Is it necessary to have illumination (spell, natural, artificial) in order to use such spells as Find Traps, Detect Magic, Detect Passages and Portals, etc.? Since these are visual effects, I think there is a case that the caster needs to 'see.' Basically, can you cast them in the dark...or not (granted that you don't have Infravision)?
I've always assumed that those spells grant the caster a magical vision of the object being detected. They may see a glowing outline, or some other indication, but since it is a magical detection, it is not dependent upon natural sight.
At first, each practitioner of magic had their own version of detect magic. Magic-users including illusionists could sense magic in a 10 ft (3 m) wide corridor 60 ft (18.3 m) long and for a duration based on their experience level. Clerics and druids could only "see" magical auras out to 30 ft (9.1 m) and 40 ft (12.2 m) respectively for a duration of 10 or 12 minutes respectively. The caster could turn in an arc to sweep out an area, making a full circle in six minutes. These versions of the spell could penetrate anything less than 1 ft (30 cm) of stone, 1 in (2.5 cm) of solid metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 ft (0.9 m) of wood or dirt. No information other than the presence or absence of magic was acquired.[6]
Later, wizards and priests were able to determine the intensity of magical auras, classifying them as dim, faint, moderate, strong, and overwhelming. In addition, wizards had a chance to identify the school of magic to which an aura belonged. Priests were likewise able to identify the sphere of magic. The more experienced the caster, the better were the chances to correctly identify each aura. Once again, the divine spellcasters had a fixed duration of 10 minutes but could "see" out to 90 ft (27.4 m). Arcane spellcasters could only detect out to 60 ft (18.3 m) but the duration was based on their level and eventually exceeded the divine version's 10 minutes for more experienced wizards.[2][3]
- D _________________ Quoted material has been reproduced in this post without express permission for the purposes of discussion, comment and review as permitted by Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976.
I guess the implication is that a light source isn't needed, at least from that description.
Correct. The objects in question radiate light (but only to/for the caster).
Lanthorn wrote:
If vision isn't required, what of blind spell-casters (clerics, mainly, since a blind mage couldn't even read his scrolls!)?
Great question. My thought would be he's SOL (S_it Out of Luck), considering the entire nature of casting in 1st/2nd ed D&D.
However, I see no reason to say that the light could not be changed to vibrations, thus tactilely detectable.
- Ð _________________ Quoted material has been reproduced in this post without express permission for the purposes of discussion, comment and review as permitted by Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976.
I guess the implication is that a light source isn't needed, at least from that description.
Correct. The objects in question radiate light (but only to/for the caster).
Lanthorn wrote:
If vision isn't required, what of blind spell-casters (clerics, mainly, since a blind mage couldn't even read his scrolls!)?
Great question. My thought would be he's SOL (S_it Out of Luck), considering the entire nature of casting in 1st/2nd ed D&D.
However, I see no reason to say that the light could not be changed to vibrations, thus tactilely detectable.
- Ð
I agree with Drassus. In fact, it would be a great role-playing opportunity for a PC wizard that became blind to have to invent versions of those spells that worked with different senses than his (non-existent) sight.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises