Spell Questions

[Spalls Hurgenson]

So, a couple of questions that came up during a recent session:


1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?

In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)



2) Do undead creatures radiate magic that can be sensed by Detect
Magic?

As DM, I really don't like this - it makes things to easy for the
players - but it's hard to argue that it should, especially since most
undead are created by powerful spells. The existence of a "detect
undead" spell in some editions does suggest that Detect Magic is not
sufficient, however.



Whaddaya guys think?

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?
In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)

From
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Aiming_a_Spell_(Spell_Descriptor)
"Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell."

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
2) Do undead creatures radiate magic that can be sensed by Detect
Magic?
As DM, I really don't like this - it makes things to easy for the
players - but it's hard to argue that it should, especially since most
undead are created by powerful spells. The existence of a "detect
undead" spell in some editions does suggest that Detect Magic is not
sufficient, however.
Whaddaya guys think?

No, Animate Dead is instantaneous

[Spalls Hurgenson]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?
In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)

From
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Aiming_a_Spell_(Spell_Descriptor)
"Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell."

2nd Ed is more specific:
"Use of the magic missile spell creates up to five missiles of magical
energy that dart forth from the wizard's fingertip and unerringly
strike their target. This includes enemy creatures in a melee. The
target creature must be seen or otherwise detected to be hit however,
so near-total concealment such as that offered by arrow slits, can
render the spell ineffective. The caster must be able to identify the
target. He cannot direct a magic missile to strike the commander of
the legion unless he can single out the commander from the rest of the
soldiers. Specific parts of a creature cannot be singled out.
Inanimate objects (locks, etc.) cannot be damaged by the spell, and
any attempt to do so wastes the missiles to no effect."

Nonetheless, neither definition really answer the question (nor do the
descriptions in other versions; 2nd Ed was by far the most verbose).
The target cannot be directly seen in this case - it's invisible - but
it's form and position are quite obvious by its movement through the
tall grass. Nonetheless, based on my earlier ruling that the MM spell
couldn't be targeted in a direction or even just a location of empty
space I agreed with my players that there was a degree of
inconsistency in my verdicts: for all intents and purposes, the
location occupied by the invisible creature might as well have been
empty space to the PC.

The players and I agreed ultimately with the decision as made - I'm
not second-guessing myself - but I am curious as to what other DMs
think.

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
2) Do undead creatures radiate magic that can be sensed by Detect
Magic?

No, Animate Dead is instantaneous

The spell is instantaneous, but the effect is permanent. Presumably
there are lingering magical energies that keep the rotting bones and
flesh moving.

Detect magic varies over different editions. In OD&D, it "determines
if some enchantment has been laid on a person, place or thing".
Animate dead is an enchantment placed on a skeleton; ergo, Detect
Magic should "see" it. In Basic, it states that "all magical objects,
creatures and places within range glow". Skeletons (and zombies,
mummies and liches) almost certainly fall within the definition of a
"magical creature". 1st & 2nd Edition are fairly quiet on the issue,
beyond stating that other-planar creatures are "not necessarily"
magical (and that's the version with a specific "detect undead" spell,
which would argue against it). On the other hand, 3rd & 3.5th Editions
add significantly to the power, allowing the wizard to determine the
strength of the aura, which fades as time goes by. It is quite
arguable that the power of an animate dead spell also lingers around
undead.

So again, it's sort of up in the air. I ruled against it largely based
on "game balance" reasons, but I feel that the rules of magic in my
campaign world (where undead don't rely on extra-planar "negative
material" energies to function but are animated solely by the magic),
Detect Magic technically should have worked.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Spalls Hurgenson

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?
In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)

From
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Aiming_a_Spell_(Spell_Descriptor)
"Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell."

"Use of the magic missile spell creates up to five missiles of magical
energy that dart forth from the wizard's fingertip and unerringly
strike their target. This includes enemy creatures in a melee. The
target creature must be seen or otherwise detected to be hit however,
so near-total concealment such as that offered by arrow slits, can
render the spell ineffective. The caster must be able to identify the
target. He cannot direct a magic missile to strike the commander of
the legion unless he can single out the commander from the rest of the
soldiers. Specific parts of a creature cannot be singled out.
Inanimate objects (locks, etc.) cannot be damaged by the spell, and
any attempt to do so wastes the missiles to no effect."
Nonetheless, neither definition really answer the question

Sure it does.
To cast a spell targeted at a creature you have to be able to see it or touch it.
You can't see it so you can't target it.

Post by Spalls Hurgenson

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
2) Do undead creatures radiate magic that can be sensed by Detect
Magic?

No, Animate Dead is instantaneous

The spell is instantaneous, but the effect is permanent.
Presumably
there are lingering magical energies that keep the rotting bones and
flesh moving.

Compare and contrast
Instantaneous
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.
Permanent
The energy remains as long as the effect does. This means the spell is vulnerable to dispel magic.

From detect magic
Aura Strength: An aura’s power depends on a spell’s functioning spell level or an item’s caster level. If an aura falls into more than one category, detect magic indicates the stronger of the two.

Lingering Aura: A magical aura lingers after its original source dissipates (in the case of a spell) or is destroyed (in the case of a magic item). If detect magic is cast and directed at such a location, the spell indicates an aura strength of dim (even weaker than a faint aura). How long the aura lingers at this dim level depends on its original power:

Outsiders and elementals are not magical in themselves, but if they are summoned, the conjuration spell registers.

It'd be surprising if they didn't mention undead if they were meant to detect as magical.
So an animate dead would give a lingering aura for a few rounds and then nothing.

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
Detect magic varies over different editions. In OD&D, it "determines
if some enchantment has been laid on a person, place or thing".
Animate dead is an enchantment placed on a skeleton; ergo, Detect
Magic should "see" it. In Basic, it states that "all magical objects,
creatures and places within range glow". Skeletons (and zombies,
mummies and liches) almost certainly fall within the definition of a
"magical creature". 1st & 2nd Edition are fairly quiet on the issue,
beyond stating that other-planar creatures are "not necessarily"
magical (and that's the version with a specific "detect undead" spell,
which would argue against it). On the other hand, 3rd & 3.5th Editions
add significantly to the power, allowing the wizard to determine the
strength of the aura, which fades as time goes by. It is quite
arguable that the power of an animate dead spell also lingers around
undead.

See above.

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
So again, it's sort of up in the air.

No it's not under the rules in 3.x onwards

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
I ruled against it largely based
on "game balance" reasons, but I feel that the rules of magic in my
campaign world (where undead don't rely on extra-planar "negative
material" energies to function but are animated solely by the magic),
Detect Magic technically should have worked.

[Gordon Burditt]

Post by h***@gmail.com
Sure it does.
To cast a spell targeted at a creature you have to be able to see it or touch it.
You can't see it so you can't target it.

Ok, so what does the "or touch it" part mean? Or does it have no
effect? If that's the case, why is the phrase in there?

Does it mean that you can target it if you *COULD* walk up to it
(because you can tell where it is from the tall grass being displaced)
and touch it (if it didn't react to your approach? Nope, I don't
buy that. It's a loophole you can drive large galaxies through (to
say nothing of targeting them).

Does it mean that you can target it if you *DID* walk up to it
(because you can tell where it is from the tall grass being displaced)
and touch it? Perhaps you got "lucky" and it was looking in the
other direction so it didn't run or attack until you actually grabbed
its butt. Now, you know with more certainty where it is. Can you
target what's just past your hand? Say, grab part of it (you might
grab an arm, or a nose, or a head, or a leg, etc.?) That might be
rather risky. You might discover that its mouth has bitten your
fingers off. Or it's run you through with an invisible sword. Or
it's trying to choke you. But you can see where your hand is and
you can feel that your hand is grabbing some part of the creature.

Can I use the "or touch it" part if I'm holding a pitcher containing
some water and a small water elemental (perhaps I saw it enter the
pitcher earlier, from a nearby river) even though I really can't
tell the difference between the two now, and I want to target the
elemental with Magic Missile?

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Gordon Burditt

Post by h***@gmail.com
Sure it does.
To cast a spell targeted at a creature you have to be able to see it or touch it.
You can't see it so you can't target it.

Ok, so what does the "or touch it" part mean? Or does it have no
effect? If that's the case, why is the phrase in there?

It means you can target a creature with a directly targeted spell if you can see it or if you touch it.

[Loren Pechtel]

Post by Gordon Burditt
Can I use the "or touch it" part if I'm holding a pitcher containing
some water and a small water elemental (perhaps I saw it enter the
pitcher earlier, from a nearby river) even though I really can't
tell the difference between the two now, and I want to target the
elemental with Magic Missile?

I would not allow that, although if you stuck your hand into the water
and touched the elemental I would allow it.

[Anonymous Jack]

The target creature must be seen or otherwise detected to be hit however,

I'd say you can't target with MM. I interpret "otherwise detected" as something more than knowing the location - it's (IMO) 'sight equivalent'

The "seeing" is an intrinsic part of targeting the spell.

if you saw a well known person turn invisible and you can see their footprints in the snow, you know their form exactly, and their location exactly, but should not be able to target them.

The spell is instantaneous, but the effect is permanent. Presumably
there are lingering magical energies that keep the rotting bones and
flesh moving.
I feel that the rules of magic in my
campaign world (where undead don't rely on extra-planar "negative
material" energies to function but are animated solely by the magic),
Detect Magic technically should have worked.

Well, the "no negative energy" throws a twist in it.

Normally I would say, no, Detect Magic does not detect undead anymore than it would detect a wooden staff that had Mend cast on it.

But really, do we need a continuing animating force (either magic, or neg energy) to keep the corpse moving? I think we can hand wave away thermodynamics and science, to some extent, in a world where magic is real.

[Zaghadka]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:28:51 -0400, in rec.games.frp.dnd, Spalls

Post by Spalls Hurgenson

Post by h***@gmail.com
No, Animate Dead is instantaneous

The spell is instantaneous, but the effect is permanent. Presumably
there are lingering magical energies that keep the rotting bones and
flesh moving.
Detect magic varies over different editions. In OD&D, it "determines
if some enchantment has been laid on a person, place or thing".
Animate dead is an enchantment placed on a skeleton; ergo, Detect
Magic should "see" it. In Basic, it states that "all magical objects,
creatures and places within range glow". Skeletons (and zombies,
mummies and liches) almost certainly fall within the definition of a
"magical creature". 1st & 2nd Edition are fairly quiet on the issue,
beyond stating that other-planar creatures are "not necessarily"
magical (and that's the version with a specific "detect undead" spell,
which would argue against it). On the other hand, 3rd & 3.5th Editions
add significantly to the power, allowing the wizard to determine the
strength of the aura, which fades as time goes by. It is quite
arguable that the power of an animate dead spell also lingers around
undead.

What keeps an undead going is energy from the negative plane. So if the
players can detect negative energy, and there's no reason they couldn't
research that, then that spell would detect the undead. But it would be a
different spell, similar to "Detect Undead." The animation spells just
create a permanent link to the negative plane. Some undead are so
powerful that they can channel their negative energies into their attacks
(level drain). This is also why all healing spells will hurt any undead.
Negative and positive energy are not magical energy with a school (such
as Necromancy). Detect magic detects active magical eminations, not
positive/negative energy fields.

Not going to quote chapter and verse, but that's my understanding of it.

I'm extrapolating a bit from Pathfinder rules, so I'm not using strict
d20 SRD here, but I think that the negative energy rule is pretty much
acknowledged in all versions of D&D other than 1st edition, where they
were still making this stuff up on the fly.

[Zaghadka]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:28:51 -0400, in rec.games.frp.dnd, Spalls

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
I feel that the rules of magic in my
campaign world (where undead don't rely on extra-planar "negative
material" energies to function but are animated solely by the magic)

I skimmed your reply, sorry. ;) If you're not using standard negative
energy rules, then house-rule whatever you wish. Just make sure that they
can't knock down a vampire with a "Heal" spell at the same time.

In standard (and probably tournament) rules, what I said applies.

[Justisaur]

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?
In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)
2) Do undead creatures radiate magic that can be sensed by Detect
Magic?
As DM, I really don't like this - it makes things to easy for the
players - but it's hard to argue that it should, especially since most
undead are created by powerful spells. The existence of a "detect
undead" spell in some editions does suggest that Detect Magic is not
sufficient, however.
Whaddaya guys think?

It all depends what edition you're talking about.

1) MM generally no. In 0e & Holmes there's an attack roll and the spell
just summons some magical arrows, so in those editions yes, the MM can
be targeted at an invisible creature. 1e - it depends if you can detect
the invisible creature, some of high enough level & int can actually
detect the slight displacement of image of invisibility and can thus
target them.

2) Detect magic generally no. In 1e I'd say possibly, as there's
conflicting info even on dispel magic working on skeletons and zombies -
Animate dead says that dispel magic is effective on them and if you go
with that rule I'd say that detect magic also detects them. Of course
skeletons and zombies are pretty obvious anyway. About the only thing
you might have some doubt about would be vampires. I'm a bit torn on
vampires detecting as magic, but I probably wouldn't have it detect them
unless they were using some other of their powers like polymorph, flying
etc.

In any case I'd chalk it up to DM fiat.

- Justisaur

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?
In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)

If you have something that's giving you a target volume, MM can hit it,
100%. If they're invisible and you just have a vague idea where they
are, then the MM has the 50% miss chance standard for invisible combat,
but if it makes the 50% chance then it hits.

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
2) Do undead creatures radiate magic that can be sensed by Detect
Magic?
As DM, I really don't like this - it makes things to easy for the
players - but it's hard to argue that it should, especially since most
undead are created by powerful spells. The existence of a "detect
undead" spell in some editions does suggest that Detect Magic is not
sufficient, however.
Whaddaya guys think?

Detect Magic should show spell-created undead and anything else
magical, including invisible creatures. But it WON'T show you what they
look like -- it's just a general glow you get in the region -- so it's
not nearly as good for that as See Invisible, and it won't tell you what
exactly you're seeing, so Detect Undead gives you information you
wouldn't get from Detect Magic.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Detect Magic should show spell-created undead and anything else
magical, including invisible creatures.

It doesn't in 3.5 because Animate Dead is an instantaneous spell.

[Ubiquitous]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Detect Magic should show spell-created undead and anything else
magical, including invisible creatures.

It doesn't in 3.5 because Animate Dead is an instantaneous spell.

I thought there would be a weak magic field on them. Was there
a ruling on what would happen if the spell was cast before they
were active?

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Detect Magic should show spell-created undead and anything else
magical, including invisible creatures.

It doesn't in 3.5 because Animate Dead is an instantaneous spell.

If it were instantaneous, what's keeping the undead moving? Gears? No,
there's magic there.

[Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw]

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Detect Magic should show spell-created undead and anything else
magical, including invisible creatures.

It doesn't in 3.5 because Animate Dead is an instantaneous spell.

If it were instantaneous, what's keeping the undead moving?
Gears? No, there's magic there.

What's keeping it moving would be "magic" as defined in our universe,
this is not necessarily so in the universe the game is taking place in.
The thing called "magic" within the context of the game universe is only
a subset of what you or I might consider magic if we encountered it. It
might be better to consider "magic" within the game setting as meaning
something more like "spellwork".

This will generally be a universe where living creatures have a literal
"life force" as a core component. Given that, an instantaneous spell
which creates an undead creature would be most likely acting on the basis
of summoning/creating some motive spirit which then inhabits the body and
makes use of it. This spirit would no more detect as magic as would the
soul of any other random creature.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Detect Magic should show spell-created undead and anything else
magical, including invisible creatures.

It doesn't in 3.5 because Animate Dead is an instantaneous spell.

If it were instantaneous, what's keeping the undead moving?
Gears? No, there's magic there.

What's keeping it moving would be "magic" as defined in our universe,
this is not necessarily so in the universe the game is taking place in.
The thing called "magic" within the context of the game universe is only
a subset of what you or I might consider magic if we encountered it. It
might be better to consider "magic" within the game setting as meaning
something more like "spellwork".
This will generally be a universe where living creatures have a literal
"life force" as a core component. Given that, an instantaneous spell
which creates an undead creature would be most likely acting on the basis
of summoning/creating some motive spirit which then inhabits the body and
makes use of it. This spirit would no more detect as magic as would the
soul of any other random creature.

Which means it depends on the individual DM's world and how they
interpret it working. Undead like zombies might be basically magical
automatons, while intelligent undead might have a spirit in them.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:00:45 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Detect Magic should show spell-created undead and anything else
magical, including invisible creatures.

It doesn't in 3.5 because Animate Dead is an instantaneous spell.

If it were instantaneous, what's keeping the undead moving?
Gears? No, there's magic there.

What's keeping it moving would be "magic" as defined in our universe,
this is not necessarily so in the universe the game is taking place in.
The thing called "magic" within the context of the game universe is only
a subset of what you or I might consider magic if we encountered it. It
might be better to consider "magic" within the game setting as meaning
something more like "spellwork".
This will generally be a universe where living creatures have a literal
"life force" as a core component. Given that, an instantaneous spell
which creates an undead creature would be most likely acting on the basis
of summoning/creating some motive spirit which then inhabits the body and
makes use of it. This spirit would no more detect as magic as would the
soul of any other random creature.

Which means it depends on the individual DM's world and how they
interpret it working. Undead like zombies might be basically magical
automatons, while intelligent undead might have a spirit in them.

Indeed. In my original post, I specifically mentioned skeletons,
zombies, mummies and liches as all four monsters are (usually) created
through the application of spells and rituals, whereas ghouls, wights,
ghasts, ghosts, spectres, wraiths, shadows and vampires are more often
created by curses, bites or simply by the sheer evil performed while
the entity was still alive turning them into a restless dead.

The former arguably could be sensed via a Detect Magic; it's harder to
make the same argument for the latter group (although not impossible
since /something/ is obviously animating them and it might well be
magic).

[Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw]

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Which means it depends on the individual DM's world and how they
interpret it working. Undead like zombies might be basically magical
automatons, while intelligent undead might have a spirit in them.

I was going with what the rules as written imply about the universe.

Given that animate/create undead spells are instantaneous rather than
permanent, the RAW are clearly saying that in the 'default' universe
there is no ongoing magical effect.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Which means it depends on the individual DM's world and how they
interpret it working. Undead like zombies might be basically magical
automatons, while intelligent undead might have a spirit in them.

I was going with what the rules as written imply about the universe.

So am I. We are disagreeing about what they imply.

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Given that animate/create undead spells are instantaneous rather than
permanent, the RAW are clearly saying that in the 'default' universe
there is no ongoing magical effect.

This is your interpretation. Mine is that there's no ongoing work; it
works right away and your spell can't be interrupted as a ritual might.

But you instantaneously create a magically animated undead. It's not
moving because it suddenly has a motor installed, or because you've
summoned a horde of tiny pixies to move the skeleton around, it's moving
because it's now infused with magic that provides it with motive power
and the ability to understand simple commands, at least.

So to me, the rules clearly imply there's magic there.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Which means it depends on the individual DM's world and how they
interpret it working. Undead like zombies might be basically magical
automatons, while intelligent undead might have a spirit in them.

I was going with what the rules as written imply about the universe.

So am I. We are disagreeing about what they imply.

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Given that animate/create undead spells are instantaneous rather than
permanent, the RAW are clearly saying that in the 'default' universe
there is no ongoing magical effect.

This is your interpretation. Mine is that there's no ongoing work; it
works right away and your spell can't be interrupted as a ritual might.
But you instantaneously create a magically animated undead. It's not
moving because it suddenly has a motor installed, or because you've
summoned a horde of tiny pixies to move the skeleton around, it's moving
because it's now infused with magic that provides it with motive power
and the ability to understand simple commands, at least.

As I understand it in 3.x undead are driven by a connection to the negative energy plane.
That doesn't seem to detect as magic

(neither does animated soulstuff in outsiders or elements as elementals)

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
So to me, the rules clearly imply there's magic there.

[Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw]

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Which means it depends on the individual DM's world and how they
interpret it working. Undead like zombies might be basically magical
automatons, while intelligent undead might have a spirit in them.

I was going with what the rules as written imply about the universe.

So am I. We are disagreeing about what they imply.

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Given that animate/create undead spells are instantaneous rather than
permanent, the RAW are clearly saying that in the 'default' universe
there is no ongoing magical effect.

This is your interpretation. Mine is that there's no ongoing
work; it works right away and your spell can't be interrupted as a
ritual might.

That would describe any spell. The whole point of splitting the earlier
"permanent" into "permanent" and "instantaneous" was to remove the
confusion between "spells that stay around forever" and "spells that
create/cause something that is not itself magical."

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
But you instantaneously create a magically animated undead. It's
not moving because it suddenly has a motor installed, or because you've
summoned a horde of tiny pixies to move the skeleton around,

That's pretty much what the RAW implies: The spell brings in something
that can keep the body moving around.

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
it's moving
because it's now infused with magic that provides it with motive power
and the ability to understand simple commands, at least.
So to me, the rules clearly imply there's magic there.

Going with the 3.5 PH regarding duration:

"Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is
cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting."

The RAW specifically says the exact opposite of there still being magic
there.

Also, an ongoing effect would imply that that effect could be dispelled.
However, the description for Dispel Magic specifically notes:

"Note: The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can't be
dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel
magic can take effect."

(Pathfinder has nearly identical text for both.)

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Which means it depends on the individual DM's world and how they
interpret it working. Undead like zombies might be basically magical
automatons, while intelligent undead might have a spirit in them.

I was going with what the rules as written imply about the universe.

So am I. We are disagreeing about what they imply.

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Given that animate/create undead spells are instantaneous rather than
permanent, the RAW are clearly saying that in the 'default' universe
there is no ongoing magical effect.

This is your interpretation. Mine is that there's no ongoing
work; it works right away and your spell can't be interrupted as a
ritual might.

That would describe any spell. The whole point of splitting the earlier
"permanent" into "permanent" and "instantaneous" was to remove the
confusion between "spells that stay around forever" and "spells that
create/cause something that is not itself magical."

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
But you instantaneously create a magically animated undead. It's
not moving because it suddenly has a motor installed, or because you've
summoned a horde of tiny pixies to move the skeleton around,

That's pretty much what the RAW implies: The spell brings in something
that can keep the body moving around.

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
it's moving
because it's now infused with magic that provides it with motive power
and the ability to understand simple commands, at least.
So to me, the rules clearly imply there's magic there.

"Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is
cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting."
The RAW specifically says the exact opposite of there still being magic
there.

Then the zombie should jump up and fall down instantly. SOMETHING is
moving it, and as this isn't a Conjuration spell, you're not conjuring
some kind of other creature to do the work.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Which means it depends on the individual DM's world and how they
interpret it working. Undead like zombies might be basically magical
automatons, while intelligent undead might have a spirit in them.

I was going with what the rules as written imply about the universe.

So am I. We are disagreeing about what they imply.

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Given that animate/create undead spells are instantaneous rather than
permanent, the RAW are clearly saying that in the 'default' universe
there is no ongoing magical effect.

This is your interpretation. Mine is that there's no ongoing
work; it works right away and your spell can't be interrupted as a
ritual might.

That would describe any spell. The whole point of splitting the earlier
"permanent" into "permanent" and "instantaneous" was to remove the
confusion between "spells that stay around forever" and "spells that
create/cause something that is not itself magical."

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
But you instantaneously create a magically animated undead. It's
not moving because it suddenly has a motor installed, or because you've
summoned a horde of tiny pixies to move the skeleton around,

That's pretty much what the RAW implies: The spell brings in something
that can keep the body moving around.

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
it's moving
because it's now infused with magic that provides it with motive power
and the ability to understand simple commands, at least.
So to me, the rules clearly imply there's magic there.

"Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is
cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting."
The RAW specifically says the exact opposite of there still being magic
there.

Then the zombie should jump up and fall down instantly. SOMETHING is
moving it, and as this isn't a Conjuration spell, you're not conjuring
some kind of other creature to do the work.

animated by negative energy

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 19:01:20 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Which means it depends on the individual DM's world
and how they
interpret it working. Undead like zombies might be
basically magical automatons, while intelligent undead
might have a spirit in them.

I was going with what the rules as written imply about the universe.

So am I. We are disagreeing about what they imply.

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Given that animate/create undead spells are instantaneous
rather than permanent, the RAW are clearly saying that in
the 'default' universe there is no ongoing magical effect.

This is your interpretation. Mine is that there's no
ongoing
work; it works right away and your spell can't be
interrupted as a ritual might.

That would describe any spell. The whole point of splitting
the earlier "permanent" into "permanent" and "instantaneous"
was to remove the confusion between "spells that stay around
forever" and "spells that create/cause something that is not
itself magical."

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
But you instantaneously create a magically animated
undead. It's
not moving because it suddenly has a motor installed, or
because you've summoned a horde of tiny pixies to move the
skeleton around,

That's pretty much what the RAW implies: The spell brings in
something that can keep the body moving around.

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
it's moving
because it's now infused with magic that provides it with
motive power and the ability to understand simple commands,
at least.
So to me, the rules clearly imply there's magic there.

"Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant
the spell is cast, though the consequences might be
long-lasting."
The RAW specifically says the exact opposite of there still
being magic there.

Then the zombie should jump up and fall down instantly.
SOMETHING is
moving it, and as this isn't a Conjuration spell, you're not
conjuring some kind of other creature to do the work.

animated by negative energy

That's just fanwank for "magic."

This is one of the most pointless arguments I've seen in a long,
long time. Who cares what the rule book says? If you like it, use
it. If you don't, change.

Of course, this involves everyone acting like grown ups, or at leat
10 year olds.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 22:34:36 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Then the zombie should jump up and fall down instantly.
SOMETHING is moving it, and as this isn't a Conjuration spell,
you're not conjuring some kind of other creature to do the work.

animated by negative energy

That's just fanwank for "magic."

More, the whole negative energy thing came as an excuse as to how
wights, shadow, spectres et al could leech away levels or strength;
the negative energy plane was giant suck and the undead were conduits.
The "force" of the negative energy plane can't energize anything; its
defining feature is that it removes energy, not that it empowers.
Thinking logically, the spell must do the animating even as it alsp
creates a framework through which life energy could be channeled to
the negative energy plane (which, if you think about it, is pretty
clever; how do you create such a conduit without the NEP draining the
magic itself? Those wizard guys must have a high INT stat ;-)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
This is one of the most pointless arguments I've seen in a long,
long time. Who cares what the rule book says? If you like it, use
it. If you don't, change.

Well, this is definitely a /silly/ argument. Not only does it deal
with poorly defined "magic" that never has had its limitations spelled
out, it's all in a framework that can change depending not only on
what EDITION of the game you are playing, but also on the whims of the
DM. Arguing the rules when the rules themselves are so fluid is, I
must admit, rather ridiculous

It certainly isn't an /important/ argument, since people have been
playing D&D for 40+ years without the whole hobby collapsing on itself
because there's been no official ruling on whether Detect Magic can
see undead. We aren't going to come to any significant revelations
here that will shake the foundations of D&D; it's nitpicking the
aforementioned unclear rules.

But a /pointless/ discussion? There we disagree. I've found one of the
best things for any campaign is to maintain consistency, both in rules
and in setting. Detect Magic not being able to "see" undead -
especially spell-created undead - does seem rather inconsistent.

Plus, we're all nerds - and don't deny it; we are nerds; we play D&D
/and/ we're still on Usenet, we couldn't get much nerdier if we had
pocket protectors - and this is the sort of thing we ENJOY discussing.

I originally brought up the topic not to validate my decision but
because my players brought it to my attention and we thought it an
interesting conundrum. After some discussion, we moved on with our
game but I thought the topic might be interesting to other people as
well, hence my question in the original post. Given the amount of
responses that post has engendered, I was correct in my assessment.

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Of course, this involves everyone acting like grown ups, or at leat
10 year olds.

I've not really seen anyone acting immaturely. There are differing
opinions but everyone has remained fairly polite on the subject so we
all at least on the level of twelve year olds.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 22:34:36 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Then the zombie should jump up and fall down instantly.
SOMETHING is moving it, and as this isn't a Conjuration spell,
you're not conjuring some kind of other creature to do the work.

animated by negative energy

That's just fanwank for "magic."

More, the whole negative energy thing came as an excuse as to how
wights, shadow, spectres et al could leech away levels or strength;
the negative energy plane was giant suck and the undead were conduits.
The "force" of the negative energy plane can't energize anything; its
defining feature is that it removes energy, not that it empowers.

http://www.lomion.de/cmm/elemneen.php serves as a counter example

You're trying to apply far too much scientific thought to the D&D world

From
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/environment/the-planes/#Negative_Energy_Plane

"Negative energy is itself a dark opposite of life-giving positive energy, yet while it is most often a source or tool of destruction, it is also the animating force of the undead."

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
Thinking logically, the spell must do the animating

Except that it's an instantaneous spell and how they work is specifically described.

[JimP.]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 09:49:43 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 22:34:36 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Then the zombie should jump up and fall down instantly.
SOMETHING is moving it, and as this isn't a Conjuration spell,
you're not conjuring some kind of other creature to do the work.

animated by negative energy

That's just fanwank for "magic."

More, the whole negative energy thing came as an excuse as to how
wights, shadow, spectres et al could leech away levels or strength;
the negative energy plane was giant suck and the undead were conduits.
The "force" of the negative energy plane can't energize anything; its
defining feature is that it removes energy, not that it empowers.
Thinking logically, the spell must do the animating even as it alsp
creates a framework through which life energy could be channeled to
the negative energy plane (which, if you think about it, is pretty
clever; how do you create such a conduit without the NEP draining the
magic itself? Those wizard guys must have a high INT stat ;-)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
This is one of the most pointless arguments I've seen in a long,
long time. Who cares what the rule book says? If you like it, use
it. If you don't, change.

Well, this is definitely a /silly/ argument. Not only does it deal
with poorly defined "magic" that never has had its limitations spelled
out, it's all in a framework that can change depending not only on
what EDITION of the game you are playing, but also on the whims of the
DM. Arguing the rules when the rules themselves are so fluid is, I
must admit, rather ridiculous
It certainly isn't an /important/ argument, since people have been
playing D&D for 40+ years without the whole hobby collapsing on itself
because there's been no official ruling on whether Detect Magic can
see undead. We aren't going to come to any significant revelations
here that will shake the foundations of D&D; it's nitpicking the
aforementioned unclear rules.
But a /pointless/ discussion? There we disagree. I've found one of the
best things for any campaign is to maintain consistency, both in rules
and in setting. Detect Magic not being able to "see" undead -
especially spell-created undead - does seem rather inconsistent.
Plus, we're all nerds - and don't deny it; we are nerds; we play D&D
/and/ we're still on Usenet, we couldn't get much nerdier if we had
pocket protectors - and this is the sort of thing we ENJOY discussing.

But I do have a pocket protector. Got by renewing, back in the 1980s,
my subscription to .info magazine, a magazine for Amiga computer
owners. I still have the large mouse pad that has lots of keyboard
shortcuts, etc. on it to.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 22:34:36 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:05:32 AM UTC+10, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Then the zombie should jump up and fall down instantly.
SOMETHING is moving it, and as this isn't a Conjuration
spell, you're not conjuring some kind of other creature
to do the work.

animated by negative energy

That's just fanwank for "magic."

More, the whole negative energy thing came as an excuse as to
how wights, shadow, spectres et al could leech away levels or
strength; the negative energy plane was giant suck and the
undead were conduits. The "force" of the negative energy plane
can't energize anything; its defining feature is that it removes
energy, not that it empowers. Thinking logically, the spell must
do the animating even as it alsp creates a framework through
which life energy could be channeled to the negative energy
plane (which, if you think about it, is pretty clever; how do
you create such a conduit without the NEP draining the magic
itself? Those wizard guys must have a high INT stat ;-)

In short, the RAW conflicts with itself on a logical level. And any
attempt to resolve that conflict will create other conflicts,
equally silly. Choose the conflict that doesn't break your WSOD,
and worry about having fun playing the game. Unless, of coruse,
it's the childish pissing contest that's fun for you.

Post by Spalls Hurgenson

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
This is one of the most pointless arguments I've seen in a long,
long time. Who cares what the rule book says? If you like it,
use it. If you don't, change.

Well, this is definitely a /silly/ argument. Not only does it
deal with poorly defined "magic" that never has had its
limitations spelled out, it's all in a framework that can
change depending not only on what EDITION of the game you are
playing, but also on the whims of the DM. Arguing the rules when
the rules themselves are so fluid is, I must admit, rather
ridiculous

What makes it pointless is that different groups have different
preferences. There isn't one right answer (One! True! Way! Of!
Gaming!). The correct solution for one group is knife-fight-in-the-
alley bad for another. And the correct solution for one group
*today* might well be wrong for the same group, with the same
people, playing the same characters in the same settings using the
same game *tomorrow*.

"Y'll ain't here for the huntin', are you son?"
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
What makes it pointless is that different groups have different
preferences.

No, that's what GIVES it a point.

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
There isn't one right answer (One! True! Way! Of!
Gaming!).

Yes there is. Mine.

Of course, "mine" varies with each individual. Which is why we can have
fun arguing these things, rather than all agreeing with each other
robotically.

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
The correct solution

Is Thunderdome, of course.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
What makes it pointless is that different groups have different
preferences.

No, that's what GIVES it a point.

That demonstrates how utterly pointless the argument - and everyone
in it - are.

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
There isn't one right answer (One! True! Way! Of!
Gaming!).

Yes there is. Mine.

QED.

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Of course, "mine" varies with each individual. Which is why we can have
fun arguing these things, rather than all agreeing with each
other robotically.

The only robotic agreement that isn't pointless (and childish) is
"you play the way your group enjoys, and we'll play the way our
group enjoys."

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
The correct solution

Is Thunderdome, of course.

The only way to not lose is to not play.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
What makes it pointless is that different groups have different
preferences.

No, that's what GIVES it a point.

That demonstrates how utterly pointless the argument - and everyone
in it - are.

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
There isn't one right answer (One! True! Way! Of!
Gaming!).

Yes there is. Mine.

QED.

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Of course, "mine" varies with each individual. Which is why we can have
fun arguing these things, rather than all agreeing with each
other robotically.

The only robotic agreement that isn't pointless (and childish) is
"you play the way your group enjoys, and we'll play the way our
group enjoys."

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
The correct solution

Is Thunderdome, of course.

The only way to not lose is to not play.

With Thunderdome, everyone (well, ALMOST everyone) wins.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
What makes it pointless is that different groups have
different preferences.

No, that's what GIVES it a point.

That demonstrates how utterly pointless the argument - and
everyone in it - are.

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
There isn't one right answer (One! True! Way! Of!
Gaming!).

Yes there is. Mine.

QED.

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Of course, "mine" varies with each individual. Which is
why we can have
fun arguing these things, rather than all agreeing with each
other robotically.

The only robotic agreement that isn't pointless (and childish)
is "you play the way your group enjoys, and we'll play the way
our group enjoys."

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
The correct solution

Is Thunderdome, of course.

The only way to not lose is to not play.

With Thunderdome, everyone (well, ALMOST everyone) wins.

Only in that union scale in Hollywood is actually a decent amount
of money.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Justisaur]

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
With Thunderdome, everyone (well, ALMOST everyone) wins.

Only in that union scale in Hollywood is actually a decent amount
of money.

Isn't Mad Max Australian?

- Justisaur

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Post by Justisaur

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
With Thunderdome, everyone (well, ALMOST everyone) wins.

Only in that union scale in Hollywood is actually a decent amount
of money.

Isn't Mad Max Australian?

Hollywood has influence that extends all over the world. (I suspect
the Oz movie industry has very similar unions.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[JimP.]

Post by Justisaur

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
With Thunderdome, everyone (well, ALMOST everyone) wins.

Only in that union scale in Hollywood is actually a decent amount
of money.

Isn't Mad Max Australian?
- Justisaur

That is where it takes place, yes.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Post by JimP.

Post by Justisaur

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
With Thunderdome, everyone (well, ALMOST everyone) wins.

Only in that union scale in Hollywood is actually a decent amount
of money.

Isn't Mad Max Australian?
- Justisaur

That is where it takes place, yes.

That's where it was flimed, too.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Justisaur

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
With Thunderdome, everyone (well, ALMOST everyone) wins.

Only in that union scale in Hollywood is actually a decent amount
of money.

Isn't Mad Max Australian?

Yes, and it looks like even the sequels were Australian funded.
Aus payments for films is way lower than US rates.

[Anonymous Jack]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Justisaur

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
With Thunderdome, everyone (well, ALMOST everyone) wins.

Only in that union scale in Hollywood is actually a decent amount
of money.

Isn't Mad Max Australian?

Yes, and it looks like even the sequels were Australian funded.
Aus payments for films is way lower than US rates.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079501/trivia

Most of the extras used in the film were paid in beer
The truck driver was paid fifty dollars and a case of beer for his vehicle and driving . . .,
the truck driver didn't want to damage his rig; thus the crew had to install a shield painted to look like the front of the rig.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 21:02:53 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
What makes it pointless is that different groups have different
preferences.

No, that's what GIVES it a point.

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
There isn't one right answer (One! True! Way! Of!
Gaming!).

Yes there is. Mine.
Of course, "mine" varies with each individual. Which is why we can have
fun arguing these things, rather than all agreeing with each other
robotically.

It does seem rather silly to argue against people discussing a topic
in a Usenet discussion group. It's what we're all here for, after all.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, when I originally posted the
question I wasn't asking for validation of my ruling or even -
directly - for clarification. I wanted discussion. There is,
fortunately or unfortunately, just enough muddiness in the rules to
make arguments for both sides. And we're still arguing the
rules-as-written; we haven't even started getting into what the (or
what we believe was the) INTENT of the authors yet. ;-)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 21:02:53 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
What makes it pointless is that different groups have
different preferences.

No, that's what GIVES it a point.

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
There isn't one right answer (One! True! Way! Of!
Gaming!).

Yes there is. Mine.
Of course, "mine" varies with each individual. Which is why we can have
fun arguing these things, rather than all agreeing with each
other robotically.

It does seem rather silly to argue against people discussing a
topic in a Usenet discussion group. It's what we're all here
for, after all.

No discussion is worthwhile when it amounts to "Is not!" "Is so!"
"Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!"
"Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!"
"Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!"
"Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!"
"Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!"
"Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!"
"Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!"
"Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!"
"Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!"
"Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!"
"Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!"
"Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!"
"Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!"
"Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!"
"Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!"
"Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!"
"Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!"
"Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!"
"Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!"
"Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!"
"Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!"
"Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!"
"Is not!" "Is so!"

And nothing else.

Opinion are *always* correct, even when they conflict with other
opinions.

Grown ups know this.

Usenet has very, very few grown ups.

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
As I mentioned in an earlier post, when I originally posted the
question I wasn't asking for validation of my ruling or even -
directly - for clarification. I wanted discussion. There is,
fortunately or unfortunately, just enough muddiness in the rules
to make arguments for both sides. And we're still arguing the
rules-as-written; we haven't even started getting into what the
(or what we believe was the) INTENT of the authors yet. ;-)

If you can't agree on what the rules actually say, there are only
two possibilities:

Either the rules are poorly written, and agreement is inherently
iompossible, ergo, arguing about what the rules say is pointless.

Or one or both of you are idiots who can't read plain English, and
everything you say and do is pointless.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Thomas Prufer]

On Mon, 07 Aug 2017 08:59:12 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
If you can't agree on what the rules actually say, there are only
Either the rules are poorly written, and agreement is inherently
iompossible, ergo, arguing about what the rules say is pointless.
Or one or both of you are idiots who can't read plain English, and
everything you say and do is pointless.

Before "can't agree" comes one explains why they (think they) are right, and
another explains why *they* are right, and the other one is wrong.

This means both need to do some careful rule reading, else their argument will
fall down quickly. Good thing right there.

From these explanations comes understanding, possibly not of the explainees but
of the bystanders. This can mean changing one's own opinion (not necessarily
publicly), seeing the myriad ways other people can be wrong and misguided,
improving ones own arguments to be more persuasive, and generally practicing
backing up "I'm right and you're wrong" with more than "because I'm bigger".


Thomas Prufer

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Post by Thomas Prufer
On Mon, 07 Aug 2017 08:59:12 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
If you can't agree on what the rules actually say, there are
Either the rules are poorly written, and agreement is inherently
iompossible, ergo, arguing about what the rules say is
pointless.
Or one or both of you are idiots who can't read plain English,
and everything you say and do is pointless.

Before "can't agree" comes one explains why they (think they)
are right, and another explains why *they* are right, and the
other one is wrong.

And then you disagree, and the only one who is right is me.

As usual.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Mon, 07 Aug 2017 08:59:12 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 21:02:53 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
What makes it pointless is that different groups have
different preferences.

No, that's what GIVES it a point.

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
There isn't one right answer (One! True! Way! Of!
Gaming!).

Yes there is. Mine.
Of course, "mine" varies with each individual. Which is why we can have
fun arguing these things, rather than all agreeing with each
other robotically.

It does seem rather silly to argue against people discussing a
topic in a Usenet discussion group. It's what we're all here
for, after all.

No discussion is worthwhile when it amounts to "Is not!" "Is so!"
"Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!"
And nothing else.
Opinion are *always* correct, even when they conflict with other
opinions.

Except the discussion in question is not an example of the above.
People have been largely quite mature, offering reasons and examples
of why they think what they do. No ad hominem attacks until recently;
just a polite disagreement of what the rules say - and more
importantly - what they do not say and how that might be reflected in
gameplay. It is exactly the sort of discussion we should be
encouraging on Usenet.

Claiming that "the other side is wrong and there's no point in talking
about it any further" is not the same as conclusively proving ones
point.

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Grown ups know this.
Usenet has very, very few grown ups.
If you can't agree on what the rules actually say, there are only
Either the rules are poorly written, and agreement is inherently
iompossible, ergo, arguing about what the rules say is pointless.
Or one or both of you are idiots who can't read plain English, and
everything you say and do is pointless.

<sigh>

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Post by Thomas Prufer
On Mon, 07 Aug 2017 08:59:12 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 21:02:53 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
What makes it pointless is that different groups have
different preferences.

No, that's what GIVES it a point.

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
There isn't one right answer (One! True! Way! Of!
Gaming!).

Yes there is. Mine.
Of course, "mine" varies with each individual. Which is
why we can have
fun arguing these things, rather than all agreeing with each
other robotically.

It does seem rather silly to argue against people discussing a
topic in a Usenet discussion group. It's what we're all here
for, after all.

No discussion is worthwhile when it amounts to "Is not!" "Is
so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!"
"Is not!" And nothing else.
Opinion are *always* correct, even when they conflict with other
opinions.

Except the discussion in question is not an example of the
above.

Except it is.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Anonymous Jack]

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
More, the whole negative energy thing came as an excuse as to how
wights, shadow, spectres et al could leech away levels or strength;
the negative energy plane was giant suck and the undead were conduits.

It also explains a number of other healing/ life giving /energy sucking effects, and gives two more balanced forces for their general, yin-yang balanced elemental universe design. Plus you get a bunch of spells and magic items related to it (if you have X force, then you have a bunch of attack spells related to that force, and you've also got Protection from X, Greater Protection from X, Immunity to X, etc.)

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
The "force" of the negative energy plane can't energize anything; its
defining feature is that it removes energy, not that it empowers.

This is consistent with your universe rules, but it does eliminate the possibility of negative energy elementals/beings (and is inconsistent with the other traditional four elemental planes, where you have elemental beings and critters that live there)

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
Thinking logically, the spell must do the animating

Not necessarily. It's possible to think of Raise Dead as having two distinct parts; one summons back an animating life force and the other brings back the soul/ memories / intelligence that make a "person". You can then think of creating the lesser undead as lesser spell that just brings back a random animating life force, with none of the soul/ memories /intelligence of the person.

The skeleton/zombie would have no negative plane connection and no radiation of magic (instantaneous effect). Raise Dead (3.x) does not affect these creatures because some random animating life force already inhabits the body and the original person's animating force can't return. The Detect Undead spell detects 'animating force, no neg energy connection, no soul' as a weak aura undead.

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
even as it also
creates a framework through which life energy could be channeled to
the negative energy plane (which, if you think about it, is pretty
clever; how do you create such a conduit without the NEP draining the
magic itself? Those wizard guys must have a high INT stat ;-)

Not sure I follow this, NEP would not suck/affect any force* other than positive energy. It's also possible to think of negative energy not as a giant "suck," but only a cancellation of positive energy. When you are drained of level, you've actually only had one level "cancelled"

*Well, maybe. Fire and water cancel, sort of. Earth and Air just displace each other. Water and Earth mix, Air feeds Fire, etc.

You could make an interesting chart and decide that neg/pos energy actually do interact with other elements, one way or another :)

[Justisaur]

Post by Anonymous Jack
You could make an interesting chart and decide that neg/pos energy actually do interact with other elements, one way or another :)

You mean like Air+Negative makes Vacuum? There is such a thing.

- Justisaur

[Thomas Prufer]

Post by Justisaur

Post by Anonymous Jack
You could make an interesting chart and decide that neg/pos energy actually do interact with other elements, one way or another :)

You mean like Air+Negative makes Vacuum? There is such a thing.

Beware!!11! That way lie the Tables Of Uglyvan!!!


Thomas Prufer

[Anonymous Jack]

Post by Justisaur

Post by Anonymous Jack
You could make an interesting chart and decide that neg/pos energy actually do interact with other elements, one way or another :)

You mean like Air+Negative makes Vacuum? There is such a thing.

TIL, thanks. Well, off to google that to see how it can be used to bemuse my players

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 19:01:20 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Which means it depends on the individual DM's world
and how they
interpret it working. Undead like zombies might be
basically magical automatons, while intelligent undead
might have a spirit in them.

I was going with what the rules as written imply about the universe.

So am I. We are disagreeing about what they imply.

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Given that animate/create undead spells are instantaneous
rather than permanent, the RAW are clearly saying that in
the 'default' universe there is no ongoing magical effect.

This is your interpretation. Mine is that there's no
ongoing
work; it works right away and your spell can't be
interrupted as a ritual might.

That would describe any spell. The whole point of splitting
the earlier "permanent" into "permanent" and "instantaneous"
was to remove the confusion between "spells that stay around
forever" and "spells that create/cause something that is not
itself magical."

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
But you instantaneously create a magically animated
undead. It's
not moving because it suddenly has a motor installed, or
because you've summoned a horde of tiny pixies to move the
skeleton around,

That's pretty much what the RAW implies: The spell brings in
something that can keep the body moving around.

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
it's moving
because it's now infused with magic that provides it with
motive power and the ability to understand simple commands,
at least.
So to me, the rules clearly imply there's magic there.

"Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant
the spell is cast, though the consequences might be
long-lasting."
The RAW specifically says the exact opposite of there still
being magic there.

Then the zombie should jump up and fall down instantly.
SOMETHING is
moving it, and as this isn't a Conjuration spell, you're not
conjuring some kind of other creature to do the work.

animated by negative energy

That's just fanwank for "magic."
This is one of the most pointless arguments I've seen in a long,
long time.

Surely you haven't forgotten the purpose of Usenet.

\

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Of course, this involves everyone acting like grown ups, or at leat
10 year olds.

Enterprise VS Death Star is a perfectly mature discussion topic, I see
no reason why arguing interpretations of world and rules is less mature.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:05:32 AM UTC+10, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:00:45 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E.

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Which means it depends on the individual DM's world and how they
interpret it working. Undead like zombies might be
basically magical automatons, while intelligent undead
might have a spirit in them.

I was going with what the rules as written imply about the universe.

So am I. We are disagreeing about what they imply.

Given that animate/create undead spells are instantaneous
rather than permanent, the RAW are clearly saying that in
the 'default' universe there is no ongoing magical effect.

This is your interpretation. Mine is that there's no
ongoing
work; it works right away and your spell can't be
interrupted as a ritual might.

That would describe any spell. The whole point of splitting
the earlier "permanent" into "permanent" and "instantaneous"
was to remove the confusion between "spells that stay around
forever" and "spells that create/cause something that is not
itself magical."

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
But you instantaneously create a magically animated
undead. It's
not moving because it suddenly has a motor installed, or
because you've summoned a horde of tiny pixies to move the
skeleton around,

That's pretty much what the RAW implies: The spell brings
in something that can keep the body moving around.

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
it's moving
because it's now infused with magic that provides it with
motive power and the ability to understand simple commands,
at least.
So to me, the rules clearly imply there's magic there.

"Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant
the spell is cast, though the consequences might be
long-lasting."
The RAW specifically says the exact opposite of there still
being magic there.

Then the zombie should jump up and fall down instantly. SOMETHING is
moving it, and as this isn't a Conjuration spell, you're not
conjuring some kind of other creature to do the work.

animated by negative energy

That's just fanwank for "magic."
This is one of the most pointless arguments I've seen in a
long, long time.

Surely you haven't forgotten the purpose of Usenet.

To provide a place for stupid people to amuse assholes like me?
Indeed.

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
\

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Of course, this involves everyone acting like grown ups, or at
leat 10 year olds.

Enterprise VS Death Star is a perfectly mature discussion
topic, I see
no reason why arguing interpretations of world and rules is less mature.

Right up there with "is Pern science fiction or fantasy?"
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw]

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
"Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell
is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting."
The RAW specifically says the exact opposite of there still being magic
there.

Then the zombie should jump up and fall down instantly. SOMETHING
is moving it, and as this isn't a Conjuration spell, you're not
conjuring some kind of other creature to do the work.

Necromantic magic has both negative energy and life force as part of its
purview. This means it can bring in an animating force, (traditionally a
negative energy parody of a soul/spirit), that is distinct from what
would be considered magic in a RAW world.

While Conjuration has most of the spells that grab something from
elsewhere to make something, such spells are not exclusive to
Conjuration. Most relevant to this discussion is the Shadow subschool of
Illusion, which can also bring in material from another plane to create
something, (and includes spells which can have instantaneous durations).


I still think you are using a definition of magic that, while correct for
the world we live in, is not correct for the default game world described
by the rules.

[Loren Pechtel]

On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 20:05:30 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Then the zombie should jump up and fall down instantly. SOMETHING is
moving it, and as this isn't a Conjuration spell, you're not conjuring
some kind of other creature to do the work.

It comes down to whether there is ongoing magic in undead. The game
seems to treat it as if there isn't.

[Loren Pechtel]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:25:14 -0000 (UTC), Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Which means it depends on the individual DM's world and how they
interpret it working. Undead like zombies might be basically magical
automatons, while intelligent undead might have a spirit in them.

I was going with what the rules as written imply about the universe.
Given that animate/create undead spells are instantaneous rather than
permanent, the RAW are clearly saying that in the 'default' universe
there is no ongoing magical effect.

But does sustaining undead take some magic?

[Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw]

Post by Loren Pechtel
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:25:14 -0000 (UTC), Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw

Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Given that animate/create undead spells are instantaneous rather than
permanent, the RAW are clearly saying that in the 'default' universe
there is no ongoing magical effect.

But does sustaining undead take some magic?

In 3.x, not according to the RAW.

[Ubiquitous]

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?
In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)

I'd say "no", but what do the rules say about disbelieving or detecting
something that is invisible? For some reason, I remember disbelieved illusions
stop working.

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
2) Do undead creatures radiate magic that can be sensed by Detect
Magic?
As DM, I really don't like this - it makes things to easy for the
players - but it's hard to argue that it should, especially since most
undead are created by powerful spells. The existence of a "detect
undead" spell in some editions does suggest that Detect Magic is not
sufficient, however.

Only if they were created by a spell like Animate Dead, b ut isn't Detect
Magic limited to line of sight? I do not recall ever having to tell a caster
what magic auras are in adjacent rooms.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

Post by Ubiquitous

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
2) Do undead creatures radiate magic that can be sensed by Detect
Magic?

Only if they were created by a spell like Animate Dead, b ut isn't Detect
Magic limited to line of sight? I do not recall ever having to tell a caster
what magic auras are in adjacent rooms.

It - of course - depends on the edition (I was specifically silent on
what edition I was using because I was interested in everyone's
opinion).

Here, the Detect Magic spell descriptions verbatim:


-----------------------------------------
Detect Magic - OD&D

A spell to determine if there has been some enchantment laid on a
person, place or thing. It has a limited range and short duration. It
is useful, for example, to discover if some item is magical, a door
has been “held” or “wizard locked,” etc.

-----------------------------------------
Detect Magic - D&D Basic/BECMI
Range: 0
Duration: 2 turns
Effect: Everything within 60'

When this spell is cast, the magic-user will see all magical objects,
creatures, and places within range glow. This effect will not last
very long, and should be saved until the magic-user wants to see if
something found during an adventure is, in fact, magical. Example:
Shortly after casting this spell, a magic-user walks into a room
containing a door locked by magic, a magical potion laying nearby, and
a treasure chest containing a magic wand. All the magic will glow, but
only the door and potion will be seen; the light of the glowing wand
is hidden by the treasure chest.


-----------------------------------------
Detect Magic (Divination) - 1st Ed D&D
Level: 1
Range: 3”
Duration: 1 turn
Area of Effect: 1” path, 3” long
Explanation/Description: When the detect magic spell is cast, the
cleric detects magical radiations in a path 1” wide, and up to 3”
long, in the direction he or she is facing. The caster can turn 60’
per round. Note that stone walls of 1’ or more thickness, solid
metal of but 1/12’ thickness, or 3’ or more of solid wood will block
the spell. The spell requires the use of the cleric’s holy (or unholy)
symbol.

-----------------------------------------
Detect Magic. (Divination)
Range: 0
Components: V, S
Duration: 2 rounds/level
Casting Time: 1
Area of Effect; 10' path, 60' long
Saving Throw: None

When the detect magic spell is cast, the wizard detects magical
radiations in a path 10 feet wide and up to 60 feet long, in the
direction he is facing. The intensity of the magic can be
determined (dim, faint, moderate, strong, overwhelming ), and the
wizard has a 10% chance pc!r level to recognize if a certain type
of magic (alteration, conjuration, etc.) is present. The caster can
turn, scanning a 6Q degree arc per round. A stone wall of one foot or
more thickness, solid metal of one inch thickn ess, or a yard
or more of solid wood blocks the spell . Magical areas, multiple
types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may confuse or
conceal weaker radiations. Note that this spell does not reveal the
presence of good or evil, or reveal alignment. Other-planar creatures
are not ne«ssarily magical.


-----------------------------------------
Detect Magic - D&D 3rd Ed
Universal
Level: Brd 0, Clr 0, Drd 0, Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 ft.
Area: Quarter circle emanating from you to the extreme of the range
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute/ level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

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 strength of the
strongest 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 confuse or conceal weaker auras.
Aura Strength: An aura’s magical power and strength depend on a
spell’s functioning spell level or an item’s caster level.

If an aura falls into more than one category, detect magic indicates
the stronger of the two.
Length Aura Lingers: How long the aura lingers depends on its original
strength

Note: Each round, you can turn to detect things in a new area. The
spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common
metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.
Outsiders and elementals are not magical in themselves, but if they
are conjured, the conjuration spell registers.


-----------------------------------------
Detect Magic - D&D 3.5th Ed
Divination
Level: Brd 0, Clr 0, Drd 0, Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 60 ft.
Area: Cone-shaped emanation
Duration: Concentration, up to 1
min./level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

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.

Aura Strength: An aura’s power depends on a spell’s functioning spell
level or an item’s caster level. If an aura falls into more
than one category, detect magic indicates the stronger of the two.

Lingering Aura: A magical aura lingers after its original source
dissipates (in the case of a spell) or is destroyed (in the case of a
magic item). If detect magic is cast and directed at such a location,
the spell indicates an aura strength of dim (even weaker than a faint
aura). How long the aura lingers at this dim level depends on its
original power:

Outsiders and elementals are not magical in themselves, but if they
are summoned, the conjuration spell registers.

Each round, you can turn to detect magic in a new area. The spell can
penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a
thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.

Detect magic can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

-----------------------------------------
Detect Magic - D&D 5th Ed
1st-leveI divination (ritual)
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V,S
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes

For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of
you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a
faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that
bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any. The spell can
penetrate most barriers, but it is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch
of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt.

[Ubiquitous]

Post by Spalls Hurgenson

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
2) Do undead creatures radiate magic that can be sensed by Detect
Magic?

Only if they were created by a spell like Animate Dead, but isn't Detect
Magic limited to line of sight? I do not recall ever having to tell a caster
what magic auras are in adjacent rooms.

It - of course - depends on the edition (I was specifically silent on
what edition I was using because I was interested in everyone's
opinion).

Phew! Thanks for the data dump!

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
-----------------------------------------
Detect Magic - OD&D
A spell to determine if there has been some enchantment laid on a
person, place or thing. It has a limited range and short duration. It
is useful, for example, to discover if some item is magical, a door
has been “held” or “wizard locked,” etc.
-----------------------------------------
Detect Magic - D&D Basic/BECMI
Range: 0
Duration: 2 turns
Effect: Everything within 60'
When this spell is cast, the magic-user will see all magical objects,
creatures, and places within range glow. This effect will not last
very long, and should be saved until the magic-user wants to see if
Shortly after casting this spell, a magic-user walks into a room
containing a door locked by magic, a magical potion laying nearby, and
a treasure chest containing a magic wand. All the magic will glow, but
only the door and potion will be seen; the light of the glowing wand
is hidden by the treasure chest.
-----------------------------------------
Detect Magic (Divination) - 1st Ed D&D
Level: 1
Range: 3”
Duration: 1 turn
Area of Effect: 1” path, 3” long
Explanation/Description: When the detect magic spell is cast, the
cleric detects magical radiations in a path 1” wide, and up to 3”
long, in the direction he or she is facing. The caster can turn 60’
per round. Note that stone walls of 1’ or more thickness, solid
metal of but 1/12’ thickness, or 3’ or more of solid wood will block
the spell. The spell requires the use of the cleric’s holy (or unholy)
symbol.
-----------------------------------------
Detect Magic. (Divination)
Range: 0
Components: V, S
Duration: 2 rounds/level
Casting Time: 1
Area of Effect; 10' path, 60' long
Saving Throw: None
When the detect magic spell is cast, the wizard detects magical
radiations in a path 10 feet wide and up to 60 feet long, in the
direction he is facing. The intensity of the magic can be
determined (dim, faint, moderate, strong, overwhelming ), and the
wizard has a 10% chance pc!r level to recognize if a certain type
of magic (alteration, conjuration, etc.) is present. The caster can
turn, scanning a 6Q degree arc per round. A stone wall of one foot or
more thickness, solid metal of one inch thickn ess, or a yard
or more of solid wood blocks the spell . Magical areas, multiple
types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may confuse or
conceal weaker radiations. Note that this spell does not reveal the
presence of good or evil, or reveal alignment. Other-planar creatures
are not ne«ssarily magical.
-----------------------------------------
Detect Magic - D&D 3rd Ed
Universal
Level: Brd 0, Clr 0, Drd 0, Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 ft.
Area: Quarter circle emanating from you to the extreme of the range
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute/ level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
You detect magical auras. The amount of information revealed depends
1st Round: Presence or absence of magical auras.
2nd Round: Number of different magical auras and the strength of the
strongest 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 confuse or conceal weaker auras.
Aura Strength: An aura’s magical power and strength depend on a
spell’s functioning spell level or an item’s caster level.
If an aura falls into more than one category, detect magic indicates
the stronger of the two.
Length Aura Lingers: How long the aura lingers depends on its original
strength
Note: Each round, you can turn to detect things in a new area. The
spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common
metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.
Outsiders and elementals are not magical in themselves, but if they
are conjured, the conjuration spell registers.
-----------------------------------------
Detect Magic - D&D 3.5th Ed
Divination
Level: Brd 0, Clr 0, Drd 0, Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 60 ft.
Area: Cone-shaped emanation
Duration: Concentration, up to 1
min./level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
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.
Aura Strength: An aura’s power depends on a spell’s functioning spell
level or an item’s caster level. If an aura falls into more
than one category, detect magic indicates the stronger of the two.
Lingering Aura: A magical aura lingers after its original source
dissipates (in the case of a spell) or is destroyed (in the case of a
magic item). If detect magic is cast and directed at such a location,
the spell indicates an aura strength of dim (even weaker than a faint
aura). How long the aura lingers at this dim level depends on its
Outsiders and elementals are not magical in themselves, but if they
are summoned, the conjuration spell registers.
Each round, you can turn to detect magic in a new area. The spell can
penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a
thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.
Detect magic can be made permanent with a permanency spell.
-----------------------------------------
Detect Magic - D&D 5th Ed
1st-leveI divination (ritual)
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V,S
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes
For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of
you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a
faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that
bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any. The spell can
penetrate most barriers, but it is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch
of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt.

[Loren Pechtel]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:18:46 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?
In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)

My take: I would allow a magic missile to be targeted against an
*exact* point in space--not merely a square. If that point is inside
a creature the missile hits the creature, otherwise it is wasted. If
I wasn't sure I would decide on a DC to correctly identify where the
creature was.

Note that this requires some idea of what sort of creature is being
targeted to know where it's body is in relation to the displaced
grass. The point of contact with the ground is an obvious one but you
generally don't have unobstructed line of sight.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 18:16:17 -0700, Loren Pechtel

Post by Loren Pechtel
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:18:46 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?

My take: I would allow a magic missile to be targeted against an
*exact* point in space--not merely a square. If that point is inside
a creature the missile hits the creature, otherwise it is wasted. If
I wasn't sure I would decide on a DC to correctly identify where the
creature was.

This is a good interpretation. It does, however, conflict with an
earlier ruling of mine that stated you needed a target, and couldn't
aim at an empty space. Arguably, that ruling was incorrect but either
way my players rightly called me on the inconsistency (not really
enough to stop the game, more of a gentle ribbing ;-)

Post by Loren Pechtel
Note that this requires some idea of what sort of creature is being
targeted to know where it's body is in relation to the displaced
grass. The point of contact with the ground is an obvious one but you
generally don't have unobstructed line of sight.

I allowed the attack because I felt the creature - although
technically invisible - had given up its position enough that it could
be "seen" by its influence on the nearby terrain. I considered it
something like an air-elemental (AE); air is invisible so all you
really see in an AE is the dust and whatnot it blows about, but I
don't think anyone would argue an AE shouldn't be targeted by magic
missile. Line of sight and partial concealment really weren't issues
in this case.

Ultimately, the players and I didn't really care that much about the
rightness or wrongness (fortunately, it's not that kind of party) but
I thought it was an interesting question and decided to pose it to the
newsgroup. And apparently so, given the lively debate it's triggered.

[Ubiquitous]

Post by Loren Pechtel
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:18:46 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?
In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)

My take: I would allow a magic missile to be targeted against an
*exact* point in space--not merely a square. If that point is inside
a creature the missile hits the creature, otherwise it is wasted. If
I wasn't sure I would decide on a DC to correctly identify where the
creature was.
Note that this requires some idea of what sort of creature is being
targeted to know where it's body is in relation to the displaced
grass. The point of contact with the ground is an obvious one but you
generally don't have unobstructed line of sight.

I used the mechanics of ShadowRun to explain how magic missile works, based
on similar spells in that game. Basically, the caster has to see the target to
attune the spell effect to its aura, so if he cannot see the target, it's
impossible to complete the spell.

[Zaghadka]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:18:46 -0400, in rec.games.frp.dnd, Spalls

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?
In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)

I would give it a 50% miss chance, like attacking a non-corporeal or
displaced creature.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

Post by Zaghadka
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:18:46 -0400, in rec.games.frp.dnd, Spalls

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?
In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)

I would give it a 50% miss chance, like attacking a non-corporeal or
displaced creature.

Of course, that just runs you into another one of the rules for magic
missile, that by definition it is an always-hit weapon; barring
something blocking its magic (magic resistance, walls of power, etc)
the enchanted darts /will/ hit its target. "Automatically hit" and/or
"unerringly" are used in the spell descriptions of almost every
edition. There are no options for when the spell might sometimes hit
and sometimes not; if you can target the creature, it gets 1d4+1 hp
damage (per missile). Given a wizard's traditionally low chance of
hitting anything, this undeniable accuracy is one of the spell's most
important features.

[Zaghadka]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 09:33:14 -0400, in rec.games.frp.dnd, Spalls

Post by Spalls Hurgenson

Post by Zaghadka
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:18:46 -0400, in rec.games.frp.dnd, Spalls

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?
In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)

I would give it a 50% miss chance, like attacking a non-corporeal or
displaced creature.

Of course, that just runs you into another one of the rules for magic
missile, that by definition it is an always-hit weapon; barring
something blocking its magic (magic resistance, walls of power, etc)
the enchanted darts /will/ hit its target. "Automatically hit" and/or
"unerringly" are used in the spell descriptions of almost every
edition. There are no options for when the spell might sometimes hit
and sometimes not; if you can target the creature, it gets 1d4+1 hp
damage (per missile). Given a wizard's traditionally low chance of
hitting anything, this undeniable accuracy is one of the spell's most
important features.

Unerring *only* if you can accurately designate your target. There is
some question of that in this case, which I think would be the equivalent
of melee attacking a displaced, blind-fighting, or incorporeal target, so
50%.

Either that, or don't let them definitively target something they can't
see, if you want to go by the exact letter-of-the-law.

You need to learn to rule off the cuff, man. There are hard-and-fast
guidelines so everybody can agree on a fair resolution in a contentious
situation. They aren't dictums that always need to be followed to the
letter.

If you want to follow the letter, they can't see or touch the target, and
that means it cannot be designated at all. I think a 50% blind-fighting
chance to target a general spot is a fair ruling. It hits that spot
unerringly, but you can't be 100% sure you chose the right spot. If the
wizard in question has "blind fighting" as a feat, give him two shots at
the 50% chance, as per the feat. I think that would be a reasonable house
ruling.

Get into the spirit of the law, Spalls. ;)

[Ralph Glatt]

Post by Spalls Hurgenson

Post by Zaghadka
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:18:46 -0400, in rec.games.frp.dnd, Spalls

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?
In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)

I would give it a 50% miss chance, like attacking a non-corporeal or
displaced creature.

Of course, that just runs you into another one of the rules for magic
missile, that by definition it is an always-hit weapon; barring
something blocking its magic (magic resistance, walls of power, etc)
the enchanted darts /will/ hit its target. "Automatically hit" and/or
"unerringly" are used in the spell descriptions of almost every
edition. There are no options for when the spell might sometimes hit
and sometimes not; if you can target the creature, it gets 1d4+1 hp
damage (per missile). Given a wizard's traditionally low chance of
hitting anything, this undeniable accuracy is one of the spell's most
important features.

Didn't you have to roll to hit when casting Magi Missile in the Holmes rules?

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Ralph Glatt

Post by Ralph Glatt

Post by Spalls Hurgenson

Post by Zaghadka
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:18:46 -0400, in rec.games.frp.dnd, Spalls

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?
In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)

I would give it a 50% miss chance, like attacking a non-corporeal or
displaced creature.

Of course, that just runs you into another one of the rules for magic
missile, that by definition it is an always-hit weapon; barring
something blocking its magic (magic resistance, walls of power, etc)
the enchanted darts /will/ hit its target. "Automatically hit" and/or
"unerringly" are used in the spell descriptions of almost every
edition. There are no options for when the spell might sometimes hit
and sometimes not; if you can target the creature, it gets 1d4+1 hp
damage (per missile). Given a wizard's traditionally low chance of
hitting anything, this undeniable accuracy is one of the spell's most
important features.

Didn't you have to roll to hit when casting Magi Missile in the Holmes rules?

Huh. Looking at the rules, it seems you are correct. Both OD&D and
Moldavay treated the magic missile like a regular arrow, albeit one
conjured from thin-air and not requiring a bow. Apparently the
"unerringly" bit wasn't introduced until the Moldavay re-write, but
it's been a constant ever since.

When I first asked the question, I didn't find the spell in OD&D book
1 (it wasn't introduced until Book IV: Greyhawk), and didn't bother
checking either the Holmes blue-book or original Moldavay basic rules,
assuming them identical to BECMI in this regard.


Data-dump time!
-------------------

* OD&D
Magic Missile: This is a conjured missile equivalent to a magic arrow,
and it does full damage (2–7 points) to any creature it strikes. For
every five levels the magic-user has attained he may add an additional
two missiles when employing this spell, so a 6th-level magic-user may
cast three magic missiles at his target, an 11th-level magic-user
casts five, and so on. Range 15”.


* D&D Basic (Holmes) *
Magic Missile - Level 1 ; Range: 150 feet
A coniured missile equal to a magic arrow, and it does 1 die roll plus
1 point (2-7) to any creature it strikes. Roll the missile fire like a
long bow arrow (Missile Fire Tabi'e). Higher level magic-users fire
more than one missile.


* D&D Basic (Moldavy) *
Magic Missile Range: 150'
Duration: 1 turn
A magic missile is a glowing arrow, created and shot by magic, which
does 2-7 (Id6+1) points of damage to any creature it strikes. It will
automatically hit any visible target. For every 5 levels the caster
has gained, he or she may shoot two more missiles when casting the
spell. EXAMPLE: a 6th level magic-user may cast three missiles. These
may be shot at one target, or the caster may choose to cast the
missiles at different targets


* D&D (BECMI)
Magic Missile
Range: 150'
Duration: 1 round
Effect: Creates 1 or more arrows
A Magic Missile is a glowing arrow, created and shot by magic, which
inflicts 2-7 (1d6+1) points of damage to any creature it strikes.
After the spell is cast, the arrow appears next to the magic-user and
hovers there until the magic-user causes it to shoot. When shot, it
will automatically hit any visible target. It will move with the
magic-user until shot or until the duration ends. The Magic Missile
actually has no solid form, and cannot be touched. A Magic Missile
never misses its target and the target is not allowed a Saving Throw.

For every 5 levels of experience of the caster, two more missiles are
created by the same spell. Thus a 6th Level Magic-user may create
three missiles. The missiles may be shot at different targets


* AD&D 1st Ed *
Magic Missile (Evocation)
Level: 1
Components: V, S
Range: 6" + 1"/level
Duration: Special Saving Throw: None
Casting Time: 1 segment
Saving Throw: None
Casting Time: 1 segment
Area of Effect: One or more creatures in a 1O square foot area

Explanation/Description: Use of the magic missile spell creates one or
more magical missiles which dart forth from the magic-user's fingertip
and unerringly strike their target. Each missile does 2 to 5 hit
points (d4+1) of damage. If the magic-user has multiple missile
capability, he or she can have them strike a single target creature or
several creatures, as desired. For each level of experience of the
magic-user, the range of his or her magic missile extends 1" beyond
the 6" base range. For every 2 levels of experience, the magic-user
gains an additional missile, i.e. 2 at 3rd level, 3 at 5th level, 4 at
7th level, etc.


* AD&D 2nd Ed *
Magic Missile (Evocation)
Range: 60 yards + 10 yards/level
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous
Casting Time: 1
Area of Effect: 1 or more creatures in a 10-foot cube
Saving Throw: None

Use of the magic missile spell creates up to five missiles of magical
energy that dart forth from the wizard's fingertip and unerringly
strike their target. This includes enemy creatures in a melee. The
target creature must be seen or otherwise detected to be hit however,
so near-total concealment such as that offered by arrow slits, can
render the spell ineffective.

The caster must be able to identify the target. He cannot direct a
magic missile to strike the commander of the legion unless he can
single out the commander from the rest of the soldiers. Specific parts
of a creature cannot be singled out. Inanimate objects (locks, etc.)
cannot be damaged by the spell, and any attempt to do so wastes the
missiles to no effect. Against creatures, each missile inflicts 1d4+1
points of damage. For every two extra levels of experience, the wizard
gains an additional missile - he has two at 3rd level, three at 5th
level, four at 7th level, etc., up to a total of five missiles at 9th
level. If the wizard has multiple missile capability, he can have them
strike a single target creature or several creatures as desired.



* D&D 3rd Ed *
Magic Missile
Evocation [Force]
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets: Up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft.
apart
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and
unerringly strikes its target. The missile deals 1d4+1 points of
damage.

The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee or has
anything less than total cover or concealment. Specific parts of a
creature cannot be singled out. Inanimate objects (locks, etc.) cannot
be damaged by the spell.

For every two levels of experience past 1st, you gain an additional
missile. You have two at 3rd level, three at 5th level, four at 7th
level, and the maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher. If you
shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or
several creatures.

A single missile can strike only one creature. You must designate
targets before you roll for SR or roll damage.


* D&D 3rd Ed *
Magic Missile
Evocation [Force]
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets: Up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft.
apart
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and
strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage. The missile
strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat or has less
than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature
can’t be singled out. Inanimate objects are not damaged by the spell.

For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile
— two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five
missiles at 9th level or higher. If you shoot multiple missiles, you
can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single
missile can strike only one creature. You must designate targets
before you check for spell resistance or roll damage.


* D&D 4th Ed *
Magic Missile
Wizard Attack 1
You launch a silvery bolt of force at an enemy.
At-Will + Arcane, Force, Implement
Standard Action Ranged 20
Target: One creature
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 2d4 + Intelligence modifier force damage.
Increase damage to 4d4 + Intelligence modifier at 21st level. Special:
This power counts as a ranged basic attack. When a power allows you to
make a ranged basic attack, you can use this power.

* D&D 5th Ed *
Magic Missile
1st Level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V,S
Duration: Instantaneous
You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a
creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals
1d4+1 force damage to its target. The darts all strike simultaneously,
and you can direct them to hit one creature or severa!.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd
level or higher, the spell creates one more dart for each slot level
above 1st.

-------------------

[Ubiquitous]

Post by Spalls Hurgenson

Post by Ralph Glatt

Post by Spalls Hurgenson

Post by Zaghadka

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?
In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)

I would give it a 50% miss chance, like attacking a non-corporeal or
displaced creature.

Of course, that just runs you into another one of the rules for magic
missile, that by definition it is an always-hit weapon; barring
something blocking its magic (magic resistance, walls of power, etc)
the enchanted darts /will/ hit its target. "Automatically hit" and/or
"unerringly" are used in the spell descriptions of almost every
edition. There are no options for when the spell might sometimes hit
and sometimes not; if you can target the creature, it gets 1d4+1 hp
damage (per missile). Given a wizard's traditionally low chance of
hitting anything, this undeniable accuracy is one of the spell's most
important features.

Didn't you have to roll to hit when casting Magi Missile in the Holmes rules?

Huh. Looking at the rules, it seems you are correct. Both OD&D and
Moldavay treated the magic missile like a regular arrow, albeit one
conjured from thin-air and not requiring a bow. Apparently the
"unerringly" bit wasn't introduced until the Moldavay re-write, but
it's been a constant ever since.
When I first asked the question, I didn't find the spell in OD&D book
1 (it wasn't introduced until Book IV: Greyhawk), and didn't bother
checking either the Holmes blue-book or original Moldavay basic rules,
assuming them identical to BECMI in this regard.
* AD&D 2nd Ed *
Magic Missile (Evocation)
Range: 60 yards + 10 yards/level
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous
Casting Time: 1
Area of Effect: 1 or more creatures in a 10-foot cube
Saving Throw: None
Use of the magic missile spell creates up to five missiles of magical
energy that dart forth from the wizard's fingertip and unerringly
strike their target. This includes enemy creatures in a melee. The
target creature must be seen or otherwise detected to be hit however,
so near-total concealment such as that offered by arrow slits, can
render the spell ineffective.
[snip]
* D&D 3rd Ed *
Magic Missile
Evocation [Force]
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets: Up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft.
apart
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and
unerringly strikes its target. The missile deals 1d4+1 points of
damage.
The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee or has
anything less than total cover or concealment. Specific parts of a
creature cannot be singled out. Inanimate objects (locks, etc.) cannot
be damaged by the spell.
[snip]
* D&D 3rd Ed *
Magic Missile
Evocation [Force]
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets: Up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft.
apart
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and
strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage. The missile
strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat or has less
than total cover or total concealment.
[snip]

Note that in these three examples, the spell doesn't work against invisible or
those with 100% cover or concealment, so no, you cannot use Magic Missile.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

Post by Ubiquitous

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
* AD&D 2nd Ed *
Use of the magic missile spell creates up to five missiles of magical
energy that dart forth from the wizard's fingertip and unerringly
strike their target. This includes enemy creatures in a melee. The
target creature must be seen or otherwise detected to be hit however,
so near-total concealment such as that offered by arrow slits, can
render the spell ineffective.
* D&D 3rd Ed *
A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and
unerringly strikes its target. The missile deals 1d4+1 points of
damage.
The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee or has
anything less than total cover or concealment. Specific parts of a
creature cannot be singled out. Inanimate objects (locks, etc.) cannot
be damaged by the spell.
[snip]
* D&D 3rd Ed *
A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and
strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage. The missile
strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat or has less
than total cover or total concealment.
[snip]

Note that in these three examples, the spell doesn't work against invisible or
those with 100% cover or concealment, so no, you cannot use Magic Missile.

I suppose it also comes to one's viewpoint. If you see "invisibility"
as a simple binary buff, like in a computer game, then I guess it
wouldn't work. The spell checks to see if the "invisibility bit" is
set to "1", and if it is, the spell misfires. Otherwise, instant hit.

On the otherhand, if you take a more holistic approach, invisibility
is more like "perfect total concealment" and is not dependent on the
magic as much as it is the caster's ability to see the target. Various
factors can make the invisibility less effective. Examples include
throwing flour on the invisible person or if determining the location
of an invisible creature as he splashes through water.

This isn't completely without precedent in D&D. A "Sage Advice" ruling
once said (assuming I remember correctly) that dust or flour thrown on
an invisible will reveal him; a magic missile cast at such a revealed
target will effect said target, not merely the masking flour.
Similarly, creatures like air-elementals - being made of air,
invisible when mixed with other air - can be targeted because their
internal fluctuations kick up clouds of dust and sand that give them
"visible shape" even if the actual entity itself remains unseen. So
magic missile /can/ hit creatures that are otherwise invisible...
given the right situation.

So like most of D&D, in actual use the spell is poorly defined and
heavily dependent on individual interpretation. Fun to argue about,
though.

[Zaghadka]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 10:02:58 -0400, in rec.games.frp.dnd, Spalls

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
So like most of D&D, in actual use the spell is poorly defined and
heavily dependent on individual interpretation. Fun to argue about,
though.

No, Spalls. It's very well defined. For that absolute accuracy, you need
an absolute target. Invisible targets that haven't been glitterdusted or
floured, etc. don't count. Not absolute.

Anything further is a house rule. I like house rules, myself, but some
people (Ubiquitous, I think) would prefer the more absolute rules to
adjudicate things more fairly. It all depends on your group.

This is especially true in tournament rules, where the players and game
master may not have a relationship and trust under which they can operate
with house rules.

So the application of the rules depends entirely on the need for the
rules, given the particular situation.

Like I said, if you want to go by the book, you can't target that
creature. If you want to house rule, a blindfighting chance to target a
location in space that will absolutely be hit but may not be the target
is probably fair. More importantly, you can be consistent with that
ruling.

D&D rules, like the real law, are affected by things like discretion,
judgement, and case facts. That doesn't mean they're ambiguous or poorly
defined. It means the law is flexible, like language is flexible.

[Ubiquitous]

Post by Zaghadka
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:18:46 -0400, in rec.games.frp.dnd, Spalls

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
1) Can a magic missile be target at or hit an invisible creature if
you have a good idea where it is?
In general, the rules for the Magic Missile spell require the spell to
be aimed at a target, with D&D 2nd & 3rd edition being most specific
about what that implies. In our case, the creature was invisible, but
it was pushing through a field of high grass so that it's position
(and even to a degree its shape) was fairly obvious. I allowed the
spell but the players argued (against their own advantage, the fools!)
that since I had earlier ruled that the spell couldn't be shot into an
empty space - it had to have a target - that I was being inconsistent.
They took the shot anyway, of course; no sense letting an enemy get
away just 'cause the DM can't figure out the rules ;-)

I would give it a 50% miss chance, like attacking a non-corporeal or
displaced creature.

Except the explicit part about it never missing and targets not getting cover
or concelament.