Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - Phantasms vs. Detection Spells
    Canonfire Forum Index -> Greyhawk- AD&D 2nd Edition
    Phantasms vs. Detection Spells
    Author Message
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:34 pm  
    Phantasms vs. Detection Spells

    Here is my typical Lanthorn mechanics question for you all, and I could use some input (see, young DMs, even 'old timers' need help occasionally):

    What Divination spells will negate the use of Phantasm (not to be confused with Illusion) spells such as Blur and Mirror Image?

    For instance, what about both Detect Magic and Detect Invisibility?

    I read that the latter will not work against Blur (says so), and thus, I am under the impression that the closely related Mirror Image spell will be equally 'impenetrable'. I've read Detect Invisibility and it doesn't seem to express that such a spell will be of any use against a Mirror Image spell.

    Furthermore, I recall reading (somewhere in the DMG, perhaps 1e) that Detect Magic is ineffective against Invisibility, so I wonder if it would negate the usefulness of Blur and Mirror Image, spells of equal level (power). However, what if the mage using these spells was wearing highly enchanted items (rings, devices, weapons, etc)? Would the magical dweomer of those items effectively cancel the protective benefits of those Phantasms by revealing the caster's magical aura? Or does the use of a Blur and/or Mirror Image basically 'cloak' magical auras as well. Otherwise, I could see that they'd be basically useless to higher level' mages who tote a hefty array of magical items...

    For the record, I know that a priest's True Seeing spell would work to counter the effects of Phantasms...

    opinions welcome,

    -Lanthorn
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Mar 05, 2007
    Posts: 290
    From: The Pomarj

    Send private message
    Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:49 pm  
    Re: Phantasms vs. Detection Spells



    Last edited by BlueWitch on Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Sep 20, 2004
    Posts: 580
    From: British Isles

    Send private message
    Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:41 am  

    Quote:
    (see, young DMs, even 'old timers' need help occasionally)


    Hah, I'm sure you're just testing us Lanthorn and you know the answer already!

    Quote:
    It makes sense that Detect Magic is ineffective against Invisibility. After all, it'd be a bit of a screw if 1st level Detect Magic could counter the 2nd level Invisibility spell.


    I'm with BlueWitch on this one and I think the quote above sums it up. The level of a spell represents how powerful the magic involved is and how difficult it is for the mind to grasp. It makes sense that these phantasm spells are designed to trick or evade the 1st level Detect Magic.

    An exception to this might be a spell that is specifically designed for a very limited purpose - the focus meaning that it could interfere with a higher level spell.

    I haven't researched any specifics mind you so I'm sure there are a bunch of examples to contradict what I've just! Confused
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:06 pm  

    Wolfling wrote:

    Hah, I'm sure you're just testing us Lanthorn and you know the answer already!


    I wish that were true, Wolfling. Wink Even after playing this game since the 80's, I am learning all the time. And this dedicated group of fellow RPG enthusiasts has definitely been a treasure trove of ideas. Old dogs DO learn new tricks, if they are willing and open-minded...and I am only 39 as yet. Happy

    To respond to your thoughts, and those of BlueWitch, I am inclined to agree that neither spell is sufficient enough to nullify the effects of either phantasm...but open to any and all perceptions and thoughts on the matter.

    thanks, fellows,

    Lanthorn
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:34 am  
    Re: Phantasms vs. Detection Spells

    you guys are way off.

    Lanthorn wrote:
    What Divination spells will negate the use of Phantasm (not to be confused with Illusion) spells such as Blur and Mirror Image?

    Illusions fool the eyes. Phantasms fool the mind. Both of those spell are illusions, not phantasms.

    Lanthorn wrote:
    For instance, what about both Detect Magic and Detect Invisibility?

    Detect invisibility is a spell specific spell. As blur an mirror image do not causes invisibility, or an effect similar to invisibility, it has no effect on individuals under the effect of blur of mirror image spells. Detect magic does nothing versus blur, other than reveal that the target is under the effect of magic, and possibly detect the type of magic. As to mirror image, one of the images is no image at all, and so will not radiate magic as all of the other images will. So, if an individual under the effects of mirror image *stays within the path of a spellcaster's detect magic spell*, that spellcaster will be able to tell what images are magical (i.e the the false ones), and which one is not (the real target). They cannot really tell others which image is the real one though, as the images shuffle about constantly (e.g "It's there! Now it is over there! There, to the right! No, to the front!"). Good luck directing others, but this is what are effect attacks for for anyways.

    Lanthorn wrote:
    I read that the latter will not work against Blur (says so), and thus, I am under the impression that the closely related Mirror Image spell will be equally 'impenetrable'. I've read Detect Invisibility and it doesn't seem to express that such a spell will be of any use against a Mirror Image spell.

    See above, but... Also, an invisible individual that runs across the path of an active detect magic spell, or if the path of a detect magic spell is swept over an area where there is something invisible, the invisible thing will very much be detected (just not be pinpointed- see below). I suggest that such invisible individuals do not stand still when they can tell that a spellcaster is detecting around for things, if they are smart. The main difference between detect magic an detect invisibility is that the former only get a bit of an idea where something invisible is, whereas later can pinpoint something invisible. This is not a huge factor soe far as area attacks are concerned, but so far as directing pinpoint attacks, such as magic missile and melee attacks, it is big deal. Magic missile couldn't be targeted against an invisible thing detected with detect magic at all, and melee attacks would suffer the -4 to hit penalty, whereas detect invisibility allows such attacks to be made without any penalty.

    The affects of blur are countered by neither spell, as detect magic will just tell you "That blurry effect is magical!" (duh), and detect invisibility will only tell us...nothing, because we didn't need it so tell us that the thing we can already see is not invisible (super duh). Laughing

    Lanthorn wrote:
    Furthermore, I recall reading (somewhere in the DMG, perhaps 1e) that Detect Magic is ineffective against Invisibility, so I wonder if it would negate the usefulness of Blur and Mirror Image, spells of equal level (power). However, what if the mage using these spells was wearing highly enchanted items (rings, devices, weapons, etc)? Would the magical dweomer of those items effectively cancel the protective benefits of those Phantasms by revealing the caster's magical aura? Or does the use of a Blur and/or Mirror Image basically 'cloak' magical auras as well. Otherwise, I could see that they'd be basically useless to higher level' mages who tote a hefty array of magical items...


    DMG Quote:

    "A detect magic shows only the presence of something magical without pinpointing it exactly. Thus, it cannot be used as a substitute for a detect invisible spell."

    So, detect magic is not good enough for the plain view required to target a magic missile spell (i.e. the caster must have a perfect bead on the target, not just know that "It is right...about...there...ish!" Laughing), but clear enough of an idea as to the location of the invisible target to direct area attacks, such as flaming oil, fireballs, lightning bolts, etc.

    Lanthorn wrote:
    For the record, I know that a priest's True Seeing spell would work to counter the effects of Phantasms...

    No, it doesn't. True seeing makes tricks of the eyes fail, not tricks of the mind, meaning that a true seeing spell does not allow a cleric to visually perceive truly what is not there to be seen in the first place. As a point of reference, true seeing offers no protection against the phantasmal killer spell because it creates something that only exists in the target's mind, whereas the mind blank spell, which protects the mind, does protect against that phantasm created by the phantasmal killer spell. True seeing will counter both blur and mirror image though, because both of those spells are illusions, not phantasms.

    Here us your litmus test: If an illusion/phantasm spell merely creates the appearance of something (i.e. an illusion) , true seeing will see through any portion of it that isn't real or quasi-real. If an illusion/phantasm spell creates something that exists only in the target's mind (i.e. a phantasm), true seeing does nothing at all.

    DM: "Nerull the Reaper is swinging his scythe of DOOM!!! at your cleric of St. Cuthbert! What does he do!"

    Player: "He casts true seeing, and evades! What does he see?"

    DM: "Your cleric still sees Nerull the Reaper, who is swinging his scythe of DOOM!!! at him!"

    Player: "Holy crap!"

    Yeah, I think that phantasmal killer spell is going to do rather well. Laughing
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:26 pm  

    Sorry I'm getting to this late. Just wanted to say something in support of Cebrion's points.

    I'm currently working with the 3.5 Tome of Magic and the Shadowcaster class. One of the spells is Afraid of the Dark. The spell description (page 141) states:

    "Level 3rd, School Illusion (Mind-Affecting, Shadow)."

    Some spells affect the eyes (what you actually "see"), others affect the mind (what you think you "see"). The "counter measures" would, of necessity, be different for each.
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> Greyhawk- AD&D 2nd Edition All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    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

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.59 Seconds