Detect Magic Failure

[Sundweller]

We had a question come up in our last session. The Detect Magic Spell has no "Lost, corruption, etc." results on it's casting table. 1-11 is simply a failure. So my question is: Unless the caster really wants to try to get a better result using spell burn, what is the point of rolling for this spell?

If the caster has plenty of time to sit there and cast the spell, why not just give the player the maximum result they would have received if they had rolled a 20? I could see having to roll in the middle of combat and such, but besides that, why even roll?

I just housed ruled so far that wizards are wizards, and as such, given enough time they are able to determine if an item is magical along with it's properties.

How is everybody else handing this? Am I missing something? Seems a little too easy to me. I am considering making a roll of "1" a "lost" result for this spell as well.

[GnomeBoy]

Seems a little too easy to me.

That may be the point; if you're a spellcaster, you can figure out the nature of magical things -- given time. It's what your class is about, yeah? If a Wizard has an afternoon to figure out what something is, just go with their highest possible roll. If they are doing something on the fly in a dungeon or wherever, then they have to roll and may fail...

[Sundweller]

Seems a little too easy to me.

That may be the point; if you're a spellcaster, you can figure out the nature of magical things -- given time. It's what your class is about, yeah? If a Wizard has an afternoon to figure out what something is, just go with their highest possible roll. If they are doing something on the fly in a dungeon or wherever, then they have to roll and may fail...

I agree. That's what I was thinking as well.

Was just curious if that's how everybody else was doing it as well...

[Raven_Crowking]

* As per cleric spell of same name. Because the wizard version of the spell is a different spell level, the wizard receives a -2 penalty to spell checks when casting it. For example, binding is a level 2 cleric spell but a level 3 wizard spell; therefore, when rolling on the spell table, the wizard applies a -2 penalty to spell checks. On a result of natural 1, the wizard suffers a 50% chance of major corruption or misfire, rolling on the generic tables as appropriate. - DCC Core Rulebook, p. 127.

Seems to cover it.

[Sundweller]

* As per cleric spell of same name. Because the wizard version of the spell is a different spell level, the wizard receives a -2 penalty to spell checks when casting it. For example, binding is a level 2 cleric spell but a level 3 wizard spell; therefore, when rolling on the spell table, the wizard applies a -2 penalty to spell checks. On a result of natural 1, the wizard suffers a 50% chance of major corruption or misfire, rolling on the generic tables as appropriate. - DCC Core Rulebook, p. 127.

Seems to cover it.

I guess that pretty much does cover it, except that Detect Magic is a level one spell for BOTH wizards and clerics, so does that penalty still apply? Is it a penalty because they are different levels? Or is it because it is a Cleric Spell (which makes no sense to me anyway...)?

[Raven_Crowking]

Up to the judge, I guess. As I run the game, the penalty applies.

[Sundweller]

Up to the judge, I guess. As I run the game, the penalty applies.

Yeah, thinking I will do the same. Thanks for the input!

[Raven_Crowking]

Any time. The -2 helps to balance not losing the spell on a 2-11.

[oncelor]

I ruled that wizards lose the spell on a 1-11.

[Ravenheart87]

I ruled that wizards lose the spell on a 1-11.

Me too. In the hands of the wizard it's a wizard spell and works like every other spell. He's still not going to cast it as a cleric.

[Sundweller]

I ruled that wizards lose the spell on a 1-11.

Me too. In the hands of the wizard it's a wizard spell and works like every other spell. He's still not going to cast it as a cleric.

I think I am going to go that route as well. It just makes sense and flows better with all of the other wizards spellcasting.