Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 ultimate_cap May 13, 2009 10:55:56	Just a general question, is everyone happy with the way Detect Magic works in 4e? It's alway bothered me that it's a skill now, and it also bothers me that the highter level something is, the harder it is to detect (should that be the other way around???). The way I've been running it is, if an arcane caster, with the skill trained, is detecting magic...I just let 'em detect the magic. Then, I give them the skill roll to identify the item. If they make the skill roll, great they can start using the item right away, otherwise they have to wait until an extended rest to identify. Any other thoughts on this? Any other different ways folks are running this?
#2 rovin May 13, 2009 11:00:33	I've never noticed a problem with the system as written. The level-scaling thing is probably mechanically neccessary to avoid making all the skill checks trivial. I suppose it wouldn't hurt anything to make ahouse rule that would allow the producer of a magical effect to make it "showy" rather than subtle, thereby subtracting the level from DC rather than adding it.
#3 vharuck May 13, 2009 11:05:44	I don't see the problem with it being tied to the Arcana skill. If a character has ranks in this skill, it's obvious he knows how a fair bit about magic. While he hasn't spent the focused effort and time in learning to shoot fire, it makes sense that a simple spell like detect magic is within his ability. So a rogue detecting magic, while not fitting to the classic tropes, is believable. I mean, if he studies information on arcane magic, why is it so wrong for him to practice easy arcane magic?
#4 ultimate_cap May 13, 2009 11:31:54	Well, to address the two replies thus far, no I don't think it's "wrong" to have it as a skill, it's just not what I prefer (admittedly, that's just my opinion). At the very least it's Trained Only. But still, I think, I think Rovin is right on...it's about not making the checks trivial...it's the balance thing that 4e is all about. Just doesn't sit right with me though. When I have a wizard detecting magic in the area, and there is a huge magic item in the room, that's 5 levels higher then he is, why wouldn't that shine like a beacon? Why is that harder to detect? I can see being harder to identify, as it might be to complex for you to understand without an extended rest, but just to detect the magic it gives off??
#5 daidojitaidoru May 13, 2009 11:54:47	I think this is more a 'WotC didn't have page space to explain' thing. You'll note that there's no roll needed to find out about useful items. Things that people want others to know about seem to autodetect (and auto ID) to those who can look for those things. The Detect Magic use of the Arcana skill is mainly meant for things that people don't want to be seen, like traps, passive defenses, and alarms. The stuff you normally find in dungeons. Those would be designed to be subtle. So in that vein, in the event your party wanders across something in a dungeon that the designer wanted to advertise it's function to the world you should probably use the item rules. The PCs can sense it's magic and learn what it does with a short rest.
#6 rovin May 13, 2009 11:57:12	When I have a wizard detecting magic in the area, and there is a huge magic item in the room, that's 5 levels higher then he is, why wouldn't that shine like a beacon? Why is that harder to detect? I can see being harder to identify, as it might be to complex for you to understand without an extended rest, but just to detect the magic it gives off?? I don't think you'd be seriously hurting your game to differentiate the DCs of the "detecting" and "identifying" aspects. Have the level factor subtract from the first and add to the second in most cases and you should get the effect you're after. OTOH, keeping the detect DC high for "subtle" or "hidden" effects like magical traps or items the caster was trying to make inobvious is still a good idea. The One Ring was subtle. Thor's Hammer, not so much.
#7 sjmcc13 May 13, 2009 15:15:10	When I have a wizard detecting magic in the area, and there is a huge magic item in the room, that's 5 levels higher then he is, why wouldn't that shine like a beacon? Why is that harder to detect? I can see being harder to identify, as it might be to complex for you to understand without an extended rest, but just to detect the magic it gives off?? effeciency and containment/seepage???? A higher level enchantment should be more skillfully created, meaning it should be more effecient, and as a result radiating less arcane/divine/necrotic/etc energy into the room. Also, if the creator wishes it to be hidden, then the more skilled creator will be able to hide/contain the detectable effects then a less skilled (lower level) enchanter. The extra skill might even allow for the creator to make the enchantment with less energy, with finer strands of magical energy, or whatever, making it so there is less ot actually radiate off and be detected. of course this is all just opinion and conjecture.
#8 ultimate_cap May 13, 2009 16:04:56	sjm - Appreciate the feedback. Actually those are the same explanations we came up with, and still they just don't sit right (again, personal taste, for some that might work fine). But for us, just doesn't seem to jive well. I do agree with everyone's comments about the possiblity of the roll being to discern and trap with magical properties. Actually like that very much. Also, DaidojiTaidoru, gotta admit I don't think it's ever really jumped out at me that there is no roll needed for "useful items", but the can easily be extrapellated into just detecting the "presences" of magic". Actually appreciate all your feedback. Those last three replies in particular, thanks all!
#9 Nived May 13, 2009 21:44:44	Now I'm not saying I play it this way, but one could argue that low level enchanting is really inefficient, so much so that low level magic items pretty much bleed magic. They're easier to detect and figure out. Higher level magic items have had their enchantments woven stronger and tighter keeping the magic more focused and stronger. Thus higher level stuff is actually more difficult to detect. Doubly so with magical traps. Give me another one, I could justify anything.
#10 darkerdreams May 13, 2009 23:18:01	Also, DaidojiTaidoru, gotta admit I don't think it's ever really jumped out at me that there is no roll needed for "useful items", but the can easily be extrapellated into just detecting the "presences" of magic". I'm going through the Arcana skill (and detect magic in particular), where's this line? Since the OP seems satisfied, I'll ask a related question; how many people require rolls to identify magic items versus simply doing what's suggested (any short rest allows a trained Arcanist to successfully identify)? Any idea how you'd handle cursed items without rolls? Give every cursed item one or two uncursed identities and add a roll to see if they're correctly identified?
#11 the_fan May 13, 2009 23:37:00	In the Dresden Files, Harry Dresden repeatedly makes a point that the more flashy/showy magic is actually LESS powerful than the more subtle, because you're wasting energy on flash instead of substance. As an example, he can produce a gout of flame hot enough to roast people over a wide arc, or a little ball of focused plasma like a miniature sun. The latter is actually more powerful and requires far more skill, and a sign of his powers developing Anyway, if you have a problem with nonmagical people detecting magic look at it from the results perspective. The result is, they know there's magic there. A wizard may sense the arcane energy and be able to identify it as necromancy. A ranger may sniff the air and say "Something smells unnatural...like blood and death..." A rogue might get the jibblies. A fighter might have an old wound suddenly flare up with pain. The result is that they know there is magic of the shadow source, they just all do it a slightly different way.
#12 daidojitaidoru May 14, 2009 1:14:13	I'm going through the Arcana skill (and detect magic in particular), where's this line? It's in the section on magic items in the DMG. Every item not trying to conceal it's powers is automatically IDed by a character with after a simple short rest, no roll required. While that's mainly for ease of gameplay it also makes sense that a mage would allow easy reading of an object he wanted to be used frequently. It would be reasonable to also use those rules for less mobile magic items and areas. how many people require rolls to identify magic items versus simply doing what's suggested (any short rest allows a trained Arcanist to successfully identify)? That's just a time waster to me, especially with ID removed (and ID was just a money waster). I like the rules as is. Any idea how you'd handle cursed items without rolls? Give every cursed item one or two uncursed identities and add a roll to see if they're correctly identified? While I hate cursed item traps, it seems that if you did want to use them you'd use them just like every other edition. It reads falsely as one item (with a secret Arcana roll to see through the lie) then acts differently when in use.
#13 drakewurrum May 14, 2009 4:54:17	I don't have a problem with how it works. I always hated the idea of Identify being limited only to casters. Half the time, a party would only grab a Wizard or a Sorcerer because they wanted Identify that badly. My problem with it is that Arcane people aren't *better* at it. The Fighter can identify a powerful relic of arcane power just as easily as the Wizard, who has spent his entire life studying magic and reading every book and scroll and tome that could find that contained information on arcane magic. The Fighter can match the Wizard in this, even though the Fighter has spent his entire life studying the sword, and how best to run it through the bowels of his enemy. It's just illogical.
#14 darkerdreams May 14, 2009 7:25:25	It's in the section on magic items in the DMG. I'll have to look that up later... in the DMG? you have a page # for that? Every item not trying to conceal it's powers is automatically IDed by a character with after a simple short rest, no roll required. While that's mainly for ease of gameplay it also makes sense that a mage would allow easy reading of an object he wanted to be used frequently. It would be reasonable to also use those rules for less mobile magic items and areas. That's just a time waster to me, especially with ID removed (and ID was just a money waster). I like the rules as is. The reasoning for wanting a roll is this; My problem with it is that Arcane people aren't *better* at it. The Fighter can identify a powerful relic of arcane power just as easily as the Wizard, who has spent his entire life studying magic and reading every book and scroll and tome that could find that contained information on arcane magic. The Fighter can match the Wizard in this, even though the Fighter has spent his entire life studying the sword, and how best to run it through the bowels of his enemy. It's just illogical. And I'm not suggesting it be a ritual or a spell, but a function of Arcana just like Detect Magic is. Actually, I use the exact same rules as other attempts to identify magic (rituals or effects), I just don't give a special line for items being auto-discovered... I am particularly happy to see the cash cost for the spell gone. I never found that particularly helpful- really, all it did was make players sort through and decide what they cared enough to ident and what they were just going to sell for scrap anyway, just using a detect to keep from getting ripped off too bad While I hate cursed item traps, it seems that if you did want to use them you'd use them just like every other edition. It reads falsely as one item (with a secret Arcana roll to see through the lie) then acts differently when in use. You've already named what makes them fun- they're traps. They should be stated out like traps, not magic items (including listing ways to overcome them, preferably more than "cast a spell"), and should grant Xp like traps... I get the hate I guess- they can be annoying. But then, so can any other trap- especially a well-used one. I don't have a problem with how it works. I always hated the idea of Identify being limited only to casters. Half the time, a party would only grab a Wizard or a Sorcerer because they wanted Identify that badly. I've never seen a party that would "grab a Wizard or a Sorcerer because they wanted Identify that badly." Usually, there was a wiz or sorc as artillery, and the fact they had Ident was merely a useful side effect. If no one in the party got the spell they'd just hire someone to cast Ident per the rules in the DMG for hiring spells/spellcasters. I suppose the question is; how do you accommodate both desires- for the Arcana skill/arcanist to not be inextricably required but also not be superfluous to the item-identifying. I suppose I err on the side of make the skill necessary.
#15 sjmcc13 May 14, 2009 10:53:48	My problem with it is that Arcane people aren't *better* at it. Actually for the most part they are, 2 of the 5 arcane classes are built so as to have INT as their primary stat, 1 (Warlock) has it as secondary, and another (bard) choses between Int and another stat as secondary. meaning that these 4 classes all tend to have higher INT scores then the other classes, which will give them better checks. also, the fighter has to either use his background choice (which would mean it is something he has been doing all his life), or a feat to get training in arcana, where as the casters either have to take it, or have it on their list, meaning that they get access to the skill much easier as well.
#16 daidojitaidoru May 14, 2009 12:59:09	I'll have to look that up later... in the DMG? you have a page # for that? Page 27 contains the rules and reasoning. The reasoning for wanting a roll is this; I still don't see a reason to roll. Sure the Fighter is as good as the Wizard at IDing items that want to be IDed. But more difficult things require a better score. And the wizard gets that with Int mod alone. Not to mention being given Arcana as a a free skill while the fighter has to spend a feat to grab it. And since a feat is all it takes to do something like, say multiclass, a Fighter who does take that feat has trained just as much as the Wizard in that field (though hes a worse student). You've already named what makes them fun- they're traps. They're specifically "HA GOTCHA" traps. They mainly just waste some time or HP. And they encourage players to waste more time Rolling a bunch of meaningless checks on every item they find just to avoid that issue. I could see a cursed item having a curse that was also useful, making it's use a tactical choice, but most GMs just toss garbage out and make everyone's life more boring. I've never seen a party that would "grab a Wizard or a Sorcerer because they wanted Identify that badly." Well that's because playing without an arcane caster was suicide in pervious editions. I suppose I err on the side of make the skill necessary. Arcana is awesome enough without having to add a time waster every time you hand out a treasure parcel. The Detect Magic ability is probably one of the most useful trained only skill uses in the game, especially if you enter dungeons with field effects and purely magical traps.
#17 AbdulAlhazred May 14, 2009 21:16:05	All 4e really did was streamline the rules down to what basically 95% of everyone was doing before anyway. It was always a royal pain to have mystery items floating around. MUCH less work for the DM if the players get to write down what it actually is and keep track of it, which they can only do if they know what the item does, so they can now find out easily and quickly. As for detecting magic in general it is much better in 4e. Before you had to have a spell. The DM could not know beforehand if the party would or would not have that spell, thus he could not predict whether or not a magical effect was going to be detected or not. Things are much easier now because at least the wizard doesn't have to burn a valuable spell slot to do the detecting.
#18 Kalnaur May 15, 2009 1:29:06	I don't have a problem with how it works. I always hated the idea of Identify being limited only to casters. Half the time, a party would only grab a Wizard or a Sorcerer because they wanted Identify that badly. My problem with it is that Arcane people aren't *better* at it. The Fighter can identify a powerful relic of arcane power just as easily as the Wizard, who has spent his entire life studying magic and reading every book and scroll and tome that could find that contained information on arcane magic. The Fighter can match the Wizard in this, even though the Fighter has spent his entire life studying the sword, and how best to run it through the bowels of his enemy. It's just illogical. But the fighter can't train in Arcana by default, and doesn't really need a high INT, so you'd have to sacrifice a high score put into an unneeded ability and a feat to train in Arcana just to reach around where the wizard is.
#19 darkerdreams May 15, 2009 6:56:36	Page 27 contains the rules and reasoning. Ah, I had seen that! I just couldn't remember where it was. There are other options including "you don't get a bonus you don't know," etc. It all depends on how you want to play I still don't see a reason to roll. Sure the Fighter is as good as the Wizard at IDing items that want to be IDed. But more difficult things require a better score. And the wizard gets that with Int mod alone. Not to mention being given Arcana as a a free skill while the fighter has to spend a feat to grab it. And since a feat is all it takes to do something like, say multiclass, a Fighter who does take that feat has trained just as much as the Wizard in that field (though hes a worse student). Now, I'm not seeing where identifying requires you to be trained. Detecting magic certainly does, but I'm not seeing that identifying items do. They're specifically "HA GOTCHA" traps. They mainly just waste some time or HP. And they encourage players to waste more time Rolling a bunch of meaningless checks on every item they find just to avoid that issue. I could see a cursed item having a curse that was also useful, making it's use a tactical choice, but most GMs just toss garbage out and make everyone's life more boring. All traps are (or can be) "HA GOTCHA." It's all in how they're used. A cursed weapon, for example, makes an encounter more challenging, just like any other trap combined with a fight... Triggering another cursed item in the middle of a dungeon (or other enemy-infested space) can be equally stress-inducing... is it any different than stumbling over a trap you missed during an encounter, or stumbling over a new trap while trying to find somewhere safe to rest after an encounter? The problem is that you're going with the pretty common view that cursed items are magic items that screw with the party, rather than being portable traps with their own list of strengths and weaknesses. Part of the reason that impression is so widespread is because in past editions cursed items were in with magic items rather than traps... Arcana is awesome enough without having to add a time waster every time you hand out a treasure parcel. The Detect Magic ability is probably one of the most useful trained only skill uses in the game, especially if you enter dungeons with field effects and purely magical traps. I'm not arguing that Arcana isn't awesome. I'm absolutely elated that they've packaged some of the basic magic functions into trained use of the skill (finally). I just don't view an extra roll or 2 I do behind the screen as a huge "time waster..." When it helps keep my players on their toes and makes a player who invests a ton of energy into Arcana feel a little more love when he can identify the fighter's new sword rather than the fighter banging it against a rock and going "OH, +1 sword of flibbertygibit..."
#20 entropy_judge May 15, 2009 8:37:24	They're specifically "HA GOTCHA" traps. They mainly just waste some time or HP. And they encourage players to waste more time Rolling a bunch of meaningless checks on every item they find just to avoid that issue. I could see a cursed item having a curse that was also useful, making it's use a tactical choice, but most GMs just toss garbage out and make everyone's life more boring. Something like the AD&D +2 Cursed Berserking swords that teleported to your hand whenever you got into a fight and forced you to keep fighting if something was alive within a given radius?
#21 daidojitaidoru May 15, 2009 11:34:59	Something like the AD&D +2 Cursed Berserking swords that teleported to your hand whenever you got into a fight and forced you to keep fighting if something was alive within a given radius? Not really because there was no choice there. You were stuck with the stupid sword no matter what. It was great if you had no friends but terrible for a party based game. If the sword required you to activate it in order to port to your hand and start the massacre then it would be a tactical choice. "Are we losing badly enough such that busting out the sword is worth it. And can my friends hide fast enough so that after I'm done butchering everything else I don't start on them? It'd be an item people would shy away from, but they just might keep around "in case..."
#22 ciaran May 15, 2009 12:37:37	The way I've been running it is, if an arcane caster, with the skill trained, is detecting magic...I just let 'em detect the magic. Then, I give them the skill roll to identify the item. If they make the skill roll, great they can start using the item right away, otherwise they have to wait until an extended rest to identify. Thats a great solution.
#23 darkerdreams May 15, 2009 12:39:43	I certainly agree on the sword... it's a powerful item, and certainly cursed, but probably something better used as a questionable magic item rather than a "trap". Cursed armor is more what I'm talking about in terms of "trap items," something you get into, ignorant of it's adverse effects, which causes you pain. An issue highlighted with the 2e cursed berserking sword is the difficulty in getting rid of the thing. All traps in 4e have skill based ways to disarm them, and generally have multiple methods... If items are such you can't just discard them (lodestone vs bag of devouring) an arcana check and a non-skill-check ritual (or skill check for adverse effect mitigation) would be good places to start for "disarming" cursed items. Generally, to make it more interesting for everyone, there should probably be at least one other non-arcanist way to do it... but that would have to be custom to the cursed item.
#24 AbdulAlhazred May 16, 2009 14:42:51	I would think the Remove Affliction ritual would work fine. It seems to be the 4e equivalent of the old Remove Curse and Cure Disease spells rolled into one. Of course not all curses may be all that easy to remove. Maybe a special ritual, special components, or a caster capable of making a high enough DC might be required for nastier stuff. Overall though I think having sort of low level "ordinary" cursed items is not all that special and I've rarely ever used them in any edition.