a Mirage Arcana effect, but the illusion is "unreal", and cannot support weight, which means that if stronger forces are applied on it's surface the illusion won't hold... and consequently it will reveal itself. 
As for:
"The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately." when read in context of all the above, it clearly refers to the casters reaction to make an illusion behave in a way that the false object/creature reacts as if it was actually hit by mundane objects/weapons. It refers to the possibility of imitating the illusion's reaction s in respect to the mundane environment around it.


----------



## kitcik

Crothian said:


> How do the players know an encounter is about to happen so that they can cast Detect Magic?




Try taking some ranks in Spot and Listen. It's the schnizzle.

Seriously, though, if you are in a mysterious room / area that somehow puts you on the alert - Detect Magic can often avoid a nasty surprise.


----------



## Greenfield

> As for your assessment based on that single line("The image disappears  when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react  appropriately.") .... it's wrong.



My "assessment" was a direct read from the rules.  

If you've decided that the rules, as written, are wrong, then there's no sense in a discussion of the rules.  I'll presume that that isn't where you wanted to go with that.

How many times do you normally have to poke a stone wall before it moves, bleeds, flinches or cries out?

Looking at the pebble trick:  How do people in the real world react to someone who's always throwing pebbles at everything?  Who in their right mind does that?

If someone is maintaining the illusion and you throw a pebble at it, they can let the real pebble go through while adding a real pebble to the illusion.  So what our persistent pebble thrower sees is...

"The pebble hits the wall and falls, pretty much the way you'd expect."

As long as the pebble stays in the area, it works.  For the lower level illusions that can only do one object, creature or force, it has to stay in contact with the wall to be incorporated into the illusion, which may look odd, but hey, it's a low level spell.

That brings up the one element that's always been missing from the rules:  How does a caster makes the illusion "react appropriately"?  How do you, as a DM, adjudicate that?

Someone hits the monster, it needs to bleed on cue, not too early, not too late.  Timing is critical or the illusion loses credibility. 

This, I think, is a crucial piece of the puzzle.  The caster certainly has to be in a position to see the pebble hit the wall, the sword hit the monster.  That means that they probably have to be present, and thus vulnerable to attack.

I used to use Reflex saves for that kind of timing issue.  Some I know have used Spellcraft.  But there's nothing actually written down, and I've watched over the years as people came up with more and more excuses to nerf Illusions.

Now, if the pebble-throwing and poking of everything is only in response to an Illusion already detected, we're talking about two completely different things.  You're trying to fight a battle that's already lost.

To address your original concern:  How/why does your party (or maybe your DM) greet everything they see with Detect Magic?  How do they have it always available and running?  

I used to play with a DM who used Detect Magic as the excuse for his monsters to spot every PC sentry on watch automatically.  Somehow they always knew when they were approaching a guard post so they knew when to cast it.

Like I said, I used to play with that DM.  I don't any more.  Unless a monster has the special ability "Telepathy with DM", it shouldn't be given to them.

Do the critters in your game have Telepathy with DM?  Or the automatic ability "Detect Impending Encounter"?  Do the PCs?  I doubt it.

From the sound of your original complaint, somebody isn't playing by the rules.  Whether it's throwing pebbles at everything, throwing spells constantly, or poking everything they see with a stick, they'll eventually run out of spells, or people will run out of patience with them.  Most people don't like getting poked, repeatedly, every time Mr. Paranoid shows up.

So if you're the DM, don't limit yourself to describing areas only when encounters are about to begin.  If the players are picking up on your illusions because they're able to see which scenes or areas are important, based on the fact that they're drawn out on the map or described by the DM, then the DM is doing something wrong.

If you're a player and every opponent comes into an area with Detect Magic up and running already, then find another DM.  Yours cheats.


----------



## Crothian

RUMBLETiGER said:


> Warlock gets _Detect Magic _as an at-will ability at level 2.  Regardless of what you guys decide how this goes, there is an entire class that will be able to exploit whatever it is you conclude.




An entire optional class that I've only seen played once since it came out (and that was by me because I wanted to try out the class) and have seen many DMs on the boards who flat out don't allow it.  If the problem is that Warlock can cast a 24 hour detect magic then I find the problem is with the warlock and not detect magic.


----------



## Dandu

> Looking at the pebble trick:  How do people in the real world react to  someone who's always throwing pebbles at everything?  Who in their right  mind does that?


----------



## Crothian

kitcik said:


> Try taking some ranks in Spot and Listen. It's the schnizzle.
> 
> Seriously, though, if you are in a mysterious room / area that somehow puts you on the alert - Detect Magic can often avoid a nasty surprise.




So, almost every room in a typical dungeon environment?  All it takes is two encounters like that to get rid of all of the Wizard's detect magics and 3 encounters for the Sorcerer.  One spell before the encounter and one spell after eats up spells really fast.


----------



## Jack Simth

RUMBLETiGER said:


> I mentioned it a few pages earlier, but it bears repeating.
> 
> For those asking who would prepare a large amount of _Detect Magic_ spells each day...
> 
> Warlock gets _Detect Magic _as an at-will ability at level 2.  Regardless of what you guys decide how this goes, there is an entire class that will be able to exploit whatever it is you conclude.



There's a number of ways to have what is effectively at-will Detect Magic, each of which costs a different set of resources.

Permanency + Detect Magic (500 xp, requires minimum level 9).
Persistent Spell + Detect Magic (this is actually the example used in Persistent Spell) (two feats - which are also used for other things - and a 6th level spell slot 1/day; usually doable at 11th).
Vatic Gaze (PHB II; requires arcane caster level 9 and a feat slot)
Magic Sensitive Reserve Feat (Complete Mage; requires a feat slot, the ability to cast 3rd level spells, and requires that you keep prepared (or know and keep a slot of that level avaialble) a Divination spell of 3rd+)
Warlock-2 (requires spending two levels on Warlock - which you mentioned)
Others (Custom items, wands, playing Pathfinder, certain funny races, et cetera).





Jimlock said:


> Please tell me, how you describe (as a DM) a pebble going through an illusionary wall to the player who threw it and is paying attention to the result.
> 
> ?
> 
> Let me try:
> 
> _"The pebble just vanished into the stone... perhaps even faster than a hot knife cutting into butter. But the rocky surface did not react. Bizarrely, the sound of the pebble hitting on the stony surface was...late. It was heard only after the small piece of rock had disappeared into the cave's wall for good..."_
> 
> Now IMHO opinion this is a decent, impartial, description of the effect an attentative PC experiences.



In certain cases, yes - specifically, in the case where there's exactly nothing on the other side of the wall, the person who put the illusion there isn't paying attention, and so on.  As noted by Greenfield, if the caster's there, the caster can cause the illusion to keep pace.

Additionally, if there's a solid surface behind the illusory wall (perhaps a door of similar material to the wall, which is flush with the wall, much like, oh, a car door), then the pebble makes about the right sound, bounces, and hits the floor.  Sure, you maybe get your interaction will save, but not proof.  And, of course, if the dungeon includes real traps, and you use Illusory Wall, Phantom Trap, and other things that would leave an aura of illusion a lot, many of which are specifically set up to draw prying hands to the real traps (others of which aren't), then anyone who tries to lay hands on everything that has an illusion aura is soon dead by attrition.

What's also fun is using Veil on incorporeal undead: "The pebble passed right through.  Must not be real.  Ignore it, keep looking for the illusiAUCH!"

There's other things you can do... it's just that when opposed, you need to get a little bit creative with what you're doing.  



Jimlock said:


> Now in my book this is enough proof to disbelieve an Illusion. Even more, I think this is proof that the illusion isn't real, thus making the save worthless. But even if you argue that the PC does not have enough proof to know that the illusion isn't real (??? - I 'm wandering how you could sell that to the players - ???) and you allow for a save... The PC will eventually get to it, either by trying again, either by throwing bigger things... either by poking it at close distance... EVENTUALLY he will know for sure.



So don't give them that time.  Arrange for consequences for poking every random thing.  

Really, this is a problem with illusions in general, and is irrespective of Detect Magic.  Someone who pokes everything because it might be an illusion isn't going to need Detect Magic to have this effect.  Arrange for poking random stuff to not be feasible.  Traps that react to being poked is one of the simpler methods.


Jimlock said:


> ....So much for a 6th - 5th - 4th level Illusion spell... and it all started because of a cantrip detecting it without a sweat.



A thrown rock would have detected it without a sweat, too, and saved you the spell slot, in as empty an environment as you appear to assume it's in.


----------



## Greenfield

I'm going to repeat an earlier suggestion:  Invent a new feat : Mask Illusion



> Prerequisite:  Illusion specialization, Spellcraft 5 ranks, Int 15 minimum
> 
> Benefit:  When casting visual illusions, you are able to include a "magical signature" in them so that they radiate some other school of magic when viewed with Detect Magic or Arcane Sight.
> 
> The caster must choose this aura at the time the illusion is created.  This illusion, like any other, can be penetrated if examined carefully.  The DM may call for contested Spellcraft rolls between caster and observer if the observer has reason to suspect that the magical aura is false.
> 
> The contested Spellcraft rolls are always called for if the caster attempts to suppress the magical aura entirely.



A feat like this allows the dedicated Illusionist to practice their craft without having to fear the first magical apprentice who comes along.


----------



## Dandu

Feat unnecessary


----------



## Jack Simth

Dandu said:


> Feat unnecessary



That only gets you creatures and objects, though... which, granted, gets you a very large number of illusion spells.  There are 47 Illusion spells in main section of the SRD; of those, only 16 produce an effect that meets the dual criteria of "knowing it's an illusion matters" and "can't be guarded via one or the other of those two spells".  Of those 16, one doesn't have a local effect (False Vision) and so it doesn't really matter as far as Detect Magic and it's ilk go.  Two don't have visual elements (Ghost Sound, Ventriloquism).  Two also affect a guard able creature (Mislead, Mirror Image) and creative use of  Magic Aura and Misdirection can be used so that knowing there's an illusion about doesn't really help.  So between Magic Aura, Misdirection, and some minor trickery, the only ones left as dead giveaways (out of 47 spells of the Illusion school in the SRD, mind), we have:

Hallucinatory Terrain
Illusory Wall
Mirage Arcana
Minor Image
Major Image
Silent Image
Permanent Image
Persistent Image
Programmed Image
Screen
Silent Image

11 spells that can be foiled via the cantrip in question.  And there's ways to make that difficult, too; if the entire area is covered in, say, Screen (or even just Hallucinatory Terrain), then the aura of illusion will be there, regardless of other considerations, and so you'll effectively white out Detect Magic, rendering it useless for the purpose of noting other illusions.  

Less than 25% of a school is an entire school, apparently, and a 4th level spell can fix even that (although you'll have to Heighten it for some of them, as you need the aura coating the big area to be at least as strong as the auras you're wanting to actually use).


Edit:
Come to think of it, Hallucinatory Terrain is probably the RAW counter needed, handling both Detect Magic and Arcane Sight (but not Greater Arcane Sight or True Seeing).  4th level spell, so grants everything in it's area a Moderate aura of Illusion (if you need to mask stronger auras, Heighten it to 7th).  Lasts 2 hours/level, and has a stupidly huge area (one shapable 30-foot cube per level.  Shapeable effects can squeeze down to ten foot cubes.  So that's effectively 27 10-foot cubes per level).


----------



## Greenfield

The spells are useful in a lot of cases.  In fact I modeled the proposed feat on Magic Aura.

The problem is, you can't cast the second spell while maintaining concentration on the first, so an awful lot of the Illusion spells can't be helped that way.

And of course you can't mask or substitute the aura of one object or creature with your illusion, since the illusion is neither an object nor creature.

As for "whiting out" the area with a broader illusion, it doesn't work.  _Detect Magic_ reveals the number, location and nature of all the magical auras in the area.  It sees right through your whiteout.

The illusion most likely to be encountered in a dungeon, of course, will be Permanent Image, which you can cast the second spell on (presuming it qualifies as an object or creature), but the masking spells aren't permanent and are unlikely to have survived the years since whatever it was that turned the place being explored into ancient ruins of the type that attract adventurers.

So you might be able to mask a very few illusions with the spells suggested, but I still think the feat is an appropriate solution.  YMMV, of course.


----------



## Jack Simth

Greenfield said:


> As for "whiting out" the area with a broader illusion, it doesn't work.  _Detect Magic_ reveals the number, location and nature of all the magical auras in the area.  It sees right through your whiteout.



Per Detect Magic


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras.




So just get it up to a category or two above the ones you're covering, possibly even using a completely different school of magic.  A Heightened Forbiddance, maybe, for something Permanent.

As to concentration: There's a spell for that in Spell Compendium: Sonorous Hum.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER

Arrowhawk said:


> Let me offer a different perspective, Jimlock.  You claim that the entire Illusion tree of magic is rendered useless by Detect Magic.   What if it is?
> 
> My response is to challenge your fundamental assertion that this is a bad thing or somehow wrong.  I see nothing wrong with the proposition that a 0 level spell is proof against a line of magic that is based on illusions.  Considering that most creatures and the majority of classes will not have detect magic at will, illusions will be very effective in many cases.  I have no issue with 1st level casters being able to protect their party from illusions.



I kinda think that would be a big deal and a bad thing.  
Neuters the Beguiler class quite a bit.  And such.
I do, however, think this is something that could be worked out between a DM and players, without needing this level of meticulous discussion.  But I get why Jimlock is concerned.

For example, while Player A is spending his 3 rounds narrowing down the details of what he's detecting, the DM can have a monster burst out of the illusionary wall and blow his concentration.  or a trap, or whatnot.


----------



## Arrowhawk

RUMBLETiGER said:


> I kinda think that would be a big deal and a bad thing.
> Neuters the Beguiler class quite a bit.




The funny think about this comment is that, imo, it underscores the problem with the tier system and how it is based on assumptions that are not necessarily true.   The reality is that since Detect Magic can be made permanent, there would be a whole truck load of individuals who deal with adventures and spell castes who would have had this cast upon themselves.  It would be like people who drive a tow truck....buying a winch.  

Yeah, there should be all kinds of things out in the real world with methods for detecting the use of magic and thus keeping magic and its use from so quickly dominating the world.

Probably a bit off topic here, but eh.


----------



## kitcik

Crothian said:


> So, almost every room in a typical dungeon environment?  All it takes is two encounters like that to get rid of all of the Wizard's detect magics and 3 encounters for the Sorcerer.  One spell before the encounter and one spell after eats up spells really fast.




Although back in the day (78 - early 80s), there was such a thing as a "typical dungeon environment," I find this is not the case in games today. Also, zero level spells are pretty plentiful.

With 2 casters in the party, we easily have enough Detect Magics for a typical day's worth of events.

As a non-caster, I have a hand signal that quietly requests a DM be cast. I make that signal a lot.


----------



## Particle_Man

Crothian said:


> An entire optional class that I've only seen played once since it came out (and that was by me because I wanted to try out the class) and have seen many DMs on the boards who flat out don't allow it.  If the problem is that Warlock can cast a 24 hour detect magic then I find the problem is with the warlock and not detect magic.




Well if you think 2nd level Warlocks are broken (and how often have I heard that one), you must really be upset with Pathfinder.  Every single major spellcaster (so not including Paladins or Rangers, but including Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards, as well as the Advanced Players Guide classes Inquisitors, Oracles, Summoners, and Witches (but not Alchemists)) in Pathfinder can cast DM as often as they want, assuming it is on their spell-list.

So the solution is, lessee, not ever play Pathfinder, ban the Warlocks, and make Illusionists work much harder than any other spellcaster in order to actually make their illusions work.  

Heck, I might just say that illusion auras detect as another random aura unless the caster level of DM is higher than the caster level of the illusion.  

Turning it around, don't a lot of Monsters have detect magic as an at will ability?  Should they be banned too?


----------



## Greenfield

Two Wizards in the party would mean something like 8 _Detect Magic_ available per day.  No extra Cantrips for high stats after all.  Clerics get up to 6 zero-levels a day, as do Sorcerers, so 12 is about tops with two casters.

Presume median level (10th or 11th), that's about two hours of DM per day.  If you allocate them per room, you'll go through a _Detect Magic_ per room while Searching for secret doors and hidden traps.  It's not that the spell won't outlast a Search check, but between one thing and another you'll probably spend 10 minutes per room, presuming no encounters.

If you allocate them per encounter (which presumes that you know when and where there will be encounters), and you throw them before and after, that's 6 encounters a day, presuming you don't waste any on anything but encounters.  Like, searching for magical traps and treasures in halls or non-encounter rooms.  Oh, and don't forget using it to look for illusory walls, floors, doors all the way through.

Oh, and since the caster must concentrate to maintain the spell, it means that they won't be casting any other prep spells for the encounters, nor will they be doing much in terms of Spot or Listen checks as they go.  The rules say that while maintaining concentration you can't use any other skills that call for it.  Like listening intently, looking around for trouble, etc.  -5 for "distracted" is the best they could manage I'd imagine.  They're going to get caught by surprise a lot whenever the "surprise" is non-magical, or comes from anyplace other than that 60 foot cone in front of them.

So your "enough for all day" either presumes that you only explore for two hours a day, only have 6 encounters, or check maybe a dozen rooms and or halls in a day's exploring.

Out doors, where there aren't neatly framed and contained rooms, your group's _DM_ ability will peter out before your morning coffee break.

Of course, you could burn higher level spell slots for the zero-level spells.  That can extend your capacity quite a ways, perhaps all the way until lunch.  It will cripple your ability to do anything other than see trouble coming, but that's the trade off you get to make.

What you seem to be describing is a world where your character has advanced warning of when there will be an encounter, when _Detect Magic_ will be called for.  If your PC lacks that special insight then it doesn't seem to be nearly as casually available as is being described.

Oh, and contrary to the "Just go and buy the ability" suggestion, it's not a permanent ability you can just go out and buy.  It can be made permanent, but a caster can't make it permanent on someone else, only on the caster.  See _Permanency_.


----------



## Dandu

I think this topic has been done to death. What we need now is a new topic complaining about how Rogues get to find traps ALL DAY LONG.


----------



## Jimlock

Jack Simth said:


> Which, really, is the way to go with traps.  Any trap in an occupied area, realistically, needs a simple way to get past it for the people who occupy the area.  Whether that's a trap that won't hurt them (fire subtype critters with fire-based traps, undead and negative energy traps, cold subtype critters and cold traps, attuned Symbol spells, properly aligned Forbiddance zones, et cetera), a simple way to bypass it (a key, password, et cetera), or knowing what to ignore (which door to not try and open, where the illusion is located, and so on).  Without one of those (or perhaps something similar), the occupants will fall for them, and get killed.




Its one to be able to find a way around a trap, and another thing to parade before traps. With Detect Magic this parade is highly possible.




Jack Simth said:


> 1) Defense is harder than offense in general; this holds true in D&D as well.  A (Greater) Dispel Magic + Quickened Suggestion (possibly via Rod) is hard to defend against, for instance, and can very easily take down the Fighter who was depending on that Third Eye Conceal so that he wouldn't need to make Will saves vs. Murdering the party.




I don't get this_ "defense is harder than offense in general"_. It's actually the other way around. Offense is and should be harder.
Brazil Vs Germany (soccer) in Brazil... means that Brazil has the advantage, and not the other way around. The defender is the one with the "bonus."
Its harder to score a goal than to make sure you don't get a goal.
And IMO it holds true in all aspects of the game as well... with some exceptions... such as this one (detect magic).



Jack Simth said:


> 2) In a dungeon, sure.  But then, consider: Have you ever stopped and calculated the costs of all those traps, all those doors, the walls, the tunnels, and all that treasure in a dungeon?  Seriously; try it sometime.




This logic is beyond me. Just because dungeons are "naturally" expensive and, because of that you get to fill one with all sorts of expensive defensive mechanisms without some scenario to support the budget and reasons behind a dungeon's existence does not make a cantrip balanced in respect to that.



Jack Simth said:


> A modern tank costs several hundred thousand to build.  A tank-busting missile costs several thousand to build.  You do the math.




Not so I'm afraid.

Lets zoom out and see the big picture here.

Country A invades Country B. If both countries are of the same power, Country A loses. It's as simple as that. In order to win in the offense you need this extra something.
This stands true for everything in life.
-War
-Sports
-Games
-Diplomacy
....

Adventurers in a dungeons bring expensive magical items, their wits, and put their lives in danger so as to achieve their goal. And this concept gets really cheesy if you can parade in a dungeon with detect magic.





Jack Simth said:


> 3) That was specific to a dungeon.  In a city, I don't need to worry about it - just my own illusion auras, which go away with one casting of Misdirection (or possibly Nondetection), which lasts pretty much all day.  If you're depending on Detect Magic to locate the assassin coming in disguise to hurt the king?  Well, I just Misdirect myself, and I no longer register as magic.  I walk blithly on by your checkpoint, murder the king, and leave.  Or maybe I giggle as I use the spell on someone important, so that they register as having an illusion aura... and you then interrogate them (or kill them, if you're not thinking sneaky) and now have the issue that you've ticked off someone important.




Not so easy as you describe it. Far from it actually.

The assassin will only get rid if his "personal" aura. He will not get rid of the auras of all the magical items he certainly carries with him.
You'll probably need a bunch of Magical Aura Spells or scrolls, one for every magical item you carry so as to have some CHANCES of not being detected by the cantrip...

...which brings us back to the point where I say that its too demanding to try and counter the cantrip...




Jack Simth said:


> I never said you could.  Seriously.  Look back through my posts.  You don't make the aura on the real illusions go away.







Jimlock said:


> again, it only applies to person or item. Majority of Illusions can't benefit from this.






Jack Simth said:


> That's because you're not used to playing chess in this manner. The basic method above for Phantom Trap? There's related methods (using Magic Aura, Misdirection, or both) that work for Illusory Script, Illusory Wall, Disguise Self (and related), Invisibility (and related), and even the Image line. OK, yes, it's really tricky to make a Minor Image not register as illusory.







Jack Simth said:


> Illusions are used in conjunction with real stuff, not in isolation.




Exactly. Illusions are used in conjunction with real stuff, and they shouldn't rely on a bunch of other spells so as to be effective.

Having to cast a minimum of three spells (one of which might be up to 6th level) so as to counter a cantrip is utterly pathetic.

And again. Even with all those spells you just get better chances... it's not a bulletproof defense system... and we know that the game has plenty of bulletproof defenses that are a lot cheaper than having to cast a combination of spells so as to counter a cantrip.





Jack Simth said:


> You're forgetting: Continuous concentration.




So? You are out of battle. You walk and detect... whats the big deal?



Jack Simth said:


> (or sinking more resources... like that 500 xp... or one of a number of feats).




500xp.... really is N-O-T-H-I-N-G compared to the benefits. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.




Jack Simth said:


> Remember what I said about traps buried under illusions?




Remember what I said about casting plenty of spells, spending money, time and misc resources in order to defend yourself against a cantrip?



Jack Simth said:


> Have you ever run across a secret door?  They exist in D&D.






Jack Simth said:


> I'm starting to get tired of the sarcasm.




.........



Jack Simth said:


> All DM's metagame.  It's part of the job.




??

Murders happen everyday. Its part of why life is a b***h. So?


I'd prefer a DM who has balanced illusions somehow, than a DM who will metagame on me on purpose because I use Detect Magic a lot.

Makes sense right?





Jack Simth said:


> If I throw a pebble at everything, I know whether or not it's an illusion immediately.  I don't need Detect Magic _at all_.  Are pebbles broken?




lol...  What kind of argument is that?

I have repeatedly mentioned that you get to throw the pebble ONLY AFTER YOU HAVE DETECTED AN ILLUSION WITH DETECT MAGIC. You don't throw pebbles at everything you come across.

+ you can poke it, touch it or throw some powder on it.... if you want to remain silent.


----------



## kitcik

Greenfield said:


> So your "enough for all day" either presumes that you only explore for two hours a day, only have 6 encounters, or check maybe a dozen rooms and or halls in a day's exploring.
> 
> What you seem to be describing is a world where your character has advanced warning of when there will be an encounter, when _Detect Magic_ will be called for.  If your PC lacks that special insight then it doesn't seem to be nearly as casually available as is being described.




How many encounters do you have per day?

Six is more than we have EVER had with any DM in like 15 years.

Yes, we used to have that many back in the dungeon-crawl days as I described in my prior post, but people don't seem to do that any more.

I would say 1-4 encounters per day is normal, and with 2 casters we have enough DMs to waste some and still buff and be ready...

Is this good? Not necessarily. Honestly, I liked the old days better. But that's what I see from DMs today - and I work too many hours to take over the screen. Ahh well. Detect Magic it is, then.

Oh, and [MENTION=85158]Dandu[/MENTION] , forget Rogues. It's those damn elves and their continuous Detect Secret Doors that is B-R-O-K-E-N.


----------



## Empirate

Jimlock said:


> I don't get this_ "defense is harder than offense in general"_. It's actually the other way around. Offense is and should be harder.
> Brazil Vs Germany (soccer) in Brazil... means that Brazil has the advantage, and not the other way around. The defender is the one with the "bonus."
> Its harder to score a goal than to make sure you don't get a goal.
> And IMO it holds true in all aspects of the game as well... with some exceptions... such as this one (detect magic).




Quite apart from the topic at hand (which has indeed been discussed to death), I'll just have to say that neither D&D nor soccer work that way. In D&D, it's a well-established fact that defensive options have a hard time outweighing offensive options - especially when it comes to winning an encounter. Sure, you can expend your standard actions on ways to not get hit easily, but those won't win you the fight. Moreover, it's much better to take your opponents out before they do the same to you, due to the way D&D works: attack bonuses outstrip AC bonuses, lots of offensive effects have no save, no SR (or still have partial effects if a save is made), etc.

Similarly, in soccer you don't win games if you don't score goals. Germany, for example, has a weak defense, but a great offense. Hence their handy win over Brazil in August. The result was 3:2, but that doesn't reflect the fact how superior Germany played. Their weak defense still made two goals possible for B. - but never would B. have won the game the way they played.


----------



## Jimlock

Greenfield said:


> My "assessment" was a direct read from the rules.
> 
> If you've decided that the rules, as written, are wrong, then there's no sense in a discussion of the rules.  I'll presume that that isn't where you wanted to go with that.




Yes, but you deciphered it the wrong way. No harm done. You have to read it in respect to all related spells and illusions. I believe I cleared that up in my post where I put all the spells together and highlighted what they do. No offense intended.




Greenfield said:


> Looking at the pebble trick:  How do people in the real world react to someone who's always throwing pebbles at everything?  Who in their right mind does that?




The one who takes a walk into a dungeon with Detect Magic On. He throws pebbles whenever he detects illusion. Simple and fast.




Greenfield said:


> As long as the pebble stays in the area, it works.  For the lower level illusions that can only do one object, creature or force, it has to stay in contact with the wall to be incorporated into the illusion, which may look odd, but hey, it's a low level spell.




Hmm... I don't think this is the case:

Silent Image
Illusion (Figment)
Level:	Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components:	V, S, F
Casting Time:	1 standard action
Range:	Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Effect:	Visual figment that cannot extend beyond four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level (S)
Duration:	Concentration
Saving Throw:	Will disbelief (if interacted with)
Spell Resistance:	No
This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, *as visualized by you*. The illusion does not create sound, smell, texture, or temperature. You can move *the image* within the limits of the size of the effect.

A vase is an object. A broken vase (in parts) is still a vase as visualized by me. Any object, creature, or force, as visualized by me, has the possibility of coming in as many parts as I want. It's entirely up to the imagination of the caster. The only limit of the spell is its capable volume. Other than that you can "Imagine/Visualize" anything you want in it and call it a force, a creature it or an object... as visualized by you.

PHB p173, under figment:

For example, it is possible to use a _Silent Image_ spell to create an illusory cottage, but the cottage offers no protection from rain.

Now a "cottage" is a small simple house, a dwelling, comprised of many objects. A cottage is not a "single object" It has doors windows, a roof... smoke coming out of the chimney...
So... since you can specifically make a cottage with a Silent Image spells, this means that the:  visual illusion of *an* object, creature, or force is not to be deciphered so strictly, cause otherwise a cottage would not have been possible. The real limit of the spell is its volume. Inside that volume you can visualize whatever you want.

Moreover, the rest of the Image-line spells are based on Silent Image, and their text never mentions any changes in respect to what you can do. They only keep on adding senses and alter durations, but the logic behind the visualization remains the same.




Greenfield said:


> That brings up the one element that's always been missing from the rules:  How does a caster makes the illusion "react appropriately"?  How do you, as a DM, adjudicate that?
> 
> Someone hits the monster, it needs to bleed on cue, not too early, not too late.  Timing is critical or the illusion loses credibility.
> 
> This, I think, is a crucial piece of the puzzle.  The caster certainly has to be in a position to see the pebble hit the wall, the sword hit the monster.  That means that they probably have to be present, and thus vulnerable to attack.
> 
> I used to use Reflex saves for that kind of timing issue.  Some I know have used Spellcraft.  But there's nothing actually written down, and I've watched over the years as people came up with more and more excuses to nerf Illusions.
> 
> Now, if the pebble-throwing and poking of everything is only in response to an Illusion already detected, we're talking about two completely different things.  You're trying to fight a battle that's already lost.




Very good points. Personally I don't use Reflex saves or Spellcraft checks for that. Considering that the caster is concentrated on the illusion I give him full control of the illusion as long as he is not flat-footed in respect to what is about to happen.

RC, on page 121 says that: A figment’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier......




Jack Simth said:


> So don't give them that time.  Arrange for consequences for poking every random thing.




Another metagame logic I'm totally against.

I'd rather fix illusions than rush players into something. Makes sense?

It's funny how you throw everything there is in order to make Detect Magic look less broken... I hope you understand this...


First you propose infinite combinations of spells, you name "Wizards' chess game", infinite resources... and then you propose metagame solutions....
just so that you don't have to admit that Detect Magic is broken in respect to the Illusion school.




Greenfield said:


> I'm going to repeat an earlier suggestion:  Invent a new feat : Mask Illusion




Not that I don't like your proposal... Its just that this is close to how I think Illusions should work in the first place... without the need of an extra feat... and no matter if you are a specialist or not.






Jack Simth said:


> That only gets you creatures and objects, though... which, granted, gets you a very large number of illusion spells.  There are 47 Illusion spells in main section of the SRD; of those, only 16 produce an effect that meets the dual criteria of "knowing it's an illusion matters" and "can't be guarded via one or the other of those two spells".  Of those 16, one doesn't have a local effect (False Vision) and so it doesn't really matter as far as Detect Magic and it's ilk go.  Two don't have visual elements (Ghost Sound, Ventriloquism).  Two also affect a guard able creature (Mislead, Mirror Image) and creative use of  Magic Aura and Misdirection can be used so that knowing there's an illusion about doesn't really help.  So between Magic Aura, Misdirection, and some minor trickery, the only ones left as dead giveaways (out of 47 spells of the Illusion school in the SRD, mind), we have:
> 
> Hallucinatory Terrain
> Illusory Wall
> Mirage Arcana
> Minor Image
> Major Image
> Silent Image
> Permanent Image
> Persistent Image
> Programmed Image
> Screen
> Silent Image




aren't you forgetting 

Disguise Self?
Veil?
All the "Invisibility" ones?
Mirror Image?

What's your point? 

How many spells does Detect Magic have to screw so that we can finally call it broken in respect to illusions?




Greenfield said:


> So your "enough for all day" either presumes that you only explore for two hours a day, only have 6 encounters, or check maybe a dozen rooms and or halls in a day's exploring.




Don't forget about scrolls. Detect Magic scrolls are extra cheap.




Dandu said:


> I think this topic has been done to death. What we need now is a new topic complaining about how Rogues get to find traps ALL DAY LONG.





Funny you mentioned that... lets see:

A thief takes 2minutes (20 rounds) in order to properly *search a single 5 ft square.*

...and he has plenty of chances of failure..

A caster with Detect Magic can search an entire area in just a few rounds, has 0% miss change to see all auras (which for a lot of cases is more than enough)... and finally gets to roll so as to identify schools of magic... and lets face it... DC 15 + spell level is pretty easy for mid level casters.


----------



## Crothian

Particle_Man said:


> Well if you think 2nd level Warlocks are broken (and how often have I heard that one), you must really be upset with Pathfinder.




And you'd be wrong.  

I like Pathfinder much better then 3e.  The mistake you made was assuming I'm on the side of the argument that feels Detect Magic defeats Illusions and that it is a problem.  I'm not.  It's not a problem I've ever seen in a game.  And since it took 11 years for me to see a thread on it for 3e I doubt it really is a problem for many people who play the game.


----------



## Crothian

kitcik said:


> Although back in the day (78 - early 80s), there was such a thing as a "typical dungeon environment," I find this is not the case in games today.




Based on the modules published for the game I think there is.  And the definition of that is extremely broad just having to be mysterious in some way.


----------



## Jimlock

Empirate said:


> Quite apart from the topic at hand (which has indeed been discussed to death), I'll just have to say that neither D&D nor soccer work that way. In D&D, it's a well-established fact that defensive options have a hard time outweighing offensive options - especially when it comes to winning an encounter. Sure, you can expend your standard actions on ways to not get hit easily, but those won't win you the fight. Moreover, it's much better to take your opponents out before they do the same to you, due to the way D&D works: attack bonuses outstrip AC bonuses, lots of offensive effects have no save, no SR (or still have partial effects if a save is made), etc.
> 
> Similarly, in soccer you don't win games if you don't score goals. Germany, for example, has a weak defense, but a great offense. Hence their handy win over Brazil in August. The result was 3:2, but that doesn't reflect the fact how superior Germany played. Their weak defense still made two goals possible for B. - but never would B. have won the game the way they played.




I understand that we see this from different perspectives.

You can't judge things by taking into account the possible outcomes of an encounter... only.

The effort, resources, risk of death and power required to initiate an offensive action has to be taken into account as well.

Weighting offense and defense is not a simple _"villain's spell Vs PC's spell"_.

It's not the dungeon's cost Vs the PCs.

Its the cost of the dungeon in respect to what it keeps secret inside it, in respect to the resources/money a king spends so as to send a party to investigate, in respect to the party's worth, in respect to the possible death of whomever enters that very dungeon.... and so on.

So once you've gathered all the facts for any given situation, you'll find that the offensive action requires more effort, power and resources.


----------



## Empirate

Why should I take all that into account? In any given D&D fight, offense still beats defense nine times out of ten. Isn't that what matters?


----------



## Jimlock

Crothian said:


> It's not a problem I've ever seen in a game.  And since *it took 11 years for me to see a thread on it* for 3e I doubt it really is a problem for many people who play the game.




*Really????*

Let's see what comes up with a 1 minute google search.....


http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/30138-detect-magic-vs-illusion-spells.html

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/195946-detect-magic-illusion-spells.html

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/39331-spellcraft-detect-magic-vs-illusions.html

Candlekeep Forum - Detect Magic and Illusions/Invisibility

Spellcraft, Detect Magic, and Illusions [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Detect Magic CANNOT Detect Invisibility!!!!!!! [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

paizo.com - Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Archives / Detect Magic: My GM Hates It

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/48002-detect-magic-illusions-invisibility.html

Detect Magic and Illusions? - DnD Online Games

..................

............

.......


----------



## Jimlock

Empirate said:


> Why should I take all that into account? In any given D&D fight, offense still beats defense nine times out of ten. Isn't that what matters?




No, why do think this is what matters?

Defense is a notion, not simply a counter spell.

A fireball can be cast defensively.

I don't get where you are going with this.

In my experience with D&D... the "defender" of any given situation (where two opposing forces are close in terms of power) is the one with the advantage. The offender always risks more.

Try "protecting" a house with a party against a certain CR of monsters,

And then play it the other way around... meaning that this time, the monsters are in the house and the party goes in.

Every time the defender has the advantage.


----------



## kitcik

Crothian said:


> Based on the modules published for the game I think there is. And the definition of that is extremely broad just having to be mysterious in some way.




Now that you mention it, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Back in the day, we played a lot of modules, which are generally dungeon-based.

Now, for whatever reason, we play almost 100% DM-created adventures, which have only the occasional dungeon crawl.

I guess it may be a difference in me and the people I play with (although they have changed numerous times over the years) more so than in the published game itself.


----------



## kitcik

Jimlock said:


> No, why do think this is what matters?
> 
> Defense is a notion, not simply a counter spell.
> 
> A fireball can be cast defensively.
> 
> I don't get where you are going with this.
> 
> In my experience with D&D... the "defender" of any given situation (where two opposing forces are close in terms of power) is the one with the advantage. The offender always risks more.
> 
> Try "protecting" a house with a party against a certain CR of monsters,
> 
> And then play it the other way around... meaning that this time, the monsters are in the house and the party goes in.
> 
> Every time the defender has the advantage.




I'm coming in late to this and don't really want to be part of the underlying discussion, but just to clarify, I think the idea is:

High DPS + forcing a lot of save-or-screwed + no save debuff spells

>>>

High AC / HP + good saves + etc.


----------



## Empirate

That, but not only that. Attacking has the intrinsic advantage of choosing when, how and where to strike. Due to how buffing etc. work, and due to the many ways in which an 'attack' in whatever sense of the word can be conducted, this is a huge _attacker's _advantage. Sure, if the objective is to take/keep a specific place or item, the "where" is covered. But in D&D, it simply binds up so many resources to defend against every possible avenue of attack, that the attacker has a fat chance of choosing a workable method of attack.

Just fortifying a place against teleportation and divination is extremely complicated and costly, while the corresponding methods of attack are comparatively cheap. Getting a place made out of unbreachable material is likewise nigh impossible. Traps are very expensive. Etc. And each of those only cover one thing you have to guard against.

A quick, well-prepared one-shot takedown is hard to defend against in D&D - and this holds true regardless of the dimensions you're looking at: tactical (e.g., trying to protect the BBEG in an encounter) or strategic (e.g., trying to protect a castle vs. attack).


EDIT: I'm not sure where this discussion is going; it certainly leaves the topic of this thread. If you don't like it here, say so, and I'll leave off.


----------



## Crothian

Jimlock said:


> *Really????*
> 
> Let's see what comes up with a 1 minute google search.....




Over react much?  I said I don't recall seeing a thread on it not that one didn't exist.


----------



## Particle_Man

Actually, we could turn this around and see what happens.  Let's assume a house rule where detect magic cannot detect any form of illusion magic.  The up-side would presumably be that one could be a more effective illusionist.  A down-side would be that certain magic items would be undetectable by detect magic (you would need something more beefy, like identify).

Ok.  In a campaign with this house-rule, do illusionists rule the roost?  Are PCs absolutely screwed when going up against the evil illusionist lich?  Are PCs with an illusionist in the party going to casually defeat everything, making the DMs tear their hair out?


----------



## airwalkrr

I am going to embellish here a little bit to bring things into perspective.

*How a ****ing saving throw exterminates an entire school of magic. NO MORE OF THAT!*
So a 1st level wizard casts charm person on an orc and the orc rolls a natural 20 on his saving throw. WHAT? The spell is completely wasted!

But this isn't limited to charm person. Oh no. Try casting charm monster, dominate person, sleep, deep slumber, dominate monster, and oh so many other enchantment spells. A successful saving throw just completely ignores the spell! OMFG! A 28th level wizard with a 36 Intelligence can cast an epic enchantment on the orc and he rolls a natural 20 and bam! Spell wasted.

Saving throws are obviously unbalanced and need to be fixed.[/hyperbole]

This is all situational. Detect magic is not an at-will ability. Even its older siblings arcane sight and greater arcane sight are not at-will abilities. It isn't like every caster is walking around with an infinite ability to detect magic. Even spells made permanent by a pemanency spell can be dispelled (and if you play higher level games where permanency is an option this is bound to happen sooner or later). Usually the caster needs a fairly good reason to cast detect magic in the first place. Maybe a tunnel stops when a map indicates it should be continue. Whatever the case, there are certain conditions that need to be met in order for detect magic to reveal an illusion, the most important of which is that the character with the detect magic spell needs a good reason in the first place to suspect an illusion, that is, if the illusion hasn't caused damage already. If you step on an illusory floor covering a 30' deep pit with spikes at the bottom you have already suffered the ill consequences and know there is an illusion there one way or the other. The illusion served its purpose. So what if you can use detect magic to find the illusory floor now that you have eleven spikes protruding through your body? And if you have time to stop and cast detect magic every 60', you are wasting a lot of time. I hope there isn't a damsel in distress at the bottom of the dungeon whose time is slowly ticking away. And detect magic is simply not an efficient way to sort out illusions during combat, period, especially at higher levels. You just don't have time to sit around for 3 rounds to narrow down what is an illusion and what isn't. Rounds 1 and 2 aren't generally going to help in a lot of situations anyway because often there will be other magic auras in the area.

So detect magic can detect the presence of an illusion. That's a given. The fundamental issue here then is whether this is a game balance issue. I contend it is not. Detect magic is a limited range, limited duration, limited resource spell that takes a significant amount of in-game actions to actually fulfill its potential. And the notion that it negates the use of the entire school of magic is preposterous. Only a handful of illusions are really of the nature that they will be subject to a detect magic spell in the first place.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Particle_Man said:


> Ok.  In a campaign with this house-rule, do illusionists rule the roost?  Are PCs absolutely screwed when going up against the evil illusionist lich?  Are PCs with an illusionist in the party going to casually defeat everything, making the DMs tear their hair out?



The interaction giving a Will save would still apply, and so most illusions would either be ones that the caster would set up to deter opponents without causing them to directly interact with them, or (as apparently a lot of people run illusionists as being pretty stupid), there'd be Will saves all over the place.

Since this is the way it runs at many tables -- including mine -- especially back in the pre-3E era when Detect Magic was a precious commodity, I'll chime in and say that illusionists don't come to dominate things. Characters will be skeptical and will investigate things possibly more than they do in 3E and 4E (10' pole, anyone?), but I don't see that as a bad thing.


----------



## Jimlock

Empirate said:


> EDIT: I'm not sure where this discussion is going; it certainly leaves the topic of this thread. If you don't like it here, say so, and I'll leave off.




It's not that I disagree with what you say... but we ARE saying different things here...

I'm sorry if I came out strong, ...and with all honesty I had/have no intention of making you leave the thread.

I value your opinion on this forum even though we seem to disagree on this one.


...When I said "I don't know were you 're going with this"... I meant it in a sense that I could not figure out the point you were trying to make in respect to the debate.

I say this because I don't think that the Illusion school is offensive or defensive... nor is detect magic.

Both the cantrip and related detection spells, as well as a large number of illusion spells (the representative/characteristic ones actually), are used outside of battle, in situations where there is neither an offender or a defender.


----------



## Jimlock

Particle_Man said:


> Ok.  In a campaign with this house-rule, do illusionists rule the roost?  Are PCs absolutely screwed when going up against the evil illusionist lich?  Are PCs with an illusionist in the party going to casually defeat everything, making the DMs tear their hair out?




No. 

They will not be broken. They will regain some of their lost prestige but they'd definitely stay bellow conjurers and transmuters... again.


----------



## Particle_Man

Well, if no one would have a problem with the house rule that slightly nerfs detect magic (so it doesn't detect illusion magic) and some think that it would help the game with that nerf, then that sounds like a pretty good house rule.  I will try it when next I am DM and see.


----------



## Tovec

The problem isn't detect magic, it is the illusion spells. Fix the school, the cantrip is fine.


----------



## airwalkrr

I still don't see where there is a real problem at all. At least half of the illusion spells in the core rules are combat spells or spells that have applications in combat. In combat, detect magic isn't going to help most of the time (try using detect magic on color spray), and in the cases where it might help, you'd have to be desperate. In the case of the vast majority of illusion spells in the game, knowing that something is an illusion isn't going to make a difference. What it really comes down to is that detect magic can determine the illusory nature of a few effects at low-level that are really only intended to slow someone down in the first place.

Here's my own list of uses for illusions from the core rules that are NOT busted by detect magic:

*Ghost Sound* - This is mainly intended to be a momentary distraction. It can even be used to communicate over long distances.
*Color Spray* - This is an instantaneous effect.
*Silent Image* - Use it as a wall to block opponents' line of sight in combat for a regroup.
*Ventriloquism* - This is a distraction spell. Forcing someone to cast detect magic distracts them.
*Blur* - This is a combat spell.
*Hypnotic Pattern* - This is a combat spell. It can be used outside of combat to distract masses of people, but fascinated people aren't able to cast detect magic.
*Invisibility* - Who in their right mind turns invisible and stands around in the same spot for three rounds when a spellcaster is nearby?
*Magic Mouth* - This is used to impart information. Who cares if detect magic can tell its an illusion?
*Minor Image* - That wall you used to cast at 1st-level is now a big ogre who bellows threateningly. A distraction is all it needs to be.
*Mirror Image* - This is a combat spell. Even if one character can tell which images are illusions, they shift from round to round and you have to concentrate on detect magic to keep it up.
*Displacement* - Think of this as Greater Blur.
*Invisibility Sphere* - See Invisibility.
*Major Image* - What was once an ogre is now a fire-breathing dragon. A distraction is all it needs to be.
*Greater Invisibility* - See Invisibility.
*Phantasmal Killer* - This is an instantaneous effect.
*Rainbow Pattern* - See Hypnotic Pattern.
*Shadow Conjuration* - This might be an instantaneous effect. Even if it isn't and the subject disbelieves, it is still 1/5 real.
*Dream* - This spell sends a long-distance message to someone who is sleeping (i.e. incapable of casting detect magic).
*Nightmare* - See Dream. Anyone who is sleeping isn't casting detect magic.
*Persistent Image* - Suddenly that fire-breathing dragon can move around without you directing it. While your foe is casting detect magic, you are killing him with other spells.
*Shadow Evocation* - Many evocations are instantaneous, particularly the ones you'll probably end up using with this spell. Even if they aren't, they are still 1/5 real.
*Mislead* - See Invisibility, only this time the subject has no reason at all to believe you are invisible in the first place.
*Permanent Image* - That dragon can guard your stronghold. How many people are going to be willing to get within 60 ft of it in the first place?
*Programmed Image* - Often used to convey information under specific circumstances, in which case it doesn't matter if you know its an illusion.
*Shadow Walk* - This is a fast travel spell.
*Mass Invisibility* - See Invisibility.
*Project Image* - While a caster wastes three rounds determining the image is an illusion, the image has cast a fireball, a lightning bolt, and a cone of cold for good measure all while the REAL caster is hiding safely 230+ ft away.
*Greater Shadow Conjuration* - See Shadow Conjuration.
*Simulacrum* - Okay, so you've figured out my minion is an illusion. He's still a pretty darn good minion.
*Scintillating Pattern* - See Hypnotic Pattern.
*Greater Shadow Evocation* - See Shadow Evocation.
*Shades* - See Shadow Conjuration, only on steroids.
*Weird* - This is an instantaneous effect.

A gnome illusionist using nothing but the core rules can own this game with illusions.

This thread, busted.


----------



## kitcik

airwalkrr said:


> I still don't see where there is a real problem at all.




If there wasn't a problem, this entire, eight-page thread would be meaningless.

Therefore, there must be a problem.


----------



## Particle_Man

Tovec said:


> The problem isn't detect magic, it is the illusion spells. Fix the school, the cantrip is fine.




Ok, what is your fix for the illusion school that is better than "Detect Magic doesn't detect illusions"?


----------



## Particle_Man

One area where it would be a problem would be disguise type glamours.  If jack is disguised as the king and is detected as illusion magic, then "king" giving orders suddenly is wayyy less effective as a PC (or NPC) con.  Similarly with simulacrims of the king.

Another would be where one is trying to set up one's opponent for a surprise attack on them (frex, either scare them away from the "ogre" so they fall into a pit/run into invisible bad guys, get set up for the area of effect of a fireball), or have them rush towards the "orc guarding juicy treasure" so they fall into a pit (etc., etc.)).  Also, simple disguises for traps (an illusory wall that conceals a spear trap, or an illusionary floor over a pit, for example).  DM stops both of these.  DM at will stops these all the time.

Also, re: Shadow Conjuration, 1/5th combat value is not that effective, especially since you are already behind the Summon Monster X curve as you only duplicate lower level spells with Shadow Conjuration and its ilk.


----------



## Tovec

Particle_Man said:


> Ok, what is your fix for the illusion school that is better than "Detect Magic doesn't detect illusions"?




*cracks knuckles*

What if Illusion spells recreated effects from other schools such as conjuration, evocation, transmuatation, enchantment, etc.
Anything from the illusion school which doesn't fit as a replicated effect (I'm looking at invisibility and alike) then put them under a different school such as enchantment.
Then to realize it isn't real it is a DC same as now. If trying to determine through some other measure it isn't real they must pass the save DC all the same. IF this is still too low then make it an opposed caster check.

I guess the short form would be it is thought to be something other than illusion unless the person using detect magic passes the save, even with DM.


----------



## Jimlock

airwalkrr said:


> This thread, busted.




Why don't you go on and read the thread first, because what I make from your comments and attitude, its as if you haven't read any of it.



airwalkrr said:


> In the case of the vast majority of illusion spells in the game, knowing that something is an illusion isn't going to make a difference.




Here, we care about illusions. We love them and believe that greatness CAN be achieved through Illusions.



airwalkrr said:


> What it really comes down to is that detect magic can determine the illusory nature *of a few effects at low-level* that are really* only intended to slow someone down* in the first place.




WHAT? low level effects????

PLEASE airwalkrr read the thread first before coming out like that...

ONLY to slow someone down?

Sorry to sound like a prick, but this sounds SO narrow minded and seems like it comes from a mouth of a strictly combat-loving player. And your list proves it.

Illusions have hundreds of applications.

If you disagree, we can start a new thread and I can start writing some of them down for you.


----------



## Jimlock

Tovec said:


> *cracks knuckles*
> 
> What if Illusion spells recreated effects from other schools such as conjuration, evocation, transmuatation, enchantment, etc.
> Anything from the illusion school which doesn't fit as a replicated effect (I'm looking at invisibility and alike) then put them under a different school such as enchantment.
> Then to realize it isn't real it is a DC same as now. If trying to determine through some other measure it isn't real they must pass the save DC all the same. IF this is still too low then make it an opposed caster check.
> 
> I guess the short form would be it is thought to be something other than illusion unless the person using detect magic passes the save, even with DM.




check out my OP. I 've listed a few probable houserules... tell me what you think


----------



## Dandu

Your idea of what is broken in this game is very much different from my idea... and quite possibly others as well.


----------



## Jimlock

Sure, but isn't that what forums are about? Difference of opinions?


----------



## Dandu

And listening to others, yes.


----------



## Jimlock

...and I'm listening and replying accordingly, yes.
Listening does not mean I have to agree with whatever I listen too.

What's your point?

As you can see, I'm not the only one who believes there is some "glitch" here.


----------



## Dandu

You listen, but I am not convinced that you hear.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER

I think I'm agreeing with Jimlock, having read through this thread a few times.

The issue is not "In what ways can we use Illusions more complexly, more creatively, with extra precautions or with application of feats to get around _Detect Magic"_.

The issue is not "Can _Detect Magic_ interfere with illusion spells?" The answer seems to be solidly, "yes it can with a noticible amount of them.

The issue appears to be that a level 0 spell can seriously interfere with many spells of significantly higher level, and that seems unballanced, therefore someone who cares about and enjoys the use of Iluusions spells is bothered by this.

...And the rest of this thread has derailed from the OP.

...or so this conversation appears to me. I'm ok with being wrong.


----------



## Dandu

> The issue appears to be that a level 0 spell can seriously interfere  with many spells of significantly higher level, and that seems  unballanced, therefore someone who cares about and enjoys the use of  Iluusions spells is bothered by this.



I think the counter argument is "only if you let them analyze something for three rounds, which is not necessarily something they will have the luxury of doing."


----------



## Tovec

Dandu said:


> I think the counter argument is "only if you let them analyze something for three rounds, which is not necessarily something they will have the luxury of doing."




GAH, they need to change the XP rules so I can salute you again Dandu.

Otherwise, that is EXACTLY the argument.


----------



## Jimlock

Dandu said:


> You listen, but I am not convinced that you hear.




And I'm not convinced that you understand the extent of the problem, especially for those who like using illusions outside of battle where the 3 round process makes no difference.




Dandu said:


> I think the counter argument is "only if *you* let them analyze something for three rounds, which is not necessarily something they will have the luxury of doing."




is that *you* the DM?

are you giving the same metagame advice Jack has been giving a few pages now?

Cause if you are, ...honestly I find it absolutely useless to answer to that...



Permit me to provide you with a different perspective.

People whine about the enchantment school. They continually claim (especially the optimizers) its an almost useless school, for when people get Mind Blank... or a related ability... or a magical item based on that... the entire enchantment school is useless against them.

I agree that Mind Blank is broken in respect to the enchantment school... and a lot of people agree on that.



> Mind Blank is an *8th level spell*, and still people complain about how it breaks the game in respect to enchantment.
> 
> Detect Magic is a *0 level spell* and it still gets to break the game in respect to illusions.




Is the analogy clear now?


A for the argument that Detect Magic takes 3 rounds... I'm kind of tired listening about that... why?

1)Detecting the presence of auras happens in the 1st round.
In A LOT of cases, knowing that there is magic somewhere in the cone is more than enough. Subsequent rounds is just a process that doesn't impede the investigation. No one is in SUCH a hurry when investigating a dungeons,  a room, a castle etc etc... those two more rounds are not gonna make the difference.
Moreover, this little info you get on the first round can prove valuable even during combat, even against invisible enemies.


2)A lot of people address the matter, in respect to combat *ONLY*, hence they start arguing about the 3 round process.
The "Image" line, and all the other spells mentioned in this thread find uses OUTSIDE of combat.
In fact I use, (and know plenty of people who use) "Image" spells more outside of combat than during combat.

So the argument that the "Image" spells are for bringing illusory critters during combat only, therefore detect magic can't do much against it, is pointless...
cause if I was to calculate all uses of the "Image" spells, I'd say that this summoning Illusory critters technique, accounts for less that 5% of what you can do with such a spell overall.


----------



## Dandu

Careful now. Keep typing like that and you'll need another keyboard.



> Is the analogy clear now?





> Dominate Monster is a *9th level spell*
> Protection from Evil is a *1st level spell*



OH MY GOD PROTECTION FROM EVIL IS BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN!!!one!



> 1)Detecting the presence of auras happens in the 1st round.
> In A LOT of cases, knowing that there is magic somewhere in the cone is  more than enough. Subsequent rounds is just a process that doesn't  impede the investigation. No one is in SUCH a hurry when investigating a  dungeons,  a room, a castle etc etc... those two more rounds are not  gonna make the difference.



So using a 0th level spell slot and a lot of time to defeat illusions is bad... but using a 10 ft pole, some pebbles, and listening for echos to detect illusory walls is... good?



> Moreover, this little info you get on the first round can prove valuable even during combat, even against invisible enemies.



Wizard: I'm going to use my first round in combat to get a general idea of which direction the enemy is in instead of casting a spell to meaningfully affect the combat or use my snake/rat/bat familiar to smell/smell/blindsense for invisible opponents, or using a higher level spell that would do it in a much more efficient manner.
Fighter: I'm sorry, I'm supposed to be the dumb one in this party?


----------



## Vegepygmy

RUMBLETiGER said:


> The issue appears to be that a level 0 spell can seriously interfere with many spells of significantly higher level, and that seems unballanced, therefore someone who cares about and enjoys the use of Iluusions spells is bothered by this.



Yes, that is the issue. Or rather, it's whether those things are true (or to what extent they're true).

A 0-level spell _can_ (but is unlikely to) seriously interfere with many (or some, or maybe just a few) spells of significantly higher level (though what qualifies as "significantly" is totally subjective).

That seems unbalanced (to some, but doesn't bother others much at all).

Therefore, someone who cares about and enjoys the use of illusion spells (and thinks that the intelligent use of lower-level spells to defeat higher-level spells is "unbalanced" and problematic, even if it happens only rarely) is bothered by this.

Others who care about and enjoy the use of illusion spells (but _don't_ share those other opinions) are not bothered by this, and have a difficult time seeing why the others _are_ bothered by it.


----------



## Vegepygmy

Jimlock said:


> Mind Blank is an *8th level spell*, and still people complain about how it breaks the game in respect to enchantment.
> 
> Detect Magic is a *0 level spell* and it still gets to break the game in respect to illusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the analogy clear now?
Click to expand...


No. Perhaps if you used a larger font?


----------



## Jimlock

Vegepygmy said:


> No. Perhaps if you used a larger font?




.


----------



## Jimlock

Vegepygmy said:


> Therefore, someone who cares about and enjoys the use of illusion spells (and thinks that *the intelligent use* of lower-level spells to defeat higher-level spells is "unbalanced" and problematic, even if it happens only rarely) is bothered by this.




Intelligent use?

What do you mean?

All you have to do is cast detect magic and walk in...

Detect Magic has no intelligent use... it has one use and that is casting it and looking around.


....If on the other hand you are referring to the "timing" as intelligent use, I think it has already been addressed in this thread that a normal party with a couple of casters and a few scrolls can cover an entire day's needs without a problem....

...not to mention permanency......


----------



## Jimlock

Dandu said:


> Dominate Monster is a 9th level spell
> Protection from Evil is a 1st level spell
> 
> OH MY GOD PROTECTION FROM EVIL IS BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN!!!one!




Hmm... I don't think that you could have found anything more irrelevant or out of context in respect to what I said... and to this discussion in general.. even if you had tried.

...but enjoy it if you must.



Dandu said:


> So using a 0th level spell slot and a lot of time to defeat illusions is bad... but using a 10 ft pole, some pebbles, and listening for echos to detect illusory walls is... good?




I think that this question/argument has been addressed already in this thread about 2 to 4 times... I think... Please go go back to those pages and find your answer.


----------



## Dandu

> Hmm... I don't think that you could have found anything more irrelevant  or out of context in respect to what I said... and to this discussion in  general.. even if you had tried.
> 
> ...but enjoy it if you must.



Allow me to rephrase it in a manner you may more easily comprehend: I find your paradigm to be flawed at a basic level.



> I think that this question/argument has been addressed already in this  thread about 2 to 4 times... I think... Please go go back to those pages  and find your answer.



Would you kindly provide a summary as you have so eloquently done for me just now?


----------



## Jimlock

Dandu said:


> I find your paradigm to be flawed at a basic level.




And I find your objections flawed as well.

...So... it seems we disagree.  

Won't be the first time, and probably not the last. No harm done.


----------



## Shadow_Tickle

I believe that the Detect Magic in Combat argument has been made in favour of it being unbroken. 

For more long term illusions though let's consider two scenarios:

1) Illusion Spell on a Person: Let's say your in a high level strategy meeting of your country / church etc. You decide to cast detect magic and everyone lights up like a christmas tree. (They all have magical items, some even multiple.) Let's say you concentrate for a bit and you find out that one person has the aura of Illusion Magic on them. DISPEL MAGIC away. Oops...you just dispelled the illusion hiding the big ZIT on the Baron's face. He is very displeased or you just revealed the King's secret bodyguard to all and sundry. Another possibility is that you just revealed that your friend/mentor is actually a half-elf in an elven hating nation and you've just hampered the one man who might make your case to the rulers or you had to take a third look to realise that the general now has brown eyes instead of grey because he was a bit vain and liked that colour more (a fact that is well known among his friends/society)   

As you said, there are lots of reasons to use illusion magic, revealing it's presence does not mean anything major over all.

2) In a building or dungeon, One thing I am puzzled with is that you said time is generally not an issue in your dungeons. Well then if time is not an issue then going very very slowly and carefully over every inch of a dungeon/building will get you through almost as well as detect magic. If time is an issue then detect magic is going to run out or be unfeasible for a fair bit of the time. (If your High-level enough to have permanent detect magic then your also high enough level for permanent versions of aura-concealing spells.)


----------



## Jimlock

Shadow_Tickle said:


> I believe that the Detect Magic in Combat argument has been made in favour of it being unbroken.
> 
> For more long term illusions though let's consider two scenarios:
> 
> 1) Illusion Spell on a Person: Let's say your in a high level strategy meeting of your country / church etc. You decide to cast detect magic and everyone lights up like a christmas tree. (They all have magical items, some even multiple.) Let's say you concentrate for a bit and you find out that one person has the aura of Illusion Magic on them. DISPEL MAGIC away. Oops...you just dispelled the illusion hiding the big ZIT on the Baron's face. He is very displeased or you just revealed the King's secret bodyguard to all and sundry. Another possibility is that you just revealed that your friend/mentor is actually a half-elf in an elven hating nation and you've just hampered the one man who might make your case to the rulers or you had to take a third look to realise that the general now has brown eyes instead of grey because he was a bit vain and liked that colour more (a fact that is well known among his friends/society)
> 
> As you said, there are lots of reasons to use illusion magic, revealing it's presence does not mean anything major over all.




Just because you provided two harmless examples, this does not mean that this stands for every case. In my experience, it is quite the opposite.

The detection of an Illusion could make the difference between the life and death of character, and can be decisive for even bigger things as well.

Think of espionage, think of hiding inside an illusion so as evade a stronger opponent... honestly... examples where the exposure of illusion magic can prove fatal and destructive are endless, and it all depends on what ends and means the magic was initially used for.




Shadow_Tickle said:


> 2) In a building or dungeon, One thing I am puzzled with is that you said time is generally not an issue in your dungeons. Well then if time is not an issue then going very very slowly and carefully over every inch of a dungeon/building will get you through almost as well as detect magic. If time is an issue then detect magic is going to run out or be unfeasible for a fair bit of the time. (If your High-level enough to have permanent detect magic then your also high enough level for permanent versions of aura-concealing spells.)




Honestly, can't you see the difference between walking + looking around (detect magic), *AND* searching (skill), touching surfaces, throwing pebbles etc etc...?


----------



## The-Random-NPC

Illusions are like cons, if you know that it is a con, it tends to not succeed, unless that is part of the con. If at all possible, you should engineer the situtation so that knowledge that the illusion is an illusion is completly irrelevent. For example, illusory floor cast on regular floors, pits and covered pits. At that point knowing that the floor is illusory is completly irrelevent because you don't know if there is a pit trap underneath. There should also be random illusory floors that look like pit traps so that anyone coming across them will waste time.


----------



## Particle_Man

Shadow_Tickle said:


> 2) In a building or dungeon, One thing I am puzzled with is that you said time is generally not an issue in your dungeons. Well then if time is not an issue then going very very slowly and carefully over every inch of a dungeon/building will get you through almost as well as detect magic. If time is an issue then detect magic is going to run out or be unfeasible for a fair bit of the time. (If your High-level enough to have permanent detect magic then your also high enough level for permanent versions of aura-concealing spells.)






False analogy.  There is often time for a Warlock to spend one round using DM as a spell-like ability.  If no magic is detect, the other 2 rounds don't need to be spent.  If magic is detected, it is worth-while to spend 2 rounds to discover what type of magic.  If illusion is detected as such, then the illusion is usually much easier to defeat.


----------



## Particle_Man

The-Random-NPC said:


> Illusions are like cons, if you know that it is a con, it tends to not succeed, unless that is part of the con. If at all possible, you should engineer the situtation so that knowledge that the illusion is an illusion is completly irrelevent. For example, illusory floor cast on regular floors, pits and covered pits. At that point knowing that the floor is illusory is completly irrelevent because you don't know if there is a pit trap underneath. There should also be random illusory floors that look like pit traps so that anyone coming across them will waste time.




So your solution is to make the illusionist do a heck of a lot of advance prep (which often only works for NPC stationary illusionists, rather than PC mobile illusionists).  My solution is to have DM fail to detect illusions, period.

I have yet to hear anyone say that my house rule would be a disaster for the game, or even in any way a bad thing (although I have seen one person come up with a more complicated alternative that they like, but which I see as roughly a mirror image of "DM doesn't work on illusions unless you make a DC will save vs. the spell).  I have heard people say it is a good thing.

So I think, if my house rule is seen by some as a good thing, and others as a neutral thing, and by no one as a bad thing, that this would solve the problem for those that see it as a problem.  Like, if some d20 game game out with my house rule, would people complain about the now-godlike power of illusionists?  So far, I haven't heard this.


----------



## airwalkrr

Jimlock said:


> Sorry to sound like a prick, but this sounds SO narrow minded and seems like it comes from a mouth of a strictly combat-loving player. And your list proves it.



I have one thing to say to this. If D&D (3e anyway) isn't intended to be a combat-oriented game then why does such a large proportion of the rules deal with combat? Virtually everything in the game is directed towards the eventuality of beating monsters and taking their stuff. Its right there in the title of the game: Dungeons & Dragons. Exploring dungeons, finding dragons (epitomized as the ultimate monster), then beating them and taking their stuff is the whole point of the game. And yes, there is no wrong way to play the game as long as you are having fun, but I feel its a waste of a perfectly good combat system if all you want to do is sit around and practice your extemporaneous acting skills. Again, nothing wrong with sitting around roleplaying and never picking up dice. But you don't need a rulebook to do that.

I read the thread. I got pretty tired of seeing overgeneralizations about the school of illusion and wanted to set the record straight. Illusions are a means to an end just like any school of magic. They serve to help you navigate the dungeon, beat the dragon, and take his stuff. A few might be a little more in the fluff area (like disguise self), but they are in the clear minority.


----------



## airwalkrr

Particle_Man said:


> False analogy.  There is often time for a Warlock to spend one round using DM as a spell-like ability.  If no magic is detect, the other 2 rounds don't need to be spent.  If magic is detected, it is worth-while to spend 2 rounds to discover what type of magic.  If illusion is detected as such, then the illusion is usually much easier to defeat.



The downside of this is that you had to pick warlock as your base class.







Particle_Man said:


> I have yet to hear anyone say that my house rule would be a disaster for the game, or even in any way a bad thing (although I have seen one person come up with a more complicated alternative that they like, but which I see as roughly a mirror image of "DM doesn't work on illusions unless you make a DC will save vs. the spell).  I have heard people say it is a good thing.



Just because it wouldn't be a disaster doesn't mean it is necessary. But if you are a DM and think detect magic is too powerful, but all means, do as you please. If this house rule satisfies you, then by all means, use it.


----------



## airwalkrr

kitcik said:


> If there wasn't a problem, this entire, eight-page thread would be meaningless.
> 
> Therefore, there must be a problem.



This "entire, eight-page thread" (now ten) is composed of mostly four or five people bickering the same point back and forth. Your argument is therefore null. When the thread hits 50 pages and has had just as many unique posters contributing on a regular basis then get back to me. But I estimate this thread is only going to end one of two ways. 1) Mods lock it, 2) people agree to disagree and go back to trying to prove people are wrong on the internet in other ways.


----------



## Gray Lensman

"You are the master architect. If a chart gives you a result that you don't like, throw the book out the window and make your own choices!"*World Builders Guidebook, 1996, TSR Inc.*

Gee, who wrote this and how old is it??? If you are a DM then it's YOUR world and Anything goes, this thread boils down to if you believe the above " or not.

QED


----------



## kitcik

airwalkrr said:


> This "entire, eight-page thread" (now ten) is composed of mostly four or five people bickering the same point back and forth. Your argument is therefore null. When the thread hits 50 pages and has had just as many unique posters contributing on a regular basis then get back to me. But I estimate this thread is only going to end one of two ways. 1) Mods lock it, 2) people agree to disagree and go back to trying to prove people are wrong on the internet in other ways.




Ironically, I was actually agreeing with you through the use of sarcasm on the thread. Sorry you took it the wrong way.


----------



## Particle_Man

Gray Lensman said:


> "You are the master architect. If a chart gives you a result that you don't like, throw the book out the window and make your own choices!"*World Builders Guidebook, 1996, TSR Inc.*
> 
> Gee, who wrote this and how old is it??? If you are a DM then it's YOUR world and Anything goes, this thread boils down to if you believe the above " or not.
> 
> QED




Although this is still a useful thread if someone said "hey here is a good house rule that solves what I see as a problem in my game" and others say "you know, that has been a problem in my game too, I think I will adopt a similar house rule."


----------



## airwalkrr

kitcik said:


> Ironically, I was actually agreeing with you through the use of sarcasm on the thread. Sorry you took it the wrong way.



Ah yes. The failure to use the /sarcasm tag. Understood.


----------



## Jimlock

airwalkrr said:


> I have one thing to say to this. If D&D (3e anyway) isn't intended to be a combat-oriented game then why does such a large proportion of the rules deal with combat? Virtually everything in the game is directed towards the eventuality of beating monsters and taking their stuff.




Easy answer: Because combat is the most complicated aspect of the game. Combat needs plenty of rules to be resolved properly, whereas almost every other aspect of the game is not so rules-dependant.

White Wolf, who beats both TSR and WotC 10 times out of 10 on all aspects of ROLE-playing, has combat rules as well, and it tends to be the most big and complicated chapter of their books. This does not make WOD games combat-oriented, far from it actually. I would suggest you try some of their games, cause they really are great, but seeing how you value combat over everything else I guess you wouldn't like it.



airwalkrr said:


> And yes, there is no wrong way to play the game as long as you are having fun, but I feel its a waste of a perfectly good combat system if all you want to do is sit around and practice your extemporaneous acting skills. Again, nothing wrong with sitting around roleplaying and never picking up dice. But you don't need a rulebook to do that.




You feel what? A waste of a combat system?

So what you are saying is that people have (only ?) two options:

1)They roleplay without rules and dice
2)They gather around for hack-n-slash sessions only, under the blessings of a "perfectly good combat system".

Well don't be surprised to find out that GREAT combat CAN be combined with GREAT roleplaying. You use the system/dice/rules when you need it to resolve the "drama"...while you roleplay everything else.
...Hell you can even roleplay during combat, even while using the combat-rules, as long you know them well enough so that they don't slow down your game.



Oh... and so as to be clear on one thing:

D&D isn't about combat, D&D is about *adventure*. Combat is a part of the adventure but not all of it.




airwalkrr said:


> I read the thread. I got pretty tired of seeing overgeneralizations about the school of illusion and wanted to set the record straight.




Did it ever occur to you, while reading through the thread, that these "overgeneralizations" as you call them, revolve around non-combat situations in the game? ...and that because of their (off-combat) focus do not "appeal" to your style of play... and thus you reject them as "overgeneralizations".

Permit me to make these assumptions, because the people who are SO against the idea that Detect Magic is broken in respect to Illusions, are people who (from what I make of them anyway...based on their words in this Forum) probably share your opinion of the game as being a combat game, optimizers included.

I have no intention of being judgmental on how people play the game. Surely you play what you like, the way you like it. No problem with that.
...But when it comes down to putting rules to the test... one has to be able to judge things from different perspectives, not simply through the lenses of his own game-style.

To be more precise, despite the fact that I brought fourth all those Illusion spells from post 1, explaining how various Illusions CAN be broken by detect magic in off-combat situations...

... a surprisingly big number of posters kept going back to that accursed "3 round process" claiming it as the reason DM is NOT broken. It was enervating really... 

_"but in order to... you need three rounds....", "it's stupid to lose 3 rounds....", "wasting 3 rounds so as to..."_

Why? because those 3 rounds... are indeed a big problem ... IN COMBAT...

So people filtered my question through their own gaming experience, and rightly so, but those SO focused on combat, fail to see the importance of the rest....
calling it either as "fluff"... or as "situationalisms" or as "overgeneralizations"...

but the point remains... that Illusions can find 100s of uses outside of combat, and those are the ones I'm more worried about.
...no ONLY about how difficult it is to see an invisible person in combat with DM.. 




airwalkrr said:


> Illusions are a means to an end just like any school of magic. They serve to help you navigate the dungeon, beat the dragon, and take his stuff. A few might be a little more in the fluff area (like disguise self), but they are in the clear minority.






What can I say... we use the same books but we play different games.


----------



## Greenfield

I have an idea.

Let's start a new thread that specifically addresses ways to "fix" the relationship between Detect Magic and the Illusion spells.

Y'know, just for the novelty of being on topic.


----------



## Crothian

Jimlock said:


> White Wolf, who beats both TSR and WotC 10 times out of 10 on all aspects of ROLE-playing, has combat rules as well, and it tends to be the most big and complicated chapter of their books. This does not make WOD games combat-oriented, far from it actually.




Now that is funny.  That's the cool aid that White Wolf of the 90's wants everyone to think.  It is not to say that there are no people that play White Wolf games emphasizing the role playing aspects of the game just like there are D&D groups that do that.  But there was also plenty of people that played WW games like dark superhero games.  Vampires and Werewolves had the power and they would min max those characters so badly to own combat.  Once the different kinds of werewolves and vampires came out I'd see all kinds of games at cons that was just combat.  

The writers of WW wanted it to be some big role playing and emotional experience but when the fans got a hold of the books they did what they wanted.  I've heard a lot of WW writers complain about people playing their game wrong.  When they used to come to Origins it was always entertaining to hear these guys talk about the fans of their games.


----------



## airwalkrr

Jimlock, I rather like you (at least what I've seen of you on these boards), but you are taking this way too seriously and personally. So back off and cool down first of all.

Second of all, if you don't think D&D is a combat-oriented game you don't have a very good grasp of the history of the game or the objectives of its designers past _and_ present. That is all I am going to say on that since it is way off-topic for this thread.

Finally, how you choose to play the game is up to you. I could sit back and pretend I'm puffing a cigar, drinking gin and tonic, wearing a fancy suit and a rolex and talk like a 1920s investment broker while I play Monopoly, but that doesn't change the fact that the rules of Monopoly govern the movement of pieces around a board and fake monetary transactions between players. What the rules are designed to do and how one plays the game are completely different things. But if you and your group decides that you don't like the fact that there is a Chance card that says Advance to Boardwalk in the game, you are free to throw it out. You won't be playing Monopoly exactly according to the rules, but you'll be having a good time. I think you already have your answer on how to deal with detect magic.

But take it down a notch, okay? Ease up on the hyperbole and maybe you'll get some more reasoned discussion. As it is, I think you've let this thread become enough of a flame war.







Greenfield said:


> I have an idea.
> 
> Let's start a new thread that specifically addresses ways to "fix" the relationship between Detect Magic and the Illusion spells.
> 
> Y'know, just for the novelty of being on topic.



A brilliant suggestion. And let's avoid thread titles with statements in all caps, exclamation points, and censored profanity.


----------



## Tovec

Particle_Man said:


> I have yet to hear anyone say that my house  rule would be a disaster for the game, or even in any way a bad thing  (although I have seen one person come up with a more complicated  alternative that they like, but which I see as roughly a mirror image of  "DM doesn't work on illusions unless you make a DC will save vs. the  spell).  I have heard people say it is a good thing.




I'm not sure of exactly which rule of which you speak but I like to prove people wrong.

*Tovec yells* Your rule would be a disaster.

You said you had to hear it. I think it is a disaster because I can see no reason why illusion spells should be special. If one school suddenly bypassed DM then others would come on here saying "why is illusion so special, shouldn't transmutations be included too" and so on.

If you dislike the interaction of DM or any [detect] spell then outlaw it from your game.



Particle_Man said:


> So I think, if my house rule is seen by some as a good thing, and others  as a neutral thing, and by no one as a bad thing, that this would solve  the problem for those that see it as a problem.  Like, if some d20 game  game out with my house rule, would people complain about the  now-godlike power of illusionists?  So far, I haven't heard  this.




Want godlike power for illusionists?

Gnome
Shadowcraft Mage - Races of Stone
Heighten Spell
Earth Spell
Signature Spell - FR campaign setting
-Spell Mastery as prereq
Arcane Disciple
-luck domain, miracle

I don't have the time to explain what all that does but it ends up with a 130%/65% effect when it comes to saves. Also an extended duration or effect if I remember correctly. It has been a while since I've seen it in play.

(Please note this is not my build, it is a friends I'm sorry if it is incomplete. I'll fix it/explain it later if need be.)



Jimlock said:


> Permit me to make these assumptions, because the people who are SO against the idea that Detect Magic is broken in respect to Illusions, are people who (from what I make of them anyway...based on their words in this Forum) probably share your opinion of the game as being a combat game, optimizers included.




You know what they say, when you make assumptions you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'mptions'.

Maybe you aren't counting me because I'm not SO against DM being broken. I am against it however. I am certainly not in the game for the combat nor an optimizer. I do see issue when a spell is suddenly defeated by a school of magic (if DM doesn't work against illusions).



> ... a surprisingly big number of posters kept going back to that  accursed "3 round process" claiming it as the reason DM is NOT broken.  It was enervating really...
> 
> _"but in order to... you need three rounds....", "it's stupid to lose 3 rounds....", "wasting 3 rounds so as to..."_
> 
> Why? because those 3 rounds... are indeed a big problem ... IN COMBAT...




Maybe the IN COMBAT part is important because a vast majority of rules deal with combat, as opposed to conversations.
Maybe three rounds matter when you are in a time-crunch or that you have to spend 3 consecutive rounds focusing on one thing.
Maybe it is because, as many on my side of the fence say, you only cast DM against illusions when there is a reason to believe them to be fake.

ps. I am ignoring Warlocks because I do consider Warlocks to be broken in their own right. Everyone else has limited uses of the spell or must concentrate to persist the spell more than 1 round at a time. Meaning the average person doesn't walk around with it constantly active but instead uses it when they need to instead.


----------



## Dandu

Tovec said:


> I'm not sure of exactly which rule of which you speak but I like to prove people wrong.
> 
> *Tovec yells* Your rule would be a disaster.



How can he _hear_ something that is typed out on a forum?


----------



## domino

You put your ear very close to the monitor.


----------



## Shadow_Tickle

Jimlock said:


> Just because you provided two harmless examples, this does not mean that this stands for every case. In my experience, it is quite the opposite.
> 
> The detection of an Illusion could make the difference between the life and death of character, and can be decisive for even bigger things as well.
> 
> Think of espionage, think of hiding inside an illusion so as evade a stronger opponent... honestly... examples where the exposure of illusion magic can prove fatal and destructive are endless, and it all depends on what ends and means the magic was initially used for.




I was going for more RP-heavy and less potential combat examples but certainly detecting illusion magic on a letter  (Espionage) you have been given is a potential problem, you might expose a cunning forgery or you might disable a magical version of a singing telegram. Your going to have to explain more on the hiding inside an illusion thing as I was going for non-combat examples. If you mean invisibility then don't stand still for so many rounds or just be prepered to vamoose out of sight once a caster begins shaking his/her arms about as a just in case.  





> Honestly, can't you see the difference between walking + looking around (detect magic), *AND* searching (skill), touching surfaces, throwing pebbles etc etc...?




*Shrug* Not really that different once time considerations have been removed, "Hey Charlie, go back to the village at the base of the castle and get a couple of guinea-pigs/goats/sacrificial animals would ya? The last animal just bought it when we sent him down those illusionary stairs." 

Another way is to buy a trained animal or even a magical with good senses and bring him along. The dog will detect air passing through the illusionary wall and go right on through. 



Particle_Man said:


> False analogy.  There is often time for a Warlock to spend one round using DM as a spell-like ability.  If no magic is detect, the other 2 rounds don't need to be spent.  If magic is detected, it is worth-while to spend 2 rounds to discover what type of magic.  If illusion is detected as such, then the illusion is usually much easier to defeat.




Not if your a clever bugger and place illusions over real items (Walls over walls seems to be a popular example.) To be honest though I have only had one or two games with Warlocks.


----------



## Particle_Man

Shadow_Tickle said:


> Not if your a clever bugger and place illusions over real items (Walls over walls seems to be a popular example.)




This sort of thing works a lot better with the NPC illusionist that has a lot of time to boobyt-rap his lair, but not so well for the PC illusionist that moves around with an adventuring party.


----------



## Particle_Man

Tovec said:


> I think it is a disaster because I can see no reason why illusion spells should be special. If one school suddenly bypassed DM then others would come on here saying "why is illusion so special, shouldn't transmutations be included too" and so on.




The DM would presumably reply "if a Detect Magic registers transmutation, the party still has work to do.  If a Detect Magic registers illusion, a lot of time the jig is up for the illusion having any chance of working.  Since I want illusions to have at least a chance of working, I will not allow a 0 level cantrip to detect them.  You will have to put a little more effort into it."

Note that DMs put in all kinds of house rules.  The question is not really "will the players see this as unfair" but more "will the players see illusions as now so powerful now that the entire party will be filled with illusionist wizards and illusion-loving sorcerers?"  The latter would, in my opinion, be a problem.  The former not so much.  With my party, I have done a lot more restrictive house rules and doubt I would get grief over a perceived unfairness with this one.



> Want godlike power for illusionists?
> 
> Gnome
> Shadowcraft Mage - Races of Stone
> Heighten Spell
> Earth Spell
> Signature Spell - FR campaign setting
> -Spell Mastery as prereq
> Arcane Disciple
> -luck domain, miracle




I and my players agree not to use builds from the Character Optimization boards, and I remember that there was a gnome very like this on those boards.  The question is not whether one can get an illusionist equivalent of Pun-Pun if one tries hard enough.  The question is whether the average illusionist now gets so much more powerful than, say, the average enchanter, the average conjurer, etc., as a result of the nerf to detect magic, that no other arcane spell-caster is considered, or (worse) no other character class is considered, as worthy of playing at all.




> ps. I am ignoring Warlocks because I do consider Warlocks to be broken in their own right. Everyone else has limited uses of the spell or must concentrate to persist the spell more than 1 round at a time. Meaning the average person doesn't walk around with it constantly active but instead uses it when they need to instead.




Ah, then it would be *you* that would really hate Pathfinder, since the 0-level spell Detect Magic becomes available at will to all the character classes that chose that cantrip/orison.

Incidentally, the Warlock, like the Mystic Theurge before him, really doesn't live up to the "OMG it is over-powered!" hype, by general consensus (again, check the CO boards).  A high-level Wizard will laugh at the high-level Warlock.  The Detect Magic at will is a good trick (hence this thread) but unless the game runs into way more than 4 encounters a day, the warlock will be behind the curve pretty soon.  Warlocks are more like a sorta magical archer.

p.p.s. I am leaning towards the DM instead of registering "nothing" registering "caster's choice of nothing or an appropriate school (like shadow conjuration registering as conjuration)


----------



## Dandu

What manner of scenarios are you envisioning for a PC illusionist?


----------



## Particle_Man

Let's start with: "The Con"

A nice old image spell with sound and all, so at least 2nd level, of the Mayor, Captain of the Guard, Merchant's son, etc., asking for the mook to give the keys to the city, merchant's goods, etc. to the illusion's "friend" (who is real) or to let another PC out of jail, there has been a misunderstanding, etc.

Sometimes that may work, if you don't give someone a reason to cast any spell at all.  But if there is any reason to be suspicious (captain of the guard releasing a prisoner we captured?) then if there is a 1st level wizard npc with the guards, the jig is up.


----------



## Dandu

What spell specifically is being used to create an illusion of the mayor?


----------



## Jimlock

Particle_Man said:


> Let's start with: "The Con"
> 
> A nice old image spell with sound and all, so at least 2nd level, of the Mayor, Captain of the Guard, Merchant's son, etc., asking for the mook to give the keys to the city, merchant's goods, etc. to the illusion's "friend" (who is real) or to let another PC out of jail, there has been a misunderstanding, etc.
> 
> Sometimes that may work, if you don't give someone a reason to cast any spell at all.  But if there is any reason to be suspicious (captain of the guard releasing a prisoner we captured?) then if there is a 1st level wizard npc with the guards, the jig is up.




Spot on.

Can't XP you any more for the time being...


----------



## Jimlock

Crothian said:


> Now that is funny.  That's the cool aid that White Wolf of the 90's wants everyone to think.  It is not to say that there are no people that play White Wolf games emphasizing the role playing aspects of the game just like there are D&D groups that do that.  But there was also plenty of people that played WW games like dark superhero games.  Vampires and Werewolves had the power and they would min max those characters so badly to own combat.  Once the different kinds of werewolves and vampires came out I'd see all kinds of games at cons that was just combat. The writers of WW wanted it to be some big role playing and emotional experience but when the fans got a hold of the books they did what they wanted.  I've heard a lot of WW writers complain about people playing their game wrong.  When they used to come to Origins it was always entertaining to hear these guys talk about the fans of their games.




Even so, White Wolf games are far less combat oriented than D&D is. And just because you can find munchkins and powergamers in every game out there, it does not make games equal in respect to combat orientation.

There are killers, rapists and cat burglars in every city, be that Zurich, London, Shanghai, Quebec City, Rio de Janeiro...

this does not mean that all cities share the same crime rate.

ATTENTION: There was no intention to make a parallel between criminals and powergamers. It was mere coincidence.

Judging from personal experience and from what I estimate by reading stuff on the web, D&D and White Wolf games are kind of like... black and white... and so are the average players of each system.







airwalkrr said:


> Jimlock, I rather like you (at least what I've seen of you on these boards), but you are taking this way too seriously and personally. So back off and cool down first of all.




Hey, I rather like you too, but that doesn't mean we have to agree, nor does it mean I take things personally just because I support my opinion. We're cool 



airwalkrr said:


> Second of all, if you don't think D&D is a combat-oriented game you don't have a very good grasp of the history of the game or the objectives of its designers past _and_ present. That is all I am going to say on that since it is way off-topic for this thread.




I will repeat my self

D&D is not about combat, D&D is about *adventure*.

As far as D&D history is concerned, I think that Gygax's early AD&D death-trappy mazes are a grand testimony of this "adventure" experience.




airwalkrr said:


> I could sit back and pretend I'm puffing a cigar, drinking gin and tonic, wearing a fancy suit and a rolex and talk like a 1920s investment broker while I play Monopoly, but that doesn't change the fact that the rules of Monopoly govern the movement of pieces around a board and fake monetary transactions between players. What the rules are designed to do and how one plays the game are completely different things. But if you and your group decides that you don't like the fact that there is a Chance card that says Advance to Boardwalk in the game, you are free to throw it out. You won't be playing Monopoly exactly according to the rules, but you'll be having a good time.




Again, sorry if it seems that I'm coming after you, but...

I don't think one can draw parallels between monopoly (or any other 100%-rules dependent board game) and D&D.

Monopoly has no flexibility, is not complicated, it's 1+1=2... its very simple, almost simplistic actually if it wasn't for the possibility of strategical choices the players can make.

D&D on the other hand is full of subjectivities, full of fluff and storytelling that can outweigh its very rules. And it's only normal... for a game that attempts to simulate real life.
Player and DM choices will sometimes require new rules, rules that were never written down because the possibilities are endless...
and at the same time, other choices, might lead to the breaking of the rules, in benefit of a better storytelling/roleplaying experience.

So when assuming a role in D&D... this roleplaying becomes the game.
It is not some decorative effect, so as to "spice things up" as you describe in your example of monopoly.


Again, I'm sorry if it seems that I'm coming after you, but I'm merely standing by what I believe for the game. That's all. No offense intended.

Don't forget that you are the one who claimed in one of your posts that "this thread is busted" and stuff... before even reading the thread, and I merely defended my views.


----------



## Shadow_Tickle

Particle_Man said:


> This sort of thing works a lot better with the NPC illusionist that has a lot of time to boobyt-rap his lair, but not so well for the PC illusionist that moves around with an adventuring party.




A bit confused here. If your talking about PC's then the only real time that I can forsee an illusionist going full out booby trapping a building is when they wish to protect their own homes or have been hired as bodyguards.

Another possible scenario I suppose would be if they were already in a dungeon trapped with enemies and used their own traps (covered/masked with illusions) against them but this would depend greatly on the dungeon layout.   



Particle_Man said:


> Let's start with: "The Con"
> 
> A nice old image spell with sound and all, so at least 2nd level, of the Mayor, Captain of the Guard, Merchant's son, etc., asking for the mook to give the keys to the city, merchant's goods, etc. to the illusion's "friend" (who is real) or to let another PC out of jail, there has been a misunderstanding, etc.
> 
> Sometimes that may work, if you don't give someone a reason to cast any spell at all.  But if there is any reason to be suspicious (captain of the guard releasing a prisoner we captured?) then if there is a 1st level wizard npc with the guards, the jig is up.




IMO, this would come down to:

1) How skilled the illusionist is at acting, which is a separate problem. 
2) What type of personality the "Captain" has. "You there, what are you doing waving your arms about/staring off into space? Help that stupid guard find his keys or I'll tell so&so that the reason his son spent so long in prison was because of you." Get in the dude's face, disrupt his concentration and poof, at very best they will know that you have a magical aura (have a magic item.)
3) What excuse they give. "Prisoner Transfer, hand him over to me so we can interrogate him." "The Mayor wants to speak with this one. Seems his daddy is a big shot."  

To be honest I don't see the problem with this one. Decent to Good acting required from PC is not a drawback. Heck, I'd ask for a disguise check to make sure the illusion is of decent quality.


----------



## Dandu

Particle_Man said:


> Let's start with: "The Con"
> 
> A nice old image spell with sound and all, so at least 2nd level, of the Mayor, Captain of the Guard, Merchant's son, etc., asking for the mook to give the keys to the city, merchant's goods, etc. to the illusion's "friend" (who is real) or to let another PC out of jail, there has been a misunderstanding, etc.
> 
> Sometimes that may work, if you don't give someone a reason to cast any spell at all.  But if there is any reason to be suspicious (captain of the guard releasing a prisoner we captured?) then if there is a 1st level wizard npc with the guards, the jig is up.



This strikes me as a poor example, as it is perfectly reasonable for the mook to ask for the Mayor/Captain of the Guard/whatever's signature/fingerprints/whatever on a document/waiver/form/whatever authorizing the release of whatever, in which case the illusion has now been foiled by basic bureaucratic procedure from a first level warrior instead of a first level wizard.


----------



## airwalkrr

Jimlock said:


> Don't forget that you are the one who claimed in one of your posts that "this thread is busted" and stuff... before even reading the thread, and I merely defended my views.



I don't know why you keep insisting I haven't read the thread before posting. I've been reading this thread from the start.


----------



## Particle_Man

Dandu said:


> This strikes me as a poor example, as it is perfectly reasonable for the mook to ask for the Mayor/Captain of the Guard/whatever's signature/fingerprints/whatever on a document/waiver/form/whatever authorizing the release of whatever, in which case the illusion has now been foiled by basic bureaucratic procedure from a first level warrior instead of a first level wizard.




Not fingerprints in medieval fantasy, surely.  

And I have seen cop shows where the sheriff says "let him go" and the cops just let a guy go, no paperwork needed.  Presumably this could also work in a fantasy medieval game.

If the place is that bureaucratic then we need help from the rogue with a good forgery skill, and a glamour rather than a figment, but could still whip up something.


----------



## Particle_Man

I note that pathfinder changes the skill needed to identify the spell school from spellcraft to knowledge arcana.  Presumably less people will have the latter than the former, so that somewhat weakens DM.  Interesting.


----------



## Tovec

Particle_Man said:


> The DM would presumably reply "if a Detect Magic registers transmutation, the party still has work to do.  If a Detect Magic registers illusion, a lot of time the jig is up for the illusion having any chance of working.  Since I want illusions to have at least a chance of working, I will not allow a 0 level cantrip to detect them.  You will have to put a little more effort into it."
> 
> Note that DMs put in all kinds of house rules.  The question is not really "will the players see this as unfair" but more "will the players see illusions as now so powerful now that the entire party will be filled with illusionist wizards and illusion-loving sorcerers?"  The latter would, in my opinion, be a problem.  The former not so much.  With my party, I have done a lot more restrictive house rules and doubt I would get grief over a perceived unfairness with this one.




The reason I say "why isnt transmutation" is because simply having illusions not register as illusions is a trait that no other school gets. Especially when many schools (or spells within them) don't have long durations and yet DM can still find (sometimes lingering) auras associated with them.

It is a 0 level spell that purposely ONLY gives you the ability to tell the difference between a spell being an illusion and it being conjuration (for example). The spell doesn't give a bonus, nor a free save, nor an automatic save against the school anymore than knowing the spell type that wizard is throwing at you is evocation and getting a bonus to your reflex save against fireball.



> I and my players agree not to use builds from the Character Optimization boards, and I remember that there was a gnome very like this on those boards.  The question is not whether one can get an illusionist equivalent of Pun-Pun if one tries hard enough.  The question is whether the average illusionist now gets so much more powerful than, say, the average enchanter, the average conjurer, etc., as a result of the nerf to detect magic, that no other arcane spell-caster is considered, or (worse) no other character class is considered, as worthy of playing at all.




I continually forget how badly sarcasm or tone in general comes off on forums. I was merely pointing out that illusionists can be VERY effective. What I gave you wasn't from the CharOps boards though it likely belonged there. It was a build a friend of mine used IN GAME and part of my lack of sympathy for illusionists.

The same "friend" ruined psionics, warblades and warlocks for me too.



> Ah, then it would be *you* that would really hate Pathfinder, since the 0-level spell Detect Magic becomes available at will to all the character classes that chose that cantrip/orison.




It seems I remember you making this allegation before and then (as now) the person said, "actually I love Pathfinder". I find it to be an excellent game, well tested and well balanced.

In pathfinder, casters seem to have something better to do with their time than constantly casting DM. They don't walk around town DM everything, they don't use it when first journeying into a dungeon, they don't have time to use it in combat. In fact they only ever seem to use it when identifying something when there is a reason to or when they need to figure out if an object  (equipment) is magical when it comes to loot. At all other times they have something better to do.



> Incidentally, the Warlock, like the Mystic Theurge before him, really doesn't live up to the "OMG it is over-powered!" hype, by general consensus (again, check the CO boards).  A high-level Wizard will laugh at the high-level Warlock.  The Detect Magic at will is a good trick (hence this thread) but unless the game runs into way more than 4 encounters a day, the warlock will be behind the curve pretty soon.  Warlocks are more like a sorta magical archer.



I've played a MT and yes he was lacking at the first few levels but only because he lost so much in multiclassing. When I played one at higher levels, about 15 until epic 21/22, he was amazing because he was a double caster. When MT is used in gestalting they are/should be outright banned.

When it comes to warlocks, they are very useful because of the amount of things they can just keep doing throughout a dungeon crawl or that they can UMD very effectively when in an urban setting. Both of these traits are only really useful at lower levels when their power isn't stacked against the wizard using Wish.

Mind you, as I have repeatedly said, at higher levels wizards have many other spells that leave DM in the dust including true sight, arcane sight, see invisibility and permanency which make DM (and this issue) irrelevant. So perhaps your point was lost on me.



> p.p.s. I am leaning towards the DM instead of registering "nothing" registering "caster's choice of nothing or an appropriate school (like shadow conjuration registering as conjuration)




This was one of my suggestions a while ago but it only works if you re-examine the entire school of magic and fix it as a whole, DM has very little effect if the school was better.



Particle_Man said:


> Let's start with: "The Con"
> 
> A nice old image spell with sound and all, so at least 2nd level, of the Mayor, Captain of the Guard, Merchant's son, etc., asking for the mook to give the keys to the city, merchant's goods, etc. to the illusion's "friend" (who is real) or to let another PC out of jail, there has been a misunderstanding, etc.
> 
> Sometimes that may work, if you don't give someone a reason to cast any spell at all.  But if there is any reason to be suspicious (captain of the guard releasing a prisoner we captured?) then if there is a 1st level wizard npc with the guards, the jig is up.




Most everything I was going to say has been already talked about already. I just wanted to add...

The 1st level mage must have better duties than spend one of his three, ten minute maximum, *concentration* spells for no reason. If there is a reason then by all means. If the illusionist is defeated this will be the least of the reasons. Poor bluff check, poor excuse/lie, poor illusory double (wrong details), unfortunately bumping into someone, lack of proper information, uncooperative guards, guard captain, or even prisoner are ALL more likely to foil the illusionist than the off chance a 1st level wizard will happen to spend 3 rounds staring at the illusion and then making the spellcraft check to tell there is AN (which?) illusion at work for no reason.


----------



## Dandu

Particle_Man said:


> Not fingerprints in medieval fantasy, surely.



Surely.


> And I have seen cop shows where the sheriff says "let him go" and the cops just let a guy go, no paperwork needed.  Presumably this could also work in a fantasy medieval game.



Do you expect security to be lax enough to just let someone go on a person's word, but still strong enough to sweep them with Detect Magic?


----------



## Particle_Man

I think there is a slight disconnect between "fantasy medieval like in movies like the Princess Bride and book like Guards!Guards!" and "realistic medieval".  I don't expect guards in medieval times to look for fingerprints, even if they really did.  I expect more of a Terry Pratchett view of "we can't find any clues here, someone got their dirty fingers on it and left marks all over it" kind of medieval fantasy.  So in fantasy D&D I do expect a detect magic to come up -- I don't expect an "excuse me, do you have fingerprints?"  But that just means that our games differ, so fair enough.


----------



## Dandu

And as for requesting a signature when asking for a prisoner to be released?

The point I'm trying to make here is that if your illusion arouses suspicion, you're screwed, Detect Magic nerf or no. There are too many entirely reasonable things a suspicious person could do (or even a non-suspicious person who works in a place with strictly enforced rules regarding prisoner release) that would blow the con, hence I do not believe your example is a good one.

Feel free to come up with another in its place.


----------

