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.
The spell can detect someone regardless of precautions used, short of an anti-magic field.
It doesn't detect their location, nor do they have to be hidden. It just sounds when they enter the area (which is a 20 foot cube). It is not precise, and doesn't identify if the creature is a threat, an ally, a stray bird, whether they are still in the area, or any other identifying info other than "something entered the area". That, its defensive nature, and the fact that it can best be described as a barrier, makes it most likely abjuration. If you want to really reach and say it has some properties similar to divination you can do it, but if there was a sliding scale it would be much closer to abjuration than any divination magic presented, which tends to generally be 1) active (rather than passive) and 2) specific (revealing certain and specific information about a target, which alarm, for comparison, reveals nothing other than "they passed the barrier at this time")
To me, the distinction is extremely clear, and I feel I would be able to satisfactorily explain any questions regarding the spell as abjuration to my players. If you want all spells of a school to 100% align with the 1 sentence description given for each in the PHB, then you are severely limiting what magic can do.
Frankly, if the Alarm spell was really all that reasonable, RAW, this discussion probably wouldn't have lasted, nor similar other discussions I've read elsewhere regarding Alarm shutting down sneaky Rogues.
To assume that a little more clarification as to what a spell does or how it does it exactly is somehow going against the nature of D&D, or being counterproductive is pretty baffling to me. If you really don't want to deal with players asking how something works beyond what a spell's description says, then wouldn't arguing against WoTC actually clarifying it go against your own self interest? If you have better things to do, then you should really demand these sorts of things are as clear as possible, and if you're fine with "It's Magic" or "It doesn't have to obey 100% to the rules set by a particular School", then the decision they take to make it as unambiguous as possible should be fine by all of you. The defensive nature of some of these replies in protection of RAW sometimes make it sound like you are actually really against it being any other way, betraying your attitude of "Dude, relax, it's just fine as it is".
It seems very clear. Alarm does not impede intrusion. It only detects and warns. If this is all it does, then it is no more abjuration then any other tool that lets you see danger and then protect yourself against it. The word itself is not related to detection or alertness, it is related to repudiation, rejection. Alarm does none of these things.
Since it doesn't stop intrusion, it is therefore not a magical barrier. A barrier, by its definition, prevents movement. Alarm doesn't do this. In fact, the ability for the spell to not even audibly warn the intruder (which is the only thing that could possibly prevent its movement, indirectly) makes it seem like you wouldn't even want it to.
However, the biggest problem with the spell, to me, seems to be its ability to identify the creature that is interacting with it. RAW state that you simply decide which creatures do not trigger the alarm. Absolutely no restrictions to creatures you know, creatures you can see, nothing. Some of you suggested that messing with the alarm by triggering it with bats or other small beasts could be a clever tactic, but it would be just the easiest thing in the world to decide that none of the possible critters in the region are going to trigger it. If you can choose that all dragonborn, elves, dwarves, beasts, fiends, and what have you do not trigger it, then you effectively have a spell that detects precisely the only thing you've allowed it to detect, because that is the only thing you want protection against.
Putting this spell in the Divination school seems like a no brainer to me.
It does not matter if it is 'more concerned with trespassers.'
It totally does, it makes it more congruent with the definition of abjuration than divination.
It does not pinpoint precise location but does pinpoint general location, i.e. somewhere in the cube.
Yes,, because the trespassers have interacted with the warding, not because they have been detected by scrying, remote sensing or anything of the kind.
And it detecting trespassers is not an issue in and of itself, just as magic mouth having a trigger is not an issue in and of itself. The issue is that the trigger is absolute, regardless of precautions, particularly for a 1st level spell.
Again, that is RAW, and honestly it's not overpowered. And there are lots of ways around it if you want to be clever, because the area is actually very small, and if you let enemies that close to you at medium level, you don't have that great an advantage.
But, mostly, alarm is actually considered a magical trap (see the find traps spell), so you could possibly use the section Detecting and Disabling Traps . Because that one is based on skill use, if the players/adversaries are being clever, allow them skill checks. Typically, the DC is the spellcaster's DC.
Note that I find this much better than imagining non-existent magical sensors, and it really fits the trope of magical wards as seen in the genre (for example look at the wards that can be set in the Wheel of Time and how some characters can unravel the flows, although it takes time and specific skill). Just be careful not to completely invalidate the spell and make it useless.
edit: Additional note: skill use time is not specified, so again it's up to the DM to regulate the use and everyone can fail a skill check so there is a risk in the operation and no way to make it foolproof (athough you can use help and magic to augment your chances, again at the DM's call).
You are doing a great job of avoiding my points. First of all, the spell does nothing at all to keep trespassers out. It in no way abjures trespassers. It detects trespassers, but does not actually do anything to prevent or hinder their trespassing. Moreover, the word 'the' is in the description too. Do you also insist that is in some way relevant to the absolute degree of detection ability this spell has?
'Have interacted with the warding' is no different from questioning whether an invisible person 'has interacted with normal eyesight' or not. They do not interact because there is something (an invisibility spell) that prevents such interaction. But there is nothing that prevents interaction with the warding, not even magic designed and intended to block interactions of a detection nature.
Find Traps is all very well and fine, but note that Find Traps:
a) "merely reveals that a trap is present. You don’t learn the location of each trap, but you do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense." It just tells you that there is some sort of alarm trap somewhere in a 120' radius. That is less information than the alarm spell gives, which warns in a 20' cube.
b) More importantly, Find Traps is divination. That means that unlike Alarm, Find Traps can actually be blocked by Non-Detection. Non-detection is limited to covering objects up to a 10' cube, but Alarm can be smaller than the 20' cube. Thus you can actually make an undetectable Alarm.
But I suppose that is ok, since you could use a glyph of warding to detect it?
Are you starting to understand how silly this design is? And so far, we are only discussing this spell as a cast spell. Start looking at enchanting and/or wands and you either are arbitrarily running society as not particularly intelligent or you have a lot of essentially stealth-proof properties. People laugh at the meme 'We fireball the store to rob it,' but when the counter-measures to conventional theft are too strong, then brute force actually does become the best option.
I'm going to try one more time but after that I'm not going to continue to essentially try to sway your opinion on the spell. This is the Rules forum; the RAW is obvious (spell is abjuration) Lyxen, myself, and others have tried to explain the RAI as we see it. If you are just wanting to rant, there are other forums for that, but the RAW (and the RAI) has been stated and is pretty unambiguous. That said, my final attempts at addressing the issue are below.
Regarding the "detect" tag. The tag is not a RAW definition, it is a sorting tool used by D&DBeyond. But even if it was, Alarm is not the only non-divination spell with the tag. Instant Summons, a conjuration spell, has the tag as well, and for good reason (in fact, the effect stated for that spell that gives it that tag is a lot closer to the description of most divination spells than the effect of Alarm). So the tag is both irrelevant to RAW and Alarm is not the only non-divination spell with the tag.
I stated two things that distinguish Divination spells; that they are mostly 1) active and 2) specific. The PHB says their role is to "reveal information" as a general definition, with examples given later (uncovering the future, revealing illusions and hidden things, etc). So lets look at a few spells. Detect Magic is active as it requires concentration to work and produces a specific effect (action to see the aura and learn the spell school). Identify allows you to actively examine an object to learn its specific magical properties. Detect Evil and Good also requires concentration (active), and it reveals specific information about the potential targets. The only one I can see that isn't active (requiring concentration) over a duration is Comprehend Languages, which is entirely information based. I would also add a third thing; they are targeted, either on yourself, or on another creature or specific object from which you are gleaning information
Abjuration spells are defined as "protective in nature" with examples of creating barriers, harming trespassers, negating negative effects, etc. Alarm creates a barrier/zone that, if crossed by a creature, triggers a warning in the caster. That is easily "protective" (in that warnings are a form of protection as they allow you to ready yourselves) fulfilling the general definition of the spell type, and the effect could reasonably be defined as functioning like a barrier (just not one that stops or harms, and not all abjurations harm). And, compared to divination spells neither requires concentration (it is passive) does not identify the type, size, current location (it pings even if the creature retreats or passes through the area completely), or any other identifying info. Finally, the target of the spell does not receive information nor is information gleaned from the target (the caster is not the target, and the trespassing creature is not the target either), and the result of the spell (a sound/mental ping) is not information in and of itself, at least of the sort typically granted by divination spells.
Regarding power, the spell itself deals no damage, is detectable by divination magic (detect magic, for one), can be bypassed (if set up at an entrance) by simply taking a different approach vector (like teleportation, which is available at 2nd level via misty step), silenced (if audible), or just ignored (if the creature is in range of attack by a creature outside the area, they can simply attack into it, and the warning comes too late to be useful. Same with ranged attacks). Its perfectly fine as a low level spell.
So much talk for so little a thing. Kotath, you'd be exhausting to have as a player.
-
Alarm is Abjuration because the designers said so. If you no like, go change for your game.
Alarm being Abjuration is not affected by anything that affects Divination. It doesn't matter why, if it makes sense to you or not. It's the RAW and the RAI. If you think differently, go make a houserule then. You dislike of it isn't going to suddenly retcon official rules, now is it.
I mean, I like to argue but holy tits on toast is this overkill here.
Here, highlighted in red box:
Is literally all you need to know. This is why anti-divination spells don't effect it. It doesn't matter wheher you like that or not or whether you think it should be divination or not - that is irrevelant. The rule is clear. If you don't like the rule you can change it, but that is homebrew - unmistakably so. If you want to argue that it should be divination then go make a thread in the homebrew to see if others would want to adopt that houserule. It has no place here where we discuss and clarify the RAW. In this case no clarification is needed, the answer is plain. I know you may not like that answer, and you have good points - but there is no doubt over the RAW.
The discussion posed by the OP was to clarify the ruling on anti-divination and alarm since it has divination-like elements. The answer is clear though: having divination-like elements makes no difference: it is not effected, for reason highlighted in above image. That is the rule clarified in full. All this back and forth on whether it should be considered divination by category or other spells and what not is all irrelevant and off-topic. You're discussion a personal preference, the way you think it should work, the way it makes more sense to you - which is not the discussion. That is a houserule discussion, so try the forum for that.
-
Back on to the actual topic:
Alarm isn't powerful and can be easily detected or bypassed. Detect Magic, and voila you sense there's magic, use the action and you'll see that floor, area, window, object, whatever, glow with a magic aura. You will know it is abjuration which might be an alarm, might be a trap to trigger explosions, or any such thing.
Once detected you can: bypass it with teleportation, dig/pass through walls or ceilings or such, or dispel it. You could summon your familiar if you have one beyond or past the warded area. You can also just shoot a fireball or throw a stick of dynamite or something. Who says you have to pass through to get your target? If you intend stealing, consider mage hand or Telekinesis spell to take stuff.Or take the chance it's set to "audible", so cast Silence then walk through - nobody will hear that ringing (doesn't help if set to mental, though). Lots of options to get beyond it. Put on antimagic field and you can just walk through without triggering it. It can be easily circumvented with a little creativity, if you even need to at all - send something with fast movement and they'll still be getting stabby-stabby, it won't be auto-crit but it will be with advantage and before anyone can do anything,.
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.
If you assume that Alarm is a magical trap, there are a lot of things that are effective against it. However, nothing actually says that it's a magical trap, and even if it is, the rules for magical traps are in the DMG, so it will be less than obvious to players what they're supposed to be able to do.
Honestly, "it's a magical trap and follows the rules for magical traps" is a perfectly acceptable answer to the OPs question.
What is the thrust of this thread any more? That Kotath thinks Alarm should be Divination? Or that Alarm is too strong? Or that Alarm doesn't provide specific enough guidance on what DC's it might have to detect (using what to search for it??? Find Traps just says you detect it, what's the issue?)
I am finding this whole thing very confusing. Without quoting 17 pages of back and forth, can you give a one or two sentence summary of what you want?
It's only "brute force" because in all your replies to his examples you've changed the scenario. So yeah if you make it harder - guess what over coming the spell will be hard. That's basic logic.
1) It doesn't cover an exceptionally large area (only a single door/window, or an area the size of a small room), so you're unlikely to be running into Alarms all over the place other than in an important threshold or secure area. Find Traps or Detect Magic can find it if cast in those areas. Detect Magic is nearly ubiquitous in parties of all levels (1st level, Ritual, on all casters' lists,and provided by several other non casting racial or class features) , and can be cast by a cautious party as a ritual whenever they're suspicious. Dispel Magic can remove it if you find it. So can physically cutting out a window/door it is cast on and setting that frame aside, if it was cast on a door/window instead of a room. Or Silence can muffle it if it's the audible version. Or you can just bypass it or wait outside of it, since it covers a very small area. That's plenty of counter-measures, and while they won't necessarily work in every situation against mastermind-level preparation... a good DM should reward cautious players interested in searching for Alarm by providing conceivable ways it can be detected/defeated whenever it's encountered, not going out of their way to punish players for falling victim to a setup with no solution. If you're encountering Alarms that can't be detected or defeated, that's an issue with the DM, not the spell.
2) Glyph of Warding inscribes a faint but visibly-detectable glyph. How detectable? Caster's spell DC-difficulty on an Investigation check, that's how detectable. Do you need to be right up close to use Investigation? Probably depends on the context for whether its sandwiched in a book or painted 10 feet-wide across a stretch of dungeon floor (again, see above for note about DMs needing to be good about setting reasonable boundaries and expectations), and that's more a question about Investigation than one about Glyph of Warding, and the Glyph doesn't call it particularly more into question than any given illusion spell might which lets you scrutinize it with Investigation. And again, Find Traps, Detect Magic... It's a good trap spell, especially if tucked into a closed object, pretty likely to succeed! But considering that it's a 4th level spell (second or even third tier of play), costs 200 gp and 1 hour to cast, and can easily be wasted if cast on a small movable object (the very sort of object most likely to lead to a successful trap being sprung).... doesn't seem particularly unbalanced or prone to abuse? The number of Glyphs that the party encounters and whether they're presented in an unfair way again comes down to good-vs-bad DM'ing, not any inherent problem in that spell?
I don't see how either question has much (anything) to do with Abjuration vs. Divination, nor does it require any homebrewing or errata for either spell.
Edit: That said.. if you want to impose clearer restrictions on the spells for your game? Totally fine, just communicate them to the players and you're golden.
What is the thrust of this thread any more? That Kotath thinks Alarm should be Divination? Or that Alarm is too strong? Or that Alarm doesn't provide specific enough guidance on what DC's it might have to detect (using what to search for it??? Find Traps just says you detect it, what's the issue?)
I am finding this whole thing very confusing. Without quoting 17 pages of back and forth, can you give a one or two sentence summary of what you want?
1) What counter-measures, if any are available against Alarm (particularly if it is magically shielded from detection and/or placed to foil skill based detection?
2) What are the detection limits, if any, of Glyph of Warding (which has an even more open-ended trigger description)
Would also like to discuss the ramifications of said answers and whether a home-brewed / house-ruled solution to concerns would be a good idea or not, but apparently there are ultra strict rules(tm) regarding the line between rule discussions and even the slightest hint of a DM coming up with any such on their own, even in the context of discussing the existing rules.
1) You are moving the goalpost. The counters to Alarm have been explained already. Using Detect Magic to locate it, using Dispel Magic to remove it (which does not inform the caster of Alarm, by the way), or even *walking around the area*. If you don't have any of those options, simply turn around and walk away.
But if you are putting Nondetection into the equation, you are talking about a completely different situation. You're expecting the spell Alarm to have a "but what if..." paragraph for dealing with it in combination with some other spell? You'd have to print a book as thick as the Empire State Building is tall to cover all possible interactions between all possible spells in the game to accomplish that satisfactorily.
Ultimately I think what this discussion is revealing is that common sense is very important, and the greatest misnomer of all time. Because this entire discussion can be resolved by simply applying common sense in a reasonable manner.
2) None are specified. There are examples given for a ballpark reference, but there is no hard limit given. I think, however, that falls squarely to the most basic of duties of the DM, in that they are the arbiter of what is rules legal and what is not. Which, in turn, falls back to the use of common sense.
Important to note, however, that both Glyph of Warding and Symbol are almost 100% stationary. If cast on a location, they do not move, and either one can only cover a circular area 10 feet in diameter or smaller. If cast into/onto an object, that object cannot be moved more than 10 feet from where it was at the time the spell was cast -- if it does, the spell ends with no trigger.
Both of these spells were left very open ended, probably to allow a clever player to make an extremely specific trigger, or for a DM to tailor their use either for or against the party as the story narrative dictates.
Overall, it's pretty clear that in this instance you are being extremely unreasonable with regards to the subject matter, and are looking for excruciating, forensic explanations of the rules. The rules are, very specifically, not written that way. You're never going to find what you're looking for, because it doesn't exist. That's not to say that others aren't being unfair to you (Lyxen's tone, in particular, is 100% dismissive and shuts down any real discussion on any matter he participates in), but that's not an excuse for you to dig your heels in and start forming ridiculous situations that change based on what answers you recieve.
Important to note, however, that both Glyph of Warding and Symbol are almost 100% stationary. If cast on a location, they do not move, and either one can only cover a circular area 10 feet in diameter or smaller. If cast into/onto an object, that object cannot be moved more than 10 feet from where it was at the time the spell was cast -- if it does, the spell ends with no trigger.
Actually, this means that the do not have to be completely stationary. They could be put for example on a slide to pop in under certain circumstances for example when a lever is pulled, or even on a pendulum to cover a greater area.
I'm a bit unfond of the way both of those spells work in this edition; it should be possible to put explosive runes into a book and have them not automatically disarmed by someone picking up the book and walking ten feet.
Again please go and read about the difference between divination and abjuration. It's not about detecting people or not detecting people, or not only.
Let's not do this "You clearly haven't read it because then you wouldn't disagree with me" bs. Here's the definition of Abjuration: The School of Abjuration emphasizes magic that blocks, banishes, or protects.
Alarm doesn't block, banish or protect. It warns.
How about the school of Divination? Here you go: The counsel of a diviner is sought by royalty and commoners alike, for all seek a clearer understanding of the past, present, and future. As a diviner, you strive to part the veils of space, time, and consciousness so that you can see clearly. You work to master spells of discernment, remote viewing, supernatural knowledge, and foresight.
It's all about detection and knowledge. Alarm gives you knowledge through detection. It detects intrusion.
It's a magical ward. It reacts to people interacting with it and the warded area or objects. The fact that it is only level 1 means that is is not strong enough to stop intruders or to damage them, but at least it warns that the ward has been breached.
This is not a refutation of the fact that it isn't a magical barrier. I have no idea why you would say this in response to what I said.
The idea that because it's only a level 1 spell it's justifiable that it doesn't do what an Abjuration spell should do is a great argument for anyone else who wants to put it in any other school. "Well, it doesn't tell you exactly who's intruding because it's only a level 1 Divination spell." See? That was pretty easy to come up with.
Glyph of Warding is not a magical barrier, but it's still an abjuration spell. Aid is abjuration. Your view about abjuration is terribly limited. So are lesser restoration, remove curse, etc.
It's exactly the same problem that Kotath had, where for him all illusions are images.
You don't have to twist my response to make it seem like I'm arguing all abjuration spells should be magical barriers. I was simply stating how clearly Alarm isn't in that category. However, since you brought up those spells, it demands clarification. Aid, for instance, is effectively a magical barrier, since it gives you Temporary Hit Points. So you're wrong there. Restoration and Remove Curse are clearly in the category of banishment, repudiation, which ties in with the actual word of the school, something Alarm simply does not do. And Glyph or Warding, well, Runes exploding in your face or any spell or 3rd level being cast in response sounds like a pretty strong protective mechanism to me. They are simply not comparable to Alarm in any way, shape or form.
Alarm only belongs to the Abjurer's arsenal, but it doesn't actually make sense from a philosophical standpoint, which is supposedly how the schools categorize the spells within them.
It's an Abjuration spell so absolutely no - an item/ability that prevents detection from Divination will not affect it.
Someone with Invisibility on would be detected by the Alarm spell - but when the person who cast it wakes up or investigates - they won't suddenly be able to see them. They'll just know something entered the warded area.
The question was answered by Emmber here in post #2 of this ridiculous thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Ad hominen and strawmen, all over the place. That is all you seem to be capable of doing, not sure if on purpose or just too desperate to "win".
Sure, you may think a warning is enough for a 1st level, slot spending spell, but every other abjuration spell of that category isn't satisfied with just a sound. Can we really resolve what is or isn't "enough" for a 1st level spell? I don't think so, hence why I said it goes both ways. If you think it's enough for one school, then why isn't it enough for the other?
The audible version of the spell is less effective than a vigilant farmer. I don't tend to view something as "protective" when it does as little as that, but to each their own.
Moreover, when someone says "effectively", you probably shouldn't ignore it and then proceed to read the sentence as if it wasn't there. *Effectively*, something that increases your HP does the same thing that barriers do. Increasing your resistance is also, effectively, a barrier, an HP increase, AC increase, etc. They are all, effectively, doing the same thing, making you harder to kill. How weak or strong Aid is as a magical barrier isn't really relevant.
You are right, Alarm is a magical trap. That's not really what I was getting at when I said Alarm isn't comparable to those other spells, Glyph of Warding included, but, sure, they are comparable in that sense. However you seem to imply that all magical traps are Abjuration spells. Is that true? If so, that is a powerful argument. I haven't checked.
In fact, before coming into this discussion, I was not aware Alarm was explicitly a magical trap. Reading "Find traps" was what made it clear that it is. Now, many of your arguments assume that whatever is "written in the spell description" is what should count, or at least, counts tremendously. Alarm is definitely a magical trap, and yet it doesn't have that in its description.
Which brings me back to my original reply. Alarm could definitely benefit from a clarification in the rules. I haven't been convinced that WotC would not profit from explicitly saying, for instance, that Alarm is a magical trap in its own description, or wording it in such a way that looks similar to other magical traps like Glyph of Warding. I also don't see how the spell, as it currently works, isn't ambiguous as to which school it philosophically belongs to, since it doesn't do anything that the word "Abjuration" implies it should. Every other spell in the school, even Cantrips, qualify, except Alarm. That is, of course, considering that a warning is not protection, which is my personal opinion. I can only see this as being an Abjurer's tool, perhaps even more than a Diviner's tool, but that is not how I understand schools to be divided in D&D.
I don't think this belongs to some "Homebrew" branch of the forum, but maybe it doesn't belong here either?
In the end, what clearly doesn't belong here is getting tied up in your own reasoning to the point that you accept logical fallacies and personal attacks as part of a normal debate. No one needs to agree with you even if they have read everything you have, rules, literature, what have you. That is not how the world works. You can point out flaws in an argument. Saying "Go read Harry Potter" isn't a real response.
I don't know if you do this on purpose to annoy, or if that really is as far as you've gotten, but, regardless, it makes for a very lousy debate.
It doesn't detect their location, nor do they have to be hidden. It just sounds when they enter the area (which is a 20 foot cube). It is not precise, and doesn't identify if the creature is a threat, an ally, a stray bird, whether they are still in the area, or any other identifying info other than "something entered the area". That, its defensive nature, and the fact that it can best be described as a barrier, makes it most likely abjuration. If you want to really reach and say it has some properties similar to divination you can do it, but if there was a sliding scale it would be much closer to abjuration than any divination magic presented, which tends to generally be 1) active (rather than passive) and 2) specific (revealing certain and specific information about a target, which alarm, for comparison, reveals nothing other than "they passed the barrier at this time")
To me, the distinction is extremely clear, and I feel I would be able to satisfactorily explain any questions regarding the spell as abjuration to my players. If you want all spells of a school to 100% align with the 1 sentence description given for each in the PHB, then you are severely limiting what magic can do.
Frankly, if the Alarm spell was really all that reasonable, RAW, this discussion probably wouldn't have lasted, nor similar other discussions I've read elsewhere regarding Alarm shutting down sneaky Rogues.
To assume that a little more clarification as to what a spell does or how it does it exactly is somehow going against the nature of D&D, or being counterproductive is pretty baffling to me. If you really don't want to deal with players asking how something works beyond what a spell's description says, then wouldn't arguing against WoTC actually clarifying it go against your own self interest? If you have better things to do, then you should really demand these sorts of things are as clear as possible, and if you're fine with "It's Magic" or "It doesn't have to obey 100% to the rules set by a particular School", then the decision they take to make it as unambiguous as possible should be fine by all of you. The defensive nature of some of these replies in protection of RAW sometimes make it sound like you are actually really against it being any other way, betraying your attitude of "Dude, relax, it's just fine as it is".
It seems very clear. Alarm does not impede intrusion. It only detects and warns. If this is all it does, then it is no more abjuration then any other tool that lets you see danger and then protect yourself against it. The word itself is not related to detection or alertness, it is related to repudiation, rejection. Alarm does none of these things.
Since it doesn't stop intrusion, it is therefore not a magical barrier. A barrier, by its definition, prevents movement. Alarm doesn't do this. In fact, the ability for the spell to not even audibly warn the intruder (which is the only thing that could possibly prevent its movement, indirectly) makes it seem like you wouldn't even want it to.
However, the biggest problem with the spell, to me, seems to be its ability to identify the creature that is interacting with it. RAW state that you simply decide which creatures do not trigger the alarm. Absolutely no restrictions to creatures you know, creatures you can see, nothing. Some of you suggested that messing with the alarm by triggering it with bats or other small beasts could be a clever tactic, but it would be just the easiest thing in the world to decide that none of the possible critters in the region are going to trigger it. If you can choose that all dragonborn, elves, dwarves, beasts, fiends, and what have you do not trigger it, then you effectively have a spell that detects precisely the only thing you've allowed it to detect, because that is the only thing you want protection against.
Putting this spell in the Divination school seems like a no brainer to me.
I'm going to try one more time but after that I'm not going to continue to essentially try to sway your opinion on the spell. This is the Rules forum; the RAW is obvious (spell is abjuration) Lyxen, myself, and others have tried to explain the RAI as we see it. If you are just wanting to rant, there are other forums for that, but the RAW (and the RAI) has been stated and is pretty unambiguous. That said, my final attempts at addressing the issue are below.
Regarding the "detect" tag. The tag is not a RAW definition, it is a sorting tool used by D&DBeyond. But even if it was, Alarm is not the only non-divination spell with the tag. Instant Summons, a conjuration spell, has the tag as well, and for good reason (in fact, the effect stated for that spell that gives it that tag is a lot closer to the description of most divination spells than the effect of Alarm). So the tag is both irrelevant to RAW and Alarm is not the only non-divination spell with the tag.
I stated two things that distinguish Divination spells; that they are mostly 1) active and 2) specific. The PHB says their role is to "reveal information" as a general definition, with examples given later (uncovering the future, revealing illusions and hidden things, etc). So lets look at a few spells. Detect Magic is active as it requires concentration to work and produces a specific effect (action to see the aura and learn the spell school). Identify allows you to actively examine an object to learn its specific magical properties. Detect Evil and Good also requires concentration (active), and it reveals specific information about the potential targets. The only one I can see that isn't active (requiring concentration) over a duration is Comprehend Languages, which is entirely information based. I would also add a third thing; they are targeted, either on yourself, or on another creature or specific object from which you are gleaning information
Abjuration spells are defined as "protective in nature" with examples of creating barriers, harming trespassers, negating negative effects, etc. Alarm creates a barrier/zone that, if crossed by a creature, triggers a warning in the caster. That is easily "protective" (in that warnings are a form of protection as they allow you to ready yourselves) fulfilling the general definition of the spell type, and the effect could reasonably be defined as functioning like a barrier (just not one that stops or harms, and not all abjurations harm). And, compared to divination spells neither requires concentration (it is passive) does not identify the type, size, current location (it pings even if the creature retreats or passes through the area completely), or any other identifying info. Finally, the target of the spell does not receive information nor is information gleaned from the target (the caster is not the target, and the trespassing creature is not the target either), and the result of the spell (a sound/mental ping) is not information in and of itself, at least of the sort typically granted by divination spells.
Regarding power, the spell itself deals no damage, is detectable by divination magic (detect magic, for one), can be bypassed (if set up at an entrance) by simply taking a different approach vector (like teleportation, which is available at 2nd level via misty step), silenced (if audible), or just ignored (if the creature is in range of attack by a creature outside the area, they can simply attack into it, and the warning comes too late to be useful. Same with ranged attacks). Its perfectly fine as a low level spell.
So much talk for so little a thing. Kotath, you'd be exhausting to have as a player.
-
Alarm is Abjuration because the designers said so. If you no like, go change for your game.
Alarm being Abjuration is not affected by anything that affects Divination. It doesn't matter why, if it makes sense to you or not. It's the RAW and the RAI. If you think differently, go make a houserule then. You dislike of it isn't going to suddenly retcon official rules, now is it.
I mean, I like to argue but holy tits on toast is this overkill here.
Here, highlighted in red box:
Is literally all you need to know. This is why anti-divination spells don't effect it. It doesn't matter wheher you like that or not or whether you think it should be divination or not - that is irrevelant. The rule is clear. If you don't like the rule you can change it, but that is homebrew - unmistakably so. If you want to argue that it should be divination then go make a thread in the homebrew to see if others would want to adopt that houserule. It has no place here where we discuss and clarify the RAW. In this case no clarification is needed, the answer is plain. I know you may not like that answer, and you have good points - but there is no doubt over the RAW.
The discussion posed by the OP was to clarify the ruling on anti-divination and alarm since it has divination-like elements. The answer is clear though: having divination-like elements makes no difference: it is not effected, for reason highlighted in above image. That is the rule clarified in full. All this back and forth on whether it should be considered divination by category or other spells and what not is all irrelevant and off-topic. You're discussion a personal preference, the way you think it should work, the way it makes more sense to you - which is not the discussion. That is a houserule discussion, so try the forum for that.
-
Back on to the actual topic:
Alarm isn't powerful and can be easily detected or bypassed. Detect Magic, and voila you sense there's magic, use the action and you'll see that floor, area, window, object, whatever, glow with a magic aura. You will know it is abjuration which might be an alarm, might be a trap to trigger explosions, or any such thing.
Once detected you can: bypass it with teleportation, dig/pass through walls or ceilings or such, or dispel it. You could summon your familiar if you have one beyond or past the warded area. You can also just shoot a fireball or throw a stick of dynamite or something. Who says you have to pass through to get your target? If you intend stealing, consider mage hand or Telekinesis spell to take stuff.Or take the chance it's set to "audible", so cast Silence then walk through - nobody will hear that ringing (doesn't help if set to mental, though). Lots of options to get beyond it. Put on antimagic field and you can just walk through without triggering it. It can be easily circumvented with a little creativity, if you even need to at all - send something with fast movement and they'll still be getting stabby-stabby, it won't be auto-crit but it will be with advantage and before anyone can do anything,.
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.
If you assume that Alarm is a magical trap, there are a lot of things that are effective against it. However, nothing actually says that it's a magical trap, and even if it is, the rules for magical traps are in the DMG, so it will be less than obvious to players what they're supposed to be able to do.
Honestly, "it's a magical trap and follows the rules for magical traps" is a perfectly acceptable answer to the OPs question.
What is the thrust of this thread any more? That Kotath thinks Alarm should be Divination? Or that Alarm is too strong? Or that Alarm doesn't provide specific enough guidance on what DC's it might have to detect (using what to search for it??? Find Traps just says you detect it, what's the issue?)
I am finding this whole thing very confusing. Without quoting 17 pages of back and forth, can you give a one or two sentence summary of what you want?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's only "brute force" because in all your replies to his examples you've changed the scenario. So yeah if you make it harder - guess what over coming the spell will be hard. That's basic logic.
1) It doesn't cover an exceptionally large area (only a single door/window, or an area the size of a small room), so you're unlikely to be running into Alarms all over the place other than in an important threshold or secure area. Find Traps or Detect Magic can find it if cast in those areas. Detect Magic is nearly ubiquitous in parties of all levels (1st level, Ritual, on all casters' lists,and provided by several other non casting racial or class features) , and can be cast by a cautious party as a ritual whenever they're suspicious. Dispel Magic can remove it if you find it. So can physically cutting out a window/door it is cast on and setting that frame aside, if it was cast on a door/window instead of a room. Or Silence can muffle it if it's the audible version. Or you can just bypass it or wait outside of it, since it covers a very small area. That's plenty of counter-measures, and while they won't necessarily work in every situation against mastermind-level preparation... a good DM should reward cautious players interested in searching for Alarm by providing conceivable ways it can be detected/defeated whenever it's encountered, not going out of their way to punish players for falling victim to a setup with no solution. If you're encountering Alarms that can't be detected or defeated, that's an issue with the DM, not the spell.
2) Glyph of Warding inscribes a faint but visibly-detectable glyph. How detectable? Caster's spell DC-difficulty on an Investigation check, that's how detectable. Do you need to be right up close to use Investigation? Probably depends on the context for whether its sandwiched in a book or painted 10 feet-wide across a stretch of dungeon floor (again, see above for note about DMs needing to be good about setting reasonable boundaries and expectations), and that's more a question about Investigation than one about Glyph of Warding, and the Glyph doesn't call it particularly more into question than any given illusion spell might which lets you scrutinize it with Investigation. And again, Find Traps, Detect Magic... It's a good trap spell, especially if tucked into a closed object, pretty likely to succeed! But considering that it's a 4th level spell (second or even third tier of play), costs 200 gp and 1 hour to cast, and can easily be wasted if cast on a small movable object (the very sort of object most likely to lead to a successful trap being sprung).... doesn't seem particularly unbalanced or prone to abuse? The number of Glyphs that the party encounters and whether they're presented in an unfair way again comes down to good-vs-bad DM'ing, not any inherent problem in that spell?
I don't see how either question has much (anything) to do with Abjuration vs. Divination, nor does it require any homebrewing or errata for either spell.
Edit: That said.. if you want to impose clearer restrictions on the spells for your game? Totally fine, just communicate them to the players and you're golden.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
1) You are moving the goalpost. The counters to Alarm have been explained already. Using Detect Magic to locate it, using Dispel Magic to remove it (which does not inform the caster of Alarm, by the way), or even *walking around the area*. If you don't have any of those options, simply turn around and walk away.
But if you are putting Nondetection into the equation, you are talking about a completely different situation. You're expecting the spell Alarm to have a "but what if..." paragraph for dealing with it in combination with some other spell? You'd have to print a book as thick as the Empire State Building is tall to cover all possible interactions between all possible spells in the game to accomplish that satisfactorily.
Ultimately I think what this discussion is revealing is that common sense is very important, and the greatest misnomer of all time. Because this entire discussion can be resolved by simply applying common sense in a reasonable manner.
2) None are specified. There are examples given for a ballpark reference, but there is no hard limit given. I think, however, that falls squarely to the most basic of duties of the DM, in that they are the arbiter of what is rules legal and what is not. Which, in turn, falls back to the use of common sense.
Important to note, however, that both Glyph of Warding and Symbol are almost 100% stationary. If cast on a location, they do not move, and either one can only cover a circular area 10 feet in diameter or smaller. If cast into/onto an object, that object cannot be moved more than 10 feet from where it was at the time the spell was cast -- if it does, the spell ends with no trigger.
Both of these spells were left very open ended, probably to allow a clever player to make an extremely specific trigger, or for a DM to tailor their use either for or against the party as the story narrative dictates.
Overall, it's pretty clear that in this instance you are being extremely unreasonable with regards to the subject matter, and are looking for excruciating, forensic explanations of the rules. The rules are, very specifically, not written that way. You're never going to find what you're looking for, because it doesn't exist. That's not to say that others aren't being unfair to you (Lyxen's tone, in particular, is 100% dismissive and shuts down any real discussion on any matter he participates in), but that's not an excuse for you to dig your heels in and start forming ridiculous situations that change based on what answers you recieve.
I'm a bit unfond of the way both of those spells work in this edition; it should be possible to put explosive runes into a book and have them not automatically disarmed by someone picking up the book and walking ten feet.
Let's not do this "You clearly haven't read it because then you wouldn't disagree with me" bs. Here's the definition of Abjuration: The School of Abjuration emphasizes magic that blocks, banishes, or protects.
Alarm doesn't block, banish or protect. It warns.
How about the school of Divination? Here you go: The counsel of a diviner is sought by royalty and commoners alike, for all seek a clearer understanding of the past, present, and future. As a diviner, you strive to part the veils of space, time, and consciousness so that you can see clearly. You work to master spells of discernment, remote viewing, supernatural knowledge, and foresight.
It's all about detection and knowledge. Alarm gives you knowledge through detection. It detects intrusion.
This is not a refutation of the fact that it isn't a magical barrier. I have no idea why you would say this in response to what I said.
The idea that because it's only a level 1 spell it's justifiable that it doesn't do what an Abjuration spell should do is a great argument for anyone else who wants to put it in any other school. "Well, it doesn't tell you exactly who's intruding because it's only a level 1 Divination spell." See? That was pretty easy to come up with.
You don't have to twist my response to make it seem like I'm arguing all abjuration spells should be magical barriers. I was simply stating how clearly Alarm isn't in that category. However, since you brought up those spells, it demands clarification. Aid, for instance, is effectively a magical barrier, since it gives you Temporary Hit Points. So you're wrong there. Restoration and Remove Curse are clearly in the category of banishment, repudiation, which ties in with the actual word of the school, something Alarm simply does not do. And Glyph or Warding, well, Runes exploding in your face or any spell or 3rd level being cast in response sounds like a pretty strong protective mechanism to me. They are simply not comparable to Alarm in any way, shape or form.
Alarm only belongs to the Abjurer's arsenal, but it doesn't actually make sense from a philosophical standpoint, which is supposedly how the schools categorize the spells within them.
This is a gentle reminder that everyone should endeavour to be respectful and civil to each other in rules discussions.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Hoenstly, for a question that was answered in the first two replies, how much of the following six pages is you two going at it?
I am one with the Force. The Force is with me.
The question was answered by Emmber here in post #2 of this ridiculous thread.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Ad hominen and strawmen, all over the place. That is all you seem to be capable of doing, not sure if on purpose or just too desperate to "win".
Sure, you may think a warning is enough for a 1st level, slot spending spell, but every other abjuration spell of that category isn't satisfied with just a sound. Can we really resolve what is or isn't "enough" for a 1st level spell? I don't think so, hence why I said it goes both ways. If you think it's enough for one school, then why isn't it enough for the other?
The audible version of the spell is less effective than a vigilant farmer. I don't tend to view something as "protective" when it does as little as that, but to each their own.
Moreover, when someone says "effectively", you probably shouldn't ignore it and then proceed to read the sentence as if it wasn't there. *Effectively*, something that increases your HP does the same thing that barriers do. Increasing your resistance is also, effectively, a barrier, an HP increase, AC increase, etc. They are all, effectively, doing the same thing, making you harder to kill. How weak or strong Aid is as a magical barrier isn't really relevant.
You are right, Alarm is a magical trap. That's not really what I was getting at when I said Alarm isn't comparable to those other spells, Glyph of Warding included, but, sure, they are comparable in that sense. However you seem to imply that all magical traps are Abjuration spells. Is that true? If so, that is a powerful argument. I haven't checked.
In fact, before coming into this discussion, I was not aware Alarm was explicitly a magical trap. Reading "Find traps" was what made it clear that it is. Now, many of your arguments assume that whatever is "written in the spell description" is what should count, or at least, counts tremendously. Alarm is definitely a magical trap, and yet it doesn't have that in its description.
Which brings me back to my original reply. Alarm could definitely benefit from a clarification in the rules. I haven't been convinced that WotC would not profit from explicitly saying, for instance, that Alarm is a magical trap in its own description, or wording it in such a way that looks similar to other magical traps like Glyph of Warding. I also don't see how the spell, as it currently works, isn't ambiguous as to which school it philosophically belongs to, since it doesn't do anything that the word "Abjuration" implies it should. Every other spell in the school, even Cantrips, qualify, except Alarm. That is, of course, considering that a warning is not protection, which is my personal opinion. I can only see this as being an Abjurer's tool, perhaps even more than a Diviner's tool, but that is not how I understand schools to be divided in D&D.
I don't think this belongs to some "Homebrew" branch of the forum, but maybe it doesn't belong here either?
In the end, what clearly doesn't belong here is getting tied up in your own reasoning to the point that you accept logical fallacies and personal attacks as part of a normal debate. No one needs to agree with you even if they have read everything you have, rules, literature, what have you. That is not how the world works. You can point out flaws in an argument. Saying "Go read Harry Potter" isn't a real response.
I don't know if you do this on purpose to annoy, or if that really is as far as you've gotten, but, regardless, it makes for a very lousy debate.
This thread has run its course; the question was answered and the conversation has since deteriorated. This thread will now be locked
Find my D&D Beyond articles here