The easiest way to thwart Alarm, which a DM has done to me in the past, is to have an invisible creature hiding in the area of effect when you cast it. I have a DM who successfully did that to me twice. Unfortunately the two creatures were written into the module, he just noticed that it was possible and played them perfectly.
It wouldn't work that way. If it's inside the area and not designated as safe from setting off the alarm, it is touching the warded area and would immediately set it off.
"Until the spell ends, an alarm alerts you whenever a Tiny or larger creature touches or enters the warded area."
The easiest way to thwart Alarm, which a DM has done to me in the past, is to have an invisible creature hiding in the area of effect when you cast it. I have a DM who successfully did that to me twice. Unfortunately the two creatures were written into the module, he just noticed that it was possible and played them perfectly.
It wouldn't work that way. If it's inside the area and not designated as safe from setting off the alarm, it is touching the warded area and would immediately set it off.
"Until the spell ends, an alarm alerts you whenever a Tiny or larger creature touches or enters the warded area."
It can work if they are targeting a door or opening with the spell, not an area, and said invisible creature is inside the area with you...they aren’t touching or entering the affected door/opening
There you have it. It's because it's not a divination spell. You are not divining or looking for things, you are setting up a ward that will react to something specific to protect what is inside the warded area.
And this comes back to my recurring opinion that much of 5e is 'because' with no real philosophy behind it. You are not divining or looking for things, you are simply triggering, somehow without actually detecting them.... it makes no sense, above and beyond being 'magic.' It is a 'making it up as they go along' set of rules where even the rule of cool is more often than not overridden by the rule of arbitrary.
Do you expect Mage Armor to be divination? I mean, how else is it supposed to "detect" an incoming attack, right?
There you have it. It's because it's not a divination spell. You are not divining or looking for things, you are setting up a ward that will react to something specific to protect what is inside the warded area.
And this comes back to my recurring opinion that much of 5e is 'because' with no real philosophy behind it. You are not divining or looking for things, you are simply triggering, somehow without actually detecting them.... it makes no sense, above and beyond being 'magic.' It is a 'making it up as they go along' set of rules where even the rule of cool is more often than not overridden by the rule of arbitrary.
Do you expect Mage Armor to be divination? I mean, how else is it supposed to "detect" an incoming attack, right?
Swear I explained this but since I was apparently unclear:
It is always providing that same level of resistance, just as a wall of fire is always causing energy damage or an anti-magic field is always shutting down magic in their respective AoE's .Mage armor's effect is only noticeable during attacks, but it is always there. An alarm spell is not going off constantly but only sends a warning when someone enters its AOE.
Mage Armor is not constantly repelling the force of an attack. It only offers a Newtonian-style equal and opposite force when an attack actually happens. The warning bells of an Alarm spell are that equal and opposite force. It's very straightforward.
I think of it like a spiders web. It doesn’t detect the fly but if the fly runs into it (even if it was an invisible fly) the interaction of the fly hitting the web let’s the spider know something is there.
I think of it like a spiders web. It doesn’t detect the fly but if the fly runs into it (even if it was an invisible fly) the interaction of the fly hitting the web let’s the spider know something is there.
That might pass for Alarm (it might detect air displacement or something) but how would a glyph of warding (web spell) know only to catch flies and not, say, ants, or moths, or stray wind gusts coming in through the window?
Because.
It's.
MAGIC.
-
Why is this hard to grasp? Magic doesn't need to follow ANY laws of logic or physics as we understand them. It's the caster's will twisting reality to achieve the effect.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I think of it like a spiders web. It doesn’t detect the fly but if the fly runs into it (even if it was an invisible fly) the interaction of the fly hitting the web let’s the spider know something is there.
That might pass for Alarm (it might detect air displacement or something) but how would a glyph of warding (web spell) know only to catch flies and not, say, ants, or moths, or stray wind gusts coming in through the window?
Because.
It's.
MAGIC.
-
Why is this hard to grasp? Magic doesn't need to follow ANY laws of logic or physics as we understand them. It's the caster's will twisting reality to achieve the effect.
That's just a copout (nothing in the game is specifically required to follow any internal logic, but that doesn't mean there's no point to making it internally consistent). The correct answer is "the game designers did not bother to specify".
I think of it like a spiders web. It doesn’t detect the fly but if the fly runs into it (even if it was an invisible fly) the interaction of the fly hitting the web let’s the spider know something is there.
That might pass for Alarm (it might detect air displacement or something) but how would a glyph of warding (web spell) know only to catch flies and not, say, ants, or moths, or stray wind gusts coming in through the window?
Because.
It's.
MAGIC.
-
Why is this hard to grasp? Magic doesn't need to follow ANY laws of logic or physics as we understand them. It's the caster's will twisting reality to achieve the effect.
That's just a copout (nothing in the game is specifically required to follow any internal logic, but that doesn't mean there's no point to making it internally consistent). The correct answer is "the game designers did not bother to specify".
No, that's not a fair assessment. The actual mechanics of how magic works can differ wildly from setting to setting. The rules of D&D necessarily make certain assumptions, but "here's the science of how magic functions" would immediately keep D&D from even being able to claim to be setting-agnostic. The explanation in Forgotten Realms is not the explanation in Eberron, and neither is the explanation in Dark Sun. The actual explanation of the effects must be left up to the world-builder, which in a great many cases will be the DM. But if the DM doesn't want to change the rules, it's their responsibility to make sure whatever explanation they come up with is consistent with those rules.
I think of it like a spiders web. It doesn’t detect the fly but if the fly runs into it (even if it was an invisible fly) the interaction of the fly hitting the web let’s the spider know something is there.
That might pass for Alarm (it might detect air displacement or something) but how would a glyph of warding (web spell) know only to catch flies and not, say, ants, or moths, or stray wind gusts coming in through the window?
Because.
It's.
MAGIC.
-
Why is this hard to grasp? Magic doesn't need to follow ANY laws of logic or physics as we understand them. It's the caster's will twisting reality to achieve the effect.
That's just a copout (nothing in the game is specifically required to follow any internal logic, but that doesn't mean there's no point to making it internally consistent). The correct answer is "the game designers did not bother to specify".
Same thing. Saying magic is just more in-game friendly.
I mean which would be more in-game friendly:
Wizard: I have placed an Alarm spell to ward the door. If somebody outside the party crosses it, there will be a loud alarm to wake us. Rogue: Neat. How does that work? Wizard: Well we're in a game, we're not real, and the people who made up this game decided to write the spell this way, no further explanation given.
OR
Wizard: I have placed an Alarm spell to ward the door. If somebody outside the party crosses it, there will be a loud alarm to wake us. Rogue: Neat. How does that work? Wizard: The spell pulls on the weave of reality to create the effect. The magic takes care of everything to make it work.
--
They BOTH have the cop out of "it just does, that's the RAW", but at least "it's magic" is a bit friendlier to the in-game narrative.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
No, that's not a fair assessment. The actual mechanics of how magic works can differ wildly from setting to setting. The rules of D&D necessarily make certain assumptions, but "here's the science of how magic functions" would immediately keep D&D from even being able to claim to be setting-agnostic.
D&D is in no way setting agnostic. Giving Alarm specific senses that allow deciding what it spots causes no more problems than defining it for any other spell -- e.g. Magic Mouth (which, incidentally, it also not a divination spell).
Same thing. Saying magic is just more in-game friendly.
I mean which would be more in-game friendly:
Wizard: I have placed an Alarm spell to ward the door. If somebody outside the party crosses it, there will be a loud alarm to wake us. Rogue: Neat. How does that work? Wizard: Well we're in a game, we're not real, and the people who made up this game decided to write the spell this way, no further explanation given.
OR
Wizard: I have placed an Alarm spell to ward the door. If somebody outside the party crosses it, there will be a loud alarm to wake us. Rogue: Neat. How does that work? Wizard: The spell pulls on the weave of reality to create the effect. The magic takes care of everything to make it work.
--
They BOTH have the cop out of "it just does, that's the RAW", but at least "it's magic" is a bit friendlier to the in-game narrative.
The important thing is not "where does magic come from". The important thing is "what is Alarm actually detecting", because if you answer the second question, it has actual game relevant effects.
The RAW are pretty agnostic and work in most settings, there are no major modifications in all published settings.
Giving Alarm specific senses that allow deciding what it spots causes no more problems than defining it for any other spell -- e.g. Magic Mouth (which, incidentally, it also not a divination spell).
It creates loads of problems that the current definition of the spell does not adress because it does not need to:
Where is the sensor located ?
Is it visible ? Invisible ? Intangible ?
What senses does it possess ? What range, what sensitivity ?
Can you fool it ? How ?
etc.
Of course you might want to do it, but what's the point ? The spell works fine as it is. If you want to go to all that trouble, fine, but I would not bother for a 1st level spell that is rarely critical for a campaign, I have better things to do.
I would not consider any of the things you call 'problems' to be problems. In fact, I consider the lack of that information a problem.
The RAW are pretty agnostic and work in most settings, there are no major modifications in all published settings.
Giving Alarm specific senses that allow deciding what it spots causes no more problems than defining it for any other spell -- e.g. Magic Mouth (which, incidentally, it also not a divination spell).
It creates loads of problems that the current definition of the spell does not adress because it does not need to:
Where is the sensor located ?
Is it visible ? Invisible ? Intangible ?
What senses does it possess ? What range, what sensitivity ?
Can you fool it ? How ?
etc.
Of course you might want to do it, but what's the point ? The spell works fine as it is. If you want to go to all that trouble, fine, but I would not bother for a 1st level spell that is rarely critical for a campaign, I have better things to do.
I would not consider any of the things you call 'problems' to be problems. In fact, I consider the lack of that information a problem.
But isn't that kinda irrelevant to the question of this thread, in the rules forum, which was about whether anti-Divination effects could affect this Abjuration spell by the RAW (the answer is no). Whether you, me or anyone think the spell should be blocked by such, is a discussion befitting Homebrew forum since it would be a homebrew ruling.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
No, that's not a fair assessment. The actual mechanics of how magic works can differ wildly from setting to setting. The rules of D&D necessarily make certain assumptions, but "here's the science of how magic functions" would immediately keep D&D from even being able to claim to be setting-agnostic.
D&D is in no way setting agnostic. Giving Alarm specific senses that allow deciding what it spots causes no more problems than defining it for any other spell -- e.g. Magic Mouth (which, incidentally, it also not a divination spell).
D&D absolutely is setting-agnostic, which is why WotC are able to have published books focusing on no fewer than five distinct settings (not to mention countless 3rd-party products). We already know exactly what Alarm spots: "a Tiny or larger creature." If a DM wants to answer the question "how," they can do that in whatever way they choose. But if their answer doesn't make sense with how Alarm actually works, that's not exactly Alarm's fault. It's the DM who made up the answer.
I'm not sure what Magic Mouth has to do with anything. Its text doesn't describe how it works either.
I'm not sure what Magic Mouth has to do with anything. Its text doesn't describe how it works either.
It's text describes the class of effects that can trigger it, and specific that it is limited to Visible or Audible triggers, thus indicating what you can do to prevent it from triggering.
I swear sometimes these spells use “it just works” instead of requiring the DM to make up off-handed garbage like “oh, it detects heat I guess...”... because of the type of player that loves to say things like “I soak in a tub of ice, lowering my body temperature because alarm detects thermal body heat I can go through alarm spells”.
It detects tiny-large creatures. That’s it. That’s all it does. If you fit that criteria it detects you. This constant “well I want to know the exact Newtonian physics involved”-method of inquiry leads down paths that take away from the game and makes it more about catching the DM in a logical fallacy instead of enjoying the world itself.
Try Law School instead, it’s all about logical fallacies and a solid career choice. 🙂
I swear sometimes these spells use “it just works” instead of requiring the DM to make up off-handed garbage like “oh, it detects heat I guess...”... because of the type of player that loves to say things like “I soak in a tub of ice, lowering my body temperature because alarm detects thermal body heat I can go through alarm spells”.
I swear sometimes these spells use “it just works” instead of requiring the DM to make up off-handed garbage like “oh, it detects heat I guess...”... because of the type of player that loves to say things like “I soak in a tub of ice, lowering my body temperature because alarm detects thermal body heat I can go through alarm spells”.
How is that a bad thing?
It requires the DM to make up rationale on the fly that basically amounts to a Homebrew ruling, and which can be used to pressure the DM to allow something ridiculous later on that the DM may not want. It’s tantamount to pressuring for an innocent ruling so that a PC can somehow abuse the system later to get what they want.
If you find enjoyment in making DnD a game where you try to slip up the DM, then by all means go ahead.
I find it really to be counter to the way you play any game and it’s akin to arguing that the distance from Boardwalk and Park Place on a Monopoly board isn’t relative to the distance between St James Place and Connecticut, and therefore instead of paying Luxury Tax you should be able to buy Park Place as a result.
IMO the DM makes final say on all of this and the rules regarding Alarm definitely do NOT need to be clarified beyond “it does what it does”. And magic is an absolutely fine explanation.
Abjuration spells are protective in nature, though some of them have aggressive uses. They create magical barriers, negate harmful effects, harm trespassers, or banish creatures to other planes of existence.
Divination spells reveal information, whether in the form of secrets long forgotten, glimpses of the future, the locations of hidden things, the truth behind illusions, or visions of distant people or places.
To me, Alarm creates a magical barrier that triggers an audible/metal alarm when penetrated. It doesn't reveal information about the creature crossing it, doesn't reveal them if they are invisible, and doesn't supply visions or information. Its perfectly explained as an abjuration spell, and does none of the things associated with divination.
It requires the DM to make up rationale on the fly that basically amounts to a Homebrew ruling, and which can be used to pressure the DM to allow something ridiculous later on that the DM may not want. It’s tantamount to pressuring for an innocent ruling so that a PC can somehow abuse the system later to get what they want.
Huh? First of all, the DM has to make up stuff on the fly all the time. That's the DMs job. Secondly, that's the opposite of true; the DM only has to make stuff up to cover holes in the rules, and describing what Alarm can detect is not creating a hole, it's just changing the spell from 'absolute' to 'not absolute'. And, well, absolute mechanics are boring.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It wouldn't work that way. If it's inside the area and not designated as safe from setting off the alarm, it is touching the warded area and would immediately set it off.
"Until the spell ends, an alarm alerts you whenever a Tiny or larger creature touches or enters the warded area."
It can work if they are targeting a door or opening with the spell, not an area, and said invisible creature is inside the area with you...they aren’t touching or entering the affected door/opening
That's why I said "If it's inside the area"
If it's in the room and you only alarm the door, sure. But Tim's example explicitly states " invisible creature hiding in the area of effect"
Do you expect Mage Armor to be divination? I mean, how else is it supposed to "detect" an incoming attack, right?
Mage Armor is not constantly repelling the force of an attack. It only offers a Newtonian-style equal and opposite force when an attack actually happens. The warning bells of an Alarm spell are that equal and opposite force. It's very straightforward.
I think of it like a spiders web. It doesn’t detect the fly but if the fly runs into it (even if it was an invisible fly) the interaction of the fly hitting the web let’s the spider know something is there.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Because.
It's.
MAGIC.
-
Why is this hard to grasp? Magic doesn't need to follow ANY laws of logic or physics as we understand them. It's the caster's will twisting reality to achieve the effect.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
That's just a copout (nothing in the game is specifically required to follow any internal logic, but that doesn't mean there's no point to making it internally consistent). The correct answer is "the game designers did not bother to specify".
No, that's not a fair assessment. The actual mechanics of how magic works can differ wildly from setting to setting. The rules of D&D necessarily make certain assumptions, but "here's the science of how magic functions" would immediately keep D&D from even being able to claim to be setting-agnostic. The explanation in Forgotten Realms is not the explanation in Eberron, and neither is the explanation in Dark Sun. The actual explanation of the effects must be left up to the world-builder, which in a great many cases will be the DM. But if the DM doesn't want to change the rules, it's their responsibility to make sure whatever explanation they come up with is consistent with those rules.
Same thing. Saying magic is just more in-game friendly.
I mean which would be more in-game friendly:
Wizard: I have placed an Alarm spell to ward the door. If somebody outside the party crosses it, there will be a loud alarm to wake us.
Rogue: Neat. How does that work?
Wizard: Well we're in a game, we're not real, and the people who made up this game decided to write the spell this way, no further explanation given.
OR
Wizard: I have placed an Alarm spell to ward the door. If somebody outside the party crosses it, there will be a loud alarm to wake us.
Rogue: Neat. How does that work?
Wizard: The spell pulls on the weave of reality to create the effect. The magic takes care of everything to make it work.
--
They BOTH have the cop out of "it just does, that's the RAW", but at least "it's magic" is a bit friendlier to the in-game narrative.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
D&D is in no way setting agnostic. Giving Alarm specific senses that allow deciding what it spots causes no more problems than defining it for any other spell -- e.g. Magic Mouth (which, incidentally, it also not a divination spell).
The important thing is not "where does magic come from". The important thing is "what is Alarm actually detecting", because if you answer the second question, it has actual game relevant effects.
I would not consider any of the things you call 'problems' to be problems. In fact, I consider the lack of that information a problem.
But isn't that kinda irrelevant to the question of this thread, in the rules forum, which was about whether anti-Divination effects could affect this Abjuration spell by the RAW (the answer is no). Whether you, me or anyone think the spell should be blocked by such, is a discussion befitting Homebrew forum since it would be a homebrew ruling.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
D&D absolutely is setting-agnostic, which is why WotC are able to have published books focusing on no fewer than five distinct settings (not to mention countless 3rd-party products). We already know exactly what Alarm spots: "a Tiny or larger creature." If a DM wants to answer the question "how," they can do that in whatever way they choose. But if their answer doesn't make sense with how Alarm actually works, that's not exactly Alarm's fault. It's the DM who made up the answer.
I'm not sure what Magic Mouth has to do with anything. Its text doesn't describe how it works either.
It's text describes the class of effects that can trigger it, and specific that it is limited to Visible or Audible triggers, thus indicating what you can do to prevent it from triggering.
I swear sometimes these spells use “it just works” instead of requiring the DM to make up off-handed garbage like “oh, it detects heat I guess...”... because of the type of player that loves to say things like “I soak in a tub of ice, lowering my body temperature because alarm detects thermal body heat I can go through alarm spells”.
It detects tiny-large creatures. That’s it. That’s all it does. If you fit that criteria it detects you. This constant “well I want to know the exact Newtonian physics involved”-method of inquiry leads down paths that take away from the game and makes it more about catching the DM in a logical fallacy instead of enjoying the world itself.
Try Law School instead, it’s all about logical fallacies and a solid career choice. 🙂
How is that a bad thing?
It requires the DM to make up rationale on the fly that basically amounts to a Homebrew ruling, and which can be used to pressure the DM to allow something ridiculous later on that the DM may not want. It’s tantamount to pressuring for an innocent ruling so that a PC can somehow abuse the system later to get what they want.
If you find enjoyment in making DnD a game where you try to slip up the DM, then by all means go ahead.
I find it really to be counter to the way you play any game and it’s akin to arguing that the distance from Boardwalk and Park Place on a Monopoly board isn’t relative to the distance between St James Place and Connecticut, and therefore instead of paying Luxury Tax you should be able to buy Park Place as a result.
IMO the DM makes final say on all of this and the rules regarding Alarm definitely do NOT need to be clarified beyond “it does what it does”. And magic is an absolutely fine explanation.
From the PHB:
Abjuration spells are protective in nature, though some of them have aggressive uses. They create magical barriers, negate harmful effects, harm trespassers, or banish creatures to other planes of existence.
Divination spells reveal information, whether in the form of secrets long forgotten, glimpses of the future, the locations of hidden things, the truth behind illusions, or visions of distant people or places.
To me, Alarm creates a magical barrier that triggers an audible/metal alarm when penetrated. It doesn't reveal information about the creature crossing it, doesn't reveal them if they are invisible, and doesn't supply visions or information. Its perfectly explained as an abjuration spell, and does none of the things associated with divination.
Huh? First of all, the DM has to make up stuff on the fly all the time. That's the DMs job. Secondly, that's the opposite of true; the DM only has to make stuff up to cover holes in the rules, and describing what Alarm can detect is not creating a hole, it's just changing the spell from 'absolute' to 'not absolute'. And, well, absolute mechanics are boring.