| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| wintermute27 |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 01:20:14
Recently I have been having a problem with the Detect Magic spell (3.5/PRPG) in my weekly Pathfinder game.
The issue comes up with things like invisibility and illusions. Going by how the spell is written, you can "see" an ongoing invisibility spell because of the faint aura it gives off, thus locating the general area of the invisible object or person using a simple cantrip. The same thing applies to things like permanent image and other advanced glamors.
How I've handled it so far is that I've house-ruled that the act of casting a spell creates a magic aura that begins to dissipate the moment casting is successful (or the caster breaks concentration for those spells that require that) and the aura fades as described. So a player casting an invisibility spell leaves a faint illusion aura behind where the spell was cast that lasts for 1d6 rounds. But this does not cover things like invisibility rings and other magic items that constantly emit magic auras.
Is there something that I'm missing? How do you other DMs out there handle this? Also, is there any Forgotten Realms specific lore about magic auras that I can integrate into how I handle this matter in the future? Any input on this would be much appreciated.
|
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Thieran |
Posted - 29 Mar 2011 : 00:09:34
You might also find this article (and other instalments of the same series) by Skip Williams on the WotC website useful: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040914a |
| Rhewtani |
Posted - 28 Mar 2011 : 21:35:58
I'm actually under the impression that detect magic was written as it is in 3E so that it does not trump invisibility. "Yes" you can find someone or something with it, BUT they would need to stand still for you to actually track them down and then all you have is their square, they still have the 50% miss chance.
I'll reiterate the point above that invisibility in no way "tricks" a person into not seeing you. 3E designers have been adamant on that.
I'm guessing if you really need to get around the slow inefficient means by which a person with detect magic can find you that there is some sort of spell that hides magic, right? |
| wintermute27 |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 13:18:44
The exact situation where this first came up was in the Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land 3.5 adventure module on p.53, room 10 of the Dread Lair of Alokkair. While the ranger in the group was inspecting the tracks on the ground, the wizard decided to take a moment to identify a dagger they found earlier, which in Pathfinder involves casting the Detect Magic spell. After a while, the group discovers the illusionary wall and the questions was raised, "Why didn't Detect Magic pick up on the spell aura of the illusion spell?"
In hindsight, I could easily have said that the magical distortions caused by the Grinding Gulf overpowered the aura and so the wizard didn't sense it, but that only handled this particular situation and I want to set a precedence for future uses of illusions. This discussion with my players led to the house rule above (casting leaves an aura while illusions themselves do not).
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
...3rd Round
The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each.
...
Detect magic appears to say magic is near, however does not appear will indicate location.
I really like the idea of them being able to sense the magic, but not where or what it is ("There is magic being used in this room, but you cannot tell where...") but I need some ammo to use against my rules-lawyery wizard PC. During the group discussion, he pointed out that the third round of Detect Magic tells the caster where each aura is, and only requires line of sight to identify the school of magic being used. So by his reasoning,he should have know that there was magic on that section of the wall a few seconds into identifying the dagger, whether or not he was looking at it, and by that argument, whether or not he could see it.
[EDIT: I just answered part of my own question. I forgot about the 60' cone area of effect. He would have to be facing in the right direction for this to work but the rest of the issue still stands.]
Does anyone know of examples where magical aura lore is described in either a sourcebook or a novel? It's been a while since my last read of Volo's Guide to All Things Magical, but I don't recall it being covered there. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 12:07:50
Per Kentinal, the Detect Magic spell can only give you the location on the magic aura by the third round of study. And, the area of effect on the spell is a 60' cone emanation. Put those two things together, and it gets hard to track an invisible opponent with the spell. Yes, the caster can detect that there is an aura in the effect, but won't be able to determine the nature or location of that aura before the invisible target either a) moves out of the caster's cone of emanation or b) closes with the caster and "does bad things to them". |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 11:49:23
Invisibility is a visual glamour, meaning it DOES NOT effect a viewers senses (like most Phantasms or Psionic Invisibility do,) but alters a creature or object so that their sensory qualities are altered.
Detect Magic relies on visual cues to identify aura types. Invisibility removes those cues. I agree with Kentinal: Detect Magic would reveal that some sort of magic is in the cone shaped area but would not reveal its exact location or that illusions are used. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 04:18:05
Hmm 3.5"You detect magical auras. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
1st Round
Presence or absence of magical auras.
2nd Round
Number of different magical auras and the power of the most potent aura.
3rd Round
The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura; DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + half caster level for a nonspell effect.)
Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras. "
vs.
"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. " It also should be noted is 2 level spell, that is weak aura.
The one conclusion I offer is that indeed magic could be detected, however more stronger auras of magic would more likely be sensed.
Detect magic appears to say magic is near, however does not appear will indicate location. |
| AleksanderTheGreat |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 02:45:51
Magic Aura can help a little.
Also, is Detect Magic a visual input? Because if it is (but I doubt it) then Invisibility conceals it, like everything else. |
| Knight of the Gate |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 02:45:14
I'm with Chamber on this one: Invisibility, after all, is an illusion. The affected individual is still there, but the mind is tricked into not seeing it. That is, despite the fact that the viewer's visual apparatus are receiving the information, his brain is not processing that info. Hence, while *detect magic* 'sees' the spell, as well as any magic on the invisible person, the viewer's mind *does not recognize it for what it really is*, as in most illusions.
EDIT: In other words: What Arik said, since his reply wasn't there when I first posted! |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 02:28:12
My interpretation:
Invisibility isn't automatically successful, it's just an illusion and it assumes the invisible character(s) are reasonably careful to not do anything which would make the illusion seem unrealistic or unbelievable. It's also sort of an "all-or-nothing" deal, you can't be partially invisible or just see segments of long polearms moving around by themselves. It also won't be effective if invisible characters move things around, bump into people, make lots of noise, carry a light source, or have a really pungent aroma.
As an illusion, it affects the viewer's mind. His detect magic spell can indeed sense the active invisibility magic, plus whatever other active magics or magical items might be carried. But (unless the caster is given some reason to disbelief or save vs the illusion) he is basically "blind" to invisible things, he subconsciously rejects/ignores them and directs his spell focus to "skip" onto other things. In short, detect magic alone is not enough to see through invisibility.
I basically assume that 2nd level invisibility requires at least 2nd level detect invisibility to penetrate. Basically, higher spell levels usually trump lower ones. There are of course all sorts of special rules about illusions in general and invisibility in particular ... you can always use smoke, water, paint, or a simple bag of flour to find invisible opponents. |
| chamber101 |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 02:04:45
I had the same problem but figured taht by the same logic, an invisible character carrying/wearing magic items could also be detected by detect magic. The fact that See invisibility exists as its own spell I have ruled that the invisiblity spell renders all auras invisible also. You would need see invisibility AND detect magic to read the auras on a character who is invisible.
THose are my thoughts |
|
|
