Detect Magic and powerful items, "dm fiat"

[Falontani]

Recently in a game I was in where I was playing a warlock, and I frequently use detect magic, because I can do it at will. This particular time I was not concentrating on detect magic because I was concentrating on a different invocation that I had used mortalbane on.

However the dm asked if anyone was currently using detect magic, to which our beguiler stated that he was. The dm had him roll a fortitude save, which the beguiler failed. In turn the dm stated that the beguiler was, "Blinded for the next 3 hours due to the sheer amount of magic radiating from the equipment in front of you." The beguiler asked simply if the magical equipment was cursed and that was why he was blinded, and the dm said he didn't know, because he was blinded. The beguiler would easily have been able to identify the equipment with spellcraft checks, but the dm instead had them identifiable his Craft Blacksmithing checks.

This has been a reoccurring thing that I have seen from various dms, but this one particularly angered me because the dm was specifically asking if I had detect magic running. It seemed as if he was trying to bind my character specifically.

I just came to vent, and see if anyone else has had something similar happen, and other than abandoning the dm (he's my brother and I'm going to make him better rather than flee) how did you handle the situation?

[MisterKaws]

Yeah just straight come up and talk to him, sis-to-bro, and see if you can work it out OoC instead of going at each other's throats in-game.

Otherwise you might as well call pazuzu and ask for candles of invocation.

[Dawgmoah]

As I DM I keep tabs on how much stone or metal is between a player with Detect Magic and the magic they may be able to detect. This causes some angst among players at times as they believe that they should be able to detect literally anything magical inside of their range. So I handily have the information from the DMG, pg. 60 ready:

"Stone walls, iron walls, and iron doors are usually thick enough to block most detect spells, such as detect thoughts. Wooden walls, wooden doors, and stone doors are usually not thick enough to do so. However a secret door built into a wall and as thick as the wall itself (at least 1 foot) does block most detect spells. "

I've never "blinded" anyone though with "too much magic." Was that discussed up front before the game?

[Crichton]

Was that discussed up front before the game?



This. So much this. Any houserules, especially that change normal game mechanics, really really need to be laid out in full before the game begins. Preferably before character creation begins, and preferably in writing.

The DM is the master of the rules, but the players have a right to know what those rules are before they have to make decisions about how their characters work.

[Falontani]

As I DM I keep tabs on how much stone or metal is between a player with Detect Magic and the magic they may be able to detect. This causes some angst among players at times as they believe that they should be able to detect literally anything magical inside of their range. So I handily have the information from the DMG, pg. 60 ready:

"Stone walls, iron walls, and iron doors are usually thick enough to block most detect spells, such as detect thoughts. Wooden walls, wooden doors, and stone doors are usually not thick enough to do so. However a secret door built into a wall and as thick as the wall itself (at least 1 foot) does block most detect spells. "

I've never "blinded" anyone though with "too much magic." Was that discussed up front before the game?

No it was not.

[MisterKaws]

No it was not.

Then just do it now.

If a game isn't being fun because of OoC choices, you either solve it OoC or walk away.

Or call Pazuzu. Always works.

[Kurald Galain]

I like the general idea of certain items being blindingly powerful, but it should be a fluff effect (e.g. you're seeing spots for a few seconds) instead of an hours-long debuff.

[Biggus]

I like the general idea of certain items being blindingly powerful, but it should be a fluff effect (e.g. you're seeing spots for a few seconds) instead of an hours-long debuff.

I think it depends, if you've just found the world's most powerful artifact then blinding isn't unreasonable, as it's a unique occurrence and won't be covered by the standard rules. If this is going to happen every time you find a very powerful item, then certainly the PCs should have been warned in advance that this is a danger of using detect spells.

[XionUnborn01]

I think it depends, if you've just found the world's most powerful artifact then blinding isn't unreasonable, as it's a unique occurrence and won't be covered by the standard rules. If this is going to happen every time you find a very powerful item, then certainly the PCs should have been warned in advance that this is a danger of using detect spells.

I agree. If it was some very powerful item of artifact level or something, I could totally see a temporary blinding, 3 hours seems like a really long time but if they weren't in a threatened position its probably fine. If it happens every time you walk into a room with a few magic items, then it sucks.

[denthor]

Blinding 3 hours to much.

However some magic items are harmful right in the rules.

Detect magic . Item magical. Necklace let say. This spell does not tell you an alignment. You put it on to identify you are good it is evil. Do you complain when the item sucks away your experience points? Do you complain when you must make a saving throw to maintain your ability to continue to act as normal (item possesses you)?

These are all part of the game.

[Crichton]

Here's the problem. The spell Detect Magic doesn't describe any possibility of the caster receiving mechanically negative effects, let alone an enduring debuff. The player used the spell based on the 100% reasonable assumption that the spell would function as published, because no indication had been given to the contrary. Springing the effects of a 2nd level debuff spell on a player who's using a cantrip without having told the player that you were houseruling a change into the cantrip's effect ahead of time is a major jerk move. Even more so when it takes 3 full rounds of concentrating to even be able to determine the strength of a magical aura, according to the spell's description.

Yes, the fluff of a powerful magical object overwhelming a detect magic spell isn't at odds with the general flavor of how detect magic and magical auras work, but inflicting the character with a major mechanical debuff without warning them that the cantrip they're using has that capability is more than worthy of raising complaints from that player.

I'll say it again: DMs are the master of the rules. They can houserule anything they want. But the players have a right to know what those changes/houserules are, before they have to make decisions that might have consequences that stem from those changes.

[Biggus]

Here's the problem. The spell Detect Magic doesn't describe any possibility of the caster receiving mechanically negative effects, let alone an enduring debuff. The player used the spell based on the 100% reasonable assumption that the spell would function as published, because no indication had been given to the contrary. Springing the effects of a 2nd level debuff spell on a player who's using a cantrip without having told the player that you were houseruling a change into the cantrip's effect ahead of time is a major jerk move. Even more so when it takes 3 full rounds of concentrating to even be able to determine the strength of a magical aura, according to the spell's description.

Yes, the fluff of a powerful magical object overwhelming a detect magic spell isn't at odds with the general flavor of how detect magic and magical auras work, but inflicting the character with a major mechanical debuff without warning them that the cantrip they're using has that capability is more than worthy of raising complaints from that player.

I'll say it again: DMs are the master of the rules. They can houserule anything they want. But the players have a right to know what those changes/houserules are, before they have to make decisions that might have consequences that stem from those changes.

This is why I said if it was a *unique* occurrence. If every item of artifact level does this, then if the rules don't state that, the DM should make it clear that it's a possibility, as the text for other spells sometimes mention how they do or don't affect artifacts. If however you just found the Staff of the Overgod, which makes even other artifacts look like wands of Cure Light Wounds by comparison, then that's something outside the normal rules and it having a totally unexpected effect is perfectly reasonable as far as I can see.

The way I think about it is that the spell description is what a Wizard would find in a good book of magical lore. It's reasonable to assume that a spell will have been used on artifacts on occasion, and that if it has a different effect on those than it does on ordinary magic items, the book would say so. However if there's a truly one-of-a-kind item, the writer of the book may not know about how that specific item interacts with the spell, especially if it's been lost for thousands of years.

[Crichton]

This is why I said if it was a *unique* occurrence. If every item of artifact level does this, then if the rules don't state that, the DM should make it clear that it's a possibility, as the text for other spells sometimes mention how they do or don't affect artifacts. If however you just found the Staff of the Overgod, which makes even other artifacts look like wands of Cure Light Wounds by comparison, then that's something outside the normal rules and it having a totally unexpected effect is perfectly reasonable as far as I can see.

The way I think about it is that the spell description is what a Wizard would find in a good book of magical lore. It's reasonable to assume that a spell will have been used on artifacts on occasion, and that if it has a different effect on those than it does on ordinary magic items, the book would say so. However if there's a truly one-of-a-kind item, the writer of the book may not know about how that specific item interacts with the spell, especially if it's been lost for thousands of years.

All of what you say here is reasonable, though it seems that the case you describe is much less likely than the case of the DM is changing things on the fly, which happens pretty frequently and frustratingly. Given a lack of info, I responded to the one that was more likely. IFthe DM is putting in the most powerful artifact in the multiverse, then yes, maybe it would be reasonable.

[Falontani]

5 suits of random damaged suits of armor with magical enchantments, and 5 weapons that are again magical. None in my party had identify prepared, so we only know the basics of what the items can do, and they certainly don't appear to be artifacts.

[Psyren]

This. So much this. Any houserules, especially that change normal game mechanics, really really need to be laid out in full before the game begins. Preferably before character creation begins, and preferably in writing.

The DM is the master of the rules, but the players have a right to know what those rules are before they have to make decisions about how their characters work.

While I agree that no one's entire character should ever be blindsided, I think this approach is a bit extreme. My view is that there is a fundamental trust problem if the GM is forbidden from ever surprising the players and every mechanic deviation has to be signed in triplicate by both sides ahead of time.

With that said, a 3 hour debuff is way, way too harsh for a houserule, especially an undisclosed one.

[Crichton]

While I agree that no one's entire character should ever be blindsided, I think this approach is a bit extreme. My view is that there is a fundamental trust problem if the GM is forbidden from ever surprising the players and every mechanic deviation has to be signed in triplicate by both sides ahead of time.

With that said, a 3 hour debuff is way, way too harsh for a houserule, especially an undisclosed one.

Well, 'forbidden' and 'signed in triplicate' is a bit farther than I was intending. :smallsmile: It's a guideline for keeping the players' and DM's expectations in line with one another, and fostering that trust between them. It's not about not being able to surprise the players with something that's special or different, it's about the players being able to make informed decisions about things like character design and how their abilities work, and it's about the DM earning enough trust through consistency and fairness that when they do do something different to surprise the player with something, the player can more easily go along with it without feeling blindsided or targeted.


In this case a player with an at-will usage of a cantrip with no negative consequences in its description had a habit of using it frequently, because they had at-will access to it, but then was surprised when the DM hit someone using that same cantrip with a major debuff (that we all agree was way too much). I don't want to put words in Falontani's mouth, but if that was me, I'd be seriously second guessing my frequent use of it again, despite the free access to it being a part of my class features. Every time I used it again I'd be scared that I'd get smacked with a debuff. For this specific situation, we all agree blinding was too much, and I think probably the same dramatic effect in the story could have been achieved with something like 'the magical aura you see is so bright you have to blink back the spots in your vision' and maybe accompany that with a round or two of Dazzled, if they really wanted a mechanical effect for some reason.



But in general I do feel that players have a right to know ahead of time about any actual houserules or other changes to the games rules/mechanics. Players make decisions about design/build and also behavior choice decisions based on their understanding of how the framework of rules works, and changing those rules without laying them out ahead of time takes away the player's ability to make informed decisions about what to do with their character, and it takes away their ability to know how their character's mechanics are going to function.


It's not that houserules are bad or wrong or make things not fun. They're fine, and often better than the published rules. The thing is that the only source the players have to draw from to set their expectations about how the game works is the rules, so it's natural for a player to expect the game to operate according to the published rules. The DM absolutely has the right to change them as they see fit, but they also have the responsibility to inform the players of what those changes are ahead of time, so the players can then use that as another source to draw from to set their expectations of how the game will work.

I don't think that's an unfair expectation, or that it's some kind of restrictive attitude of 'take the power away from the DM' or anything like that.

And hey, if one of those houserules is 'Sometimes we play fast and loose with the specifics of things, so expect to see some of that come up' then that's fine too.

[ericgrau]

Recently in a game I was in where I was playing a warlock, and I frequently use detect magic, because I can do it at will. This particular time I was not concentrating on detect magic because I was concentrating on a different invocation that I had used mortalbane on.

However the dm asked if anyone was currently using detect magic, to which our beguiler stated that he was. The dm had him roll a fortitude save, which the beguiler failed. In turn the dm stated that the beguiler was, "Blinded for the next 3 hours due to the sheer amount of magic radiating from the equipment in front of you." The beguiler asked simply if the magical equipment was cursed and that was why he was blinded, and the dm said he didn't know, because he was blinded. The beguiler would easily have been able to identify the equipment with spellcraft checks, but the dm instead had them identifiable his Craft Blacksmithing checks.

This has been a reoccurring thing that I have seen from various dms, but this one particularly angered me because the dm was specifically asking if I had detect magic running. It seemed as if he was trying to bind my character specifically.

I just came to vent, and see if anyone else has had something similar happen, and other than abandoning the dm (he's my brother and I'm going to make him better rather than flee) how did you handle the situation?

I could have sworn what your DM did was RAW, but I couldn't find it in the detect magic spell. Maybe I'm mixing it up with detect evil or maybe it was in an older version. Maybe your DM was similarly mixed up.

Anyway he probably went after you because your detect magic is at will, is it not? So you're the one who is likely to have it always on.

I'd simply ignore it. The DM has a lot to keep track of, and you shouldn't complain about every little thing or nothing will get done. If it's something repeated, then I'd bring it up. And even then I'd do it before/after the gaming session to avoid delaying the game, unless it has a huge effect on the encounter.

[King of Nowhere]

did the debuff matter?
because if the dm forced several fights while a character was blinded that way, then I agree with pretty much whatever anyone said.

if the only consequence was enforcing three hours of rest, then it was no real harm done. it may just have been a random joke.

incidentally, I like the idea. I'm not going to blind any character, but I'm going to tell my pcs that their eyes hurt one of those days

[Pippa the Pixie]

There is not much to do.

If you want you can follow the advise of the others and make a big deal about the ''offical game", and protest to your DM that you only want to play the dull, bland, boring and pointless ''by the rules" game.

I don't recomend that.

The whole point of a RPG is that anything can happen....the game is not ''stuck" in the rules. Just because there is no 'Spring of Healing" in the offical rules, with offical stats on page 100, does not mean it can't be in the game. The DM can just say it exists.

Yes it is ''no fun" to have aything bad happen to your character.....but if you really want nothing to happen ever, you might as well just not even play the game.

[Falontani]

In this case a player with an at-will usage of a cantrip with no negative consequences in its description had a habit of using it frequently, because they had at-will access to it, but then was surprised when the DM hit someone using that same cantrip with a major debuff (that we all agree was way too much). I don't want to put words in Falontani's mouth, but if that was me, I'd be seriously second guessing my frequent use of it again, despite the free access to it being a part of my class features. Every time I used it again I'd be scared that I'd get smacked with a debuff. For this specific situation, we all agree blinding was too much, and I think probably the same dramatic effect in the story could have been achieved with something like 'the magical aura you see is so bright you have to blink back the spots in your vision' and maybe accompany that with a round or two of Dazzled, if they really wanted a mechanical effect for some reason.


This is exactly it. This is why I am worried. Even if it is infrequent in use, he has set a precedent that it can happen. This time it happened to a comrade while we were searching through our awarded fort. Next time it might happen to me mid combat, or worse, the beguiler again who will eventually be in charge of enemy shut down.

[Crichton]

This is exactly it. This is why I am worried. Even if it is infrequent in use, he has set a precedent that it can happen. This time it happened to a comrade while we were searching through our awarded fort. Next time it might happen to me mid combat, or worse, the beguiler again who will eventually be in charge of enemy shut down.

Yeah, I feel for you. Especially since it sounds like, from your later update, that it wasn't even some uber-powerful artifact or anything. That kind of negative effect from just a bunch of normal enchanted items is way too much. There are other ways to make it a dramatic, flavorful effect for the sake of good story, without setting that precedent and effectively nerfing your class feature.




There is not much to do.

If you want you can follow the advise of the others and make a big deal about the ''offical game", and protest to your DM that you only want to play the dull, bland, boring and pointless ''by the rules" game.

I don't recomend that.

The whole point of a RPG is that anything can happen....the game is not ''stuck" in the rules. Just because there is no 'Spring of Healing" in the offical rules, with offical stats on page 100, does not mean it can't be in the game. The DM can just say it exists.

Yes it is ''no fun" to have aything bad happen to your character.....but if you really want nothing to happen ever, you might as well just not even play the game.

Gee thanks for painting me and others in the most negative possible way. And doing so by setting up a false dichotomy between having a fun game and maintaining player agency by keeping them informed of houserules. It's not either/or, by any means. You can have all the 'spring of healing' type additions you want, no problem! And even flavorful mishaps of things like the OP's situation, without blindsiding your players with major debuffs and cutting their class features off at the knees, or losing your players' trust that you'll be a consistent and fair DM. I (and others) were advocating for DMs being as upfront as possible about their houserule changes to core game mechanics, not about adding fun things in to the game, or about keeping it 'official' or 'by the rules' or 'stuck or 'dull, bland boring and pointless.'

[Biggus]

5 suits of random damaged suits of armor with magical enchantments, and 5 weapons that are again magical. None in my party had identify prepared, so we only know the basics of what the items can do, and they certainly don't appear to be artifacts.

Did you ever find out what they were?


something like 'the magical aura you see is so bright you have to blink back the spots in your vision' and maybe accompany that with a round or two of Dazzled, if they really wanted a mechanical effect for some reason.

Yeah, "dazzled for 1 round" sounds right for 10 powerful but non-artifact items if the DM wants to emphasise that you've found some heavy-duty treasure.

[Falontani]

Did you ever find out what they were?



Yeah, "dazzled for 1 round" sounds right for 10 powerful but non-artifact items if the DM wants to emphasise that you've found some heavy-duty treasure.

We haven't played that campaign again yet. I'll keep people posted, we might play this Monday.

[Elkad]

I've hit a mid-level Paladin using Detect Evil with something similar, for using it in the presence of an evil god.
Dazed for 2d4 rounds, lose the use of Detect Evil for 2d4 hours.

For Detect Magic and a major artifact I might do something similar to that.

I wouldn't blind them though.

[Thurbane]

Spells such as Detect Evil and Detect Undead have clauses that overwhelming auras might stun you for 1 round, and end the spell.

Detect Magic has no such clause.

Even if the DM were to house-rule a similar effect for Detect Magic, blindness for 3 hours is well out of line with the established effects of overwhelming auras.

As others have suggested, have a word to the DM and express your concerns.

[ericgrau]

This is exactly it. This is why I am worried. Even if it is infrequent in use, he has set a precedent that it can happen. This time it happened to a comrade while we were searching through our awarded fort. Next time it might happen to me mid combat, or worse, the beguiler again who will eventually be in charge of enemy shut down.
Good point, and I missed the 3 hour part. That's a bit more than the 1 round of detect evil.

But if no harm was done yet best to simply talk to the DM. He may or may not have even thought about the long term consequences. Depends how much of a stickler he is for staying with a line of thought in spite of consequences. Like will he say "I have declared it, it shall not change, no matter how OP it turns out to be" or "Oh, didn't think of this happening outside of looting, oops"? But simplest way to address it either way is to just talk to him.