D&D 5E Detect magic and Gargolye

[Brian Mccray]

A grp of players walk into a room and there are 4 statues. The warlock cast detect magic sees nothing. As they walk by two statues come to life and attack them ( 2 Gargoyles). Warlock out of game gets mad and says his detect magic should have seen them. I told him they are not magic they are elemental creatures detect magic wont see them. Was I in the wrong?

 

[Crothian]

You are correct an elemental creature like a gargoyle does not radiate any more magic then my cat.

To broaden the discussion one thing I like to do with creatures like gargoyles is never identify them as what they are. Describe them as statues coming to life and even if the players guess gargoyle I just slyly answer maybe. If the player complains about the detect magic I would tell him something like "I guess you do find it weird that statutes coming to life were not magically. MAybe you want to investigate it further." or something that can potentially turn it into a plot point and a little mystery.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Nope, you weren't in the wrong. I would rule the same way. Not everything weird in D&D-verse is powered by "magic" (i.e. the Weave). Some things like binary gravity, living flame (elementals), HD healing on a short rest, and dragons flying on undersized wings are part of alternate physics, not magic. Detect Magic wouldn't twing to any of those things.

I might have Detect Magic trigger for golems, but not gargoyles. They're just elemental creatures, unless you (the DM) want it to work differently.

 

[Sunseeker]

Gargoyles are "alive" by well..the forces of life. That's not magical. Detect life or detect elementals on the other hand....

Personally, I really want to run a haunted maze with animate statues, but the party, out of character, is going to totally know what's up and I think that'll take some fun out of it.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I, on the other hand, strongly disagree. Magic is magic. If you want to call it different physics or whatever, its still magic to me. YMMV

 

[steeldragons]

This is a sticky wicket. As written, gargoyles are elementals...elementals, by definition [and ironically], are not creatures of the natural physical world. They are/come from a different realm of reality...and so, could be conceived of as "Magical"...like ye olde category of monster called "Magical Beast."

But this is not RAW.

Certain abilities, such as Detect Good/Evil (spell) would/should by defintion *ping* an elemental...visible, invisible, behind a door or hiding within range.

Detect Magic, by definition, reveals "creatures or objects which bear magic"...So the question becomes, in their [super-/preter-]natural state, do gargoyles "bear magic"?

If the gargoyles were not under the effects of some spell (such as hidden by an illusion), spell-like ability -which their False Appearance ability might or might not be defined as, according to the DM, and/or in possession of some magic item...in which case the ITEM would *ping* for detect magic...or are, themselves, in the process of working some magic, then I am left with little option but to say, No. They would not show up on a Detect Magic sweep.

I, personally, give my gargoyles the ability to appear as/shapeshift into any humanoid statue...so the players, upon hearing there is a statue with wings and horns and a bestial visage do not automatically attack it..."cuz, duuuh, gargoyle!" But this is a "natural" ability of the gargoyle, in my games, and so they have, literally, a False Appearance. Works quite well and so, given what's written in the 5e MM, I see no reason to alter it.

My verdict is your ruling is not inappropriate.

But it is also not...summarily...correct in all cases/at all tables, either. I can see/understand your Warlock's objection.

Bottom line, though, you're the DM. Gargoyles are an elemental monster, as written. Detect Magic, as written, does not reveal elementals. What you say goes.

IF elementals are considered beings "of [that bear] magic" that is something for you to define in world...and you have elected not to. So, the appropriate thing here is for the Warlock PC to say, in character, "Huh. I always thought elementals were magical creatures. Seems not. Note to self for future reference: Do some studying up on/ask my Patron about elemental creatures."

 

[Fralex]

My general rule of thumb is: If putting it in an antimagic field wouldn't change or destroy it, it's not magical in the detect magic sense. It's just unnatural with respect to the real world. Like how dragons can breath fire. Nothing implies that the fire is magical (read: wouldn't work in an antimagic field) other than the fact that it's abnormal for a natural creature to be able to do that. Like, everything in this world has at least a little bit of magic in it, so detect magic only searches for unusually high concentrations of it.

 

[Taronkov]

I agree you made the right choice. They aren't magical past being a fantasy creature, in much the same way I wouldn't have a goblin, orc or even a troll radiate magic. They are fantastical creatures but not actual magic.

 

[Morlock]

To broaden the discussion one thing I like to do with creatures like gargoyles is never identify them as what they are. Describe them as statues coming to life and even if the players guess gargoyle I just slyly answer maybe. If the player complains about the detect magic I would tell him something like "I guess you do find it weird that statutes coming to life were not magically. MAybe you want to investigate it further." or something that can potentially turn it into a plot point and a little mystery.

Thiiiis. The only time I play it straight is if I have new or inexperienced players. Otherwise, nothing I put on the table is by the book. None of the monsters have UPC symbols on them, and they don't come with return receipts. I certainly don't go naming the monsters for them, unless they're very familiar, and the monster lends itself to that sort of familiarity. The only time players can expect to know how a monster works behind the screen is when I want it that way. In fact, my general assumption for any given monster is that it's unique (until it isn't), unless it's something that obviously isn't, like orcs or halflings. Definitely for the exotic monsters that don't get much use. Playing by the book seems flat when you're dealing with players who have the MM memorized. Not that you have to be constrained in this direction, either, because a card-counting player can't count cards with confidence if you throw him for a loop often enough.

Nope, you weren't in the wrong.

Forgot to mention, I reject the premise of the question, if that isn't already obvious. The gargoyle radiates magic while in "hibernation", or doesn't, depending on how you want to run your game. The gargyle radiates magic after leaving "hibernation," or doesn't, depending on how you want to run your game. Maybe your world's just different, maybe they gargoyles are just different, maybe the dungeon is enchanted, maybe a wizard cast a spell on the gargoyles, maybe the warlock is under a curse...ad infinitum. Personally, I actively resist being pigeonholed, as your player is trying to do to you. Reading the Monster Manual doesn't make a player the DM for your setting. That's the beauty of a real RPG - the only limits are the imagination.

We used to call these people "rules lawyers," back in the day. Has that epithet lost its sting these days?

PS, new DMs: consider renaming every monster or magic item you pull from a book and use in your setting, particularly official, 1st party books. You can use ideas from a good translator, or roll your own. They don't have to be great, they just have to make them yours...not Wizards', not the books', not some rules-lawyer's.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I would say that you're correct that a Gargoyle isn't going to radiate magical auras.

However, I'd also argue that any character capable of casting detect magic would already know that. Depending on exactly what the player asked and the PCs were talking about, the DM might have been able to foresee what the player was trying to accomplish and let the player know that his or her character knows the world doesn't work the way the player seems to think it does.