Director of Narrative
|
So, can it? I mean, let's say that Heathy, Celestial Healer and GGG plan to sneak up on Sebastian to take his pie. They planned ahead and each drank a potion of invisibility, however Sebastian, planning ahead and expecting company, cast Detect Magic. How would this work? Faint auras if focused on? Residues? Anyone had this in their game?
So, can it? I mean, let's say that Heathy, Celestial Healer and GGG plan to sneak up on Sebastian to take his pie. They planned ahead and each drank a potion of invisibility, however Sebastian, planning ahead and expecting company, cast Detect Magic. How would this work? Faint auras if focused on? Residues? Anyone had this in their game?
Yes, detect magic can detect invisible creatures, although it's my rule that you can only pinpoint them after 3 rounds, 3 continious rounds of keeping the magic aura in the area of effect. Most intelligent people however will know that something is up if a magical aura pops up in their field of vision.
So yes, it works, but not very effectively
I rule it also so that on first and second round you just start to notice that something strange is around, and on third round you can point out a humanoid-shaped entity where there isn't one. Of course the invisible person has succeeded in his spellcraft skill during this time and has struck/escaped before if possible.
from the wizards homepage :
"Invisibility does not foil detection spells.
A detect spell doesn't make an invisible creature or object visible, but if an unseen subject is in the area where the spell is aimed, the spell can give some hint of the unseen subject's presence. For example, a detect magic spell reveals the presence or absence of magical auras in the area where it is aimed. An invisible creature using an invisibility spell or magic item has a magical aura (thanks to the active spell or magic item) and a detect magic spell aimed into its area will reveal that aura. All the spell user knows, however, is that there is magic present somewhere within the area where the spell is aimed. If the detect magic user scans that same area for 3 consecutive rounds, the spell can reveal the location of the invisible magical aura (if the creature is still in area). The spell doesn't reveal anything else about the creature, or even that it is a creature at all. The spell user could aim an attack at the creature's location and have a chance to hit it (see Part Two)."
And, yes, the spell could detect magical items as well, IMHO. But I would rule that you have to pinpoint the invisible creature first.
Stefan
So, can it? I mean, let's say that Heathy, Celestial Healer and GGG plan to sneak up on Sebastian to take his pie. They planned ahead and each drank a potion of invisibility, however Sebastian, planning ahead and expecting company, cast Detect Magic. How would this work? Faint auras if focused on? Residues? Anyone had this in their game?Yes, detect magic can detect invisible creatures, although it's my rule that you can only pinpoint them after 3 rounds, 3 continious rounds of keeping the magic aura in the area of effect. Most intelligent people however will know that something is up if a magical aura pops up in their field of vision.
So yes, it works, but not very effectively
And that's why whenever I sneak up on Sebastian I use nondetect on myself as well.
Mmmmm, pie.
GGG
Oh, and I crank up my Hide and Move Silently skills too and use available cover. Can't see me, can't see my aura. ::munch::
mmmm, the question that needs to be asked now is: why are you spending 900gp on a pie? potions of invisibility don't come cheap!
I think Sebastion would be more than happy to hand you the pie for 900gp.
On the other hand.....the look on his face when he discovers that his detect magic spell has been foiled and his pie has been stolen........priceless.
Because it's Pie!
The delightfully flaky crust and wonderful filling. It almost doesn't even matter what that filling is. Lemon, chocolate pudding, mince meat, apple... It doesn't matter. The sheer bliss one can gain from a single pie is worth any risk. Any price.
Mmmmmmmmmmm... Pie.
Pie is priceless. Pie is good. Love the pie. Worship the pie.
Drat. Now I'll have to come up with a scheme to steal the pie. I'll need some rope, a hair pin, and two gallons of mustard.
what about the magic items that they are carrying?
wouldn't they light up?
Ahem, to return to the question at hand, more or less, the magic items would light up, but only if they are the strongest aura in the area. I think that the spell only picks up the strongest aura in any one given area (I might allow a Spellcraft check to find others, taking one standard action per check). Anyway, the strength of the auras is typically stated in the magic item's description in the DMG, and if this is greater than the invisibility effect (determined by its own spell level and/or caster level, don't remember for sure), then they would detect the item's aura, not the illusion aura of the invisibility.
That would be rather confusing for the detector!
On the other hand.....the look on his face when he discovers that his detect magic spell has been foiled and his pie has been stolen........priceless.That's why we do it. We don't even eat the pie. We just want to take it from him.
Speak for yourself man.
Got milk?
G3
|
Actually, I completely disagree, and with the Wizards comment too. It seems a bit pointless to have an Invisibility spell that can be foiled with a simple 0-level divination. There is a 2nd level divination spell for that - See Invisibility. Now, I don't say that Invisibility should defeat all divinations, but the I think that if something is invisible, then maybe the aura from a Detect spell is too. Detect Magic is just too easy.
The Detect Magic spell doesn't replace See Invisibility by any means. You can, at best, given three rounds to observe, pinpoint the 5' square in which the weak illusion effect is located. (For all you know, it could be a minor image functioning in the location.) Hardly the same as See Invisibility.
|
The Detect Magic spell doesn't replace See Invisibility by any means. You can, at best, given three rounds to observe, pinpoint the 5' square in which the weak illusion effect is located. (For all you know, it could be a minor image functioning in the location.) Hardly the same as See Invisibility.
Actually, I reread my previous comment, disagreed with myself, and deleted it. Now it my error merely lives on as a ghost in your post - an invisible post, if you will.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I just want you all to understand that conspiracy to steal a man's pie is a very serious crime. Not only that, I always trap my pies with explosive runes. After what happened to the hostess wizard and his fruit pies, you can't be too careful.
As to the topic at hand, I agree with Aubrey before he rescinded his statement. Detect Magic should not allow you to find an invisible person any more than Light should dispel Darkness. The next stop on the route of that particular logic train is to say, "well, what about the explosive runes on Sebastian's pie, will GGG's divine Detect Magic ability notice those runes and thus allow him to avoid Sebastian's clever trap?"
Answer: No. Finding traps above DC 20 (which I am assuming for purposes of this discussion that explosive runes is because I'm feeling too lazy to look it up) requires either the Trapfinding ability or a spell like Detect Traps. A lowly cantrip should not be able to find the runes, even if they have a magical aura.
If this whole magical things that don't detect as magical phenomenon bothers you in that it is more artificial than the crow in my pies, bear in mind that there is a first level spell that hides magical auras. Each of the spells mentioned above (Invisibility and Explosive Runes) are higher level spells and could easily incorporate the magical hiding effect. Granted, there are rules for busting through that magical hiding effect, which you could apply, and which may be a good compromise between detectability and non-detectability.
Sebastian
The Peculiar Purple Pieman of Porcupine F!*!ing Peak
|
|
Pie is priceless. Pie is good. Love the pie. Worship the pie.
Drat. Now I'll have to come up with a scheme to steal the pie. I'll need some rope, a hair pin, and two gallons of mustard.
Don't forget a common housecat as a delivery system for the mustard....
Is it possible to have an area under a permanent detect magic that anyone could see if they focused on it? Be a great defense room for a dungeon...no one sneaks through here invisibly.FH
Pie is priceless. Pie is good. Love the pie. Worship the pie.
Drat. Now I'll have to come up with a scheme to steal the pie. I'll need some rope, a hair pin, and two gallons of mustard.
Don't forget a common housecat as a delivery system for the mustard....
Is it possible to have an area under a permanent detect magic that anyone could see if they focused on it? Be a great defense room for a dungeon...no one sneaks through here invisibly.FH
Actually in my dungeon there is a room with a permanent Tasha's Irristible Blues spell cast on it. No one leaves without singing the blues. Basically it's there so bards feel good about themselves.
;)
G-Cube
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Pie is priceless. Pie is good. Love the pie. Worship the pie.
Drat. Now I'll have to come up with a scheme to steal the pie. I'll need some rope, a hair pin, and two gallons of mustard.
Don't forget a common housecat as a delivery system for the mustard....
Is it possible to have an area under a permanent detect magic that anyone could see if they focused on it? Be a great defense room for a dungeon...no one sneaks through here invisibly.FH
Or you could just get a dog. They're pretty good at foiling invisibility.
(NPR had an interesting story last week about a soldier in Afghanistan. He was talking about how they were occupying an old Soviet era military based and packs of wild dogs were the biggest danger on a day to day basis. The dogs would frequently attack soldiers, and more than a few had received a bullet for the effort. However, the military didn't get rid of the packs because as much as they were a nuisance to the soldiers, they were a terrific line of defense against talaban agents trying to sneak into the base. If packs of dogs are good enough for the U.S. military in the 21st century, I'd say they're good enough for Thog the Warlord.)
|
Because it's Pie!
The delightfully flaky crust and wonderful filling. It almost doesn't even matter what that filling is. Lemon, chocolate pudding, mince meat, apple... It doesn't matter. The sheer bliss one can gain from a single pie is worth any risk. Any price.
Mmmmmmm, pie... Lovely... lemon chocolate mince meat apple pie?! Y'know, I think I'll let you steal that one; I'll even throw in a pint or two of Broccoli Licorice Swirl ice cream. Enjoy!
|
|
Mmmmmmm, pie... Lovely... lemon chocolate mince meat apple pie?! Y'know, I think I'll let you steal that one; I'll even throw in a pint or two of Broccoli Licorice Swirl ice cream. Enjoy!Because it's Pie!
The delightfully flaky crust and wonderful filling. It almost doesn't even matter what that filling is. Lemon, chocolate pudding, mince meat, apple... It doesn't matter. The sheer bliss one can gain from a single pie is worth any risk. Any price.
I bet if you put enough whipped cream on it...
This thread dovetails nicely with something that's happening in my game. A cleric just cast detect magic on a will o' wisp. The will o' wisp is flying (how? magic?) and is lit (more magic?). Can the cleric detect any magical auras? Which ones? And if the will o' wisp puts out it's light (so it's invisible as the spell says the description) ... what then?
My initial reaction was: "You detect no magic."
These are all supernatural powers, not spells that are active was my line of reasoning.
|
This thread dovetails nicely with something that's happening in my game. A cleric just cast detect magic on a will o' wisp. The will o' wisp is flying (how? magic?) and is lit (more magic?). Can the cleric detect any magical auras? Which ones? And if the will o' wisp puts out it's light (so it's invisible as the spell says the description) ... what then?
My initial reaction was: "You detect no magic."
These are all supernatural powers, not spells that are active was my line of reasoning.
This is really a different kind of question, but consider the following --
What would happen if the Will o' Wisp enters an area of dead magic or an anti-magic zone? Would the lights stop working? Would the creature not be able to fly? etc.
Both of these abilities are extraordinary abilities and not supernatural abilities. (Invisibility it says specifically in the description while flight I believe is assumed.)
But, ultimately, you are correct -- "You detect no magic."
This is really a different kind of question, but consider the following --
What would happen if the Will o' Wisp enters an area of dead magic or an anti-magic zone? Would the lights stop working? Would the creature not be able to fly? etc.
Both of these abilities are extraordinary abilities and not supernatural abilities. (Invisibility it says specifically in the description while flight I believe is assumed.)
But, ultimately, you are correct -- "You detect no magic."
Hmmm, yes, I chose poorly when using the word supernatural which I did not intend to reflect the game-defined term "supernatural ability".
I like your acid test - the anti-magic zone. That works nicely.
It's good to be right every once in a while...
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I ran into this problem over the weekend. I was playing a neutral evil warlock who had been tasked to assassinate someone. The 'someone' in question was guarded rather well and his main bodyguard was a 6th level paladin (I was level 8). I had cast an invisibility spell on myself and, while slipping past a couple of other guards, accidently bumped into one. Now, since it wasn't an attack, my spell wasn't broken and I quickly moved to hide behind a large couch in the room. The guard I bumped into ran to tell the paladin he thought he felt something move beside him and so the paladin immediately busted out the detect evil and scanned the room. Being neutral evil, I showed up on his scan and, after 3 rounds of concentration, he discovered my aura behind the sofa. Since he wasn't sure what I was (he saw a vaguely humanoid aura, but still couldn't actually SEE me), he tried to turn me first (thinking I was a ghost) which clued me in on the fact that he'd found me. I killed him the next round and all hell broke lose.
I didn't really argue the fact at the time because it made sense to me and hey, I managed to survive and complete my objective anyway so it didn't matter. However, now I'm curious what the official rules are on this one. The camp seems to be somewhat divided here on the boards.
|
|
As to the topic at hand, I agree with Aubrey before he rescinded his statement. Detect Magic should not allow you to find an invisible person any more than Light should dispel Darkness. The next stop on the route of that particular logic train is to say, "well, what about the explosive runes on Sebastian's pie, will GGG's divine Detect Magic ability notice those runes and thus allow him to avoid Sebastian's clever trap?"
Answer: No. Finding traps above DC 20 (which I am assuming for purposes of this discussion that explosive runes is because I'm feeling too lazy to look it up) requires either the Trapfinding ability or a spell like Detect Traps. A lowly cantrip should not be able to find the runes, even if they have a magical aura.
If this whole magical things that don't detect as magical phenomenon bothers you in that it is more artificial than the crow in my pies, bear in mind that there is a first level spell that hides magical auras. Each of the spells mentioned above (Invisibility and Explosive Runes) are higher level spells and could easily incorporate the magical hiding effect. Granted, there are rules for busting through that magical hiding effect, which you could apply, and which may be a good compromise between detectability and non-detectability.
Sebastian
The Peculiar Purple Pieman of Porcupine f&*&ing Peak
That speaks to how you think things SHOULD work. That's not necessarily the rules as written. Detect Magic detects the presence of active spell effects. Invisibility is an active spell effect.
You can houserule it differently, changing the way detect magic works or increasing its level, but I think the way it's written is pretty clear.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That speaks to how you think things SHOULD work. That's not necessarily the rules as written. Detect Magic detects the presence of active spell effects. Invisibility is an active spell effect.
You can houserule it differently, changing the way detect magic works or increasing its level, but I think the way it's written is pretty clear.
1. That's not how the rules are written, that's how the rules have been interpreted by a relatively offical source. There is no specific textual explanation in the core rules of how Detect Magic and Invisibility interact. There is an argument that just as you can't see the color of an invisible object, you can't see the aura of an invisible object. You may believe it is pretty clear if you want, but if it were so clear, why is there a multi-page explanation of the interaction on the Wizards website?
2. I did not say, nor am I saying now, that my interpretation is the official interpretation. In fact, I said that I agreed with Aburey, whom, having quoted him yourself, you may remember, said that he disagreed with the relatively official source's interpretation also. Allow me to refresh your memory with a quote:
Actually, I completely disagree, and with the Wizards comment too. It seems a bit pointless to have an Invisibility spell that can be foiled with a simple 0-level divination. There is a 2nd level divination spell for that - See Invisibility. Now, I don't say that Invisibility should defeat all divinations, but the I think that if something is invisible, then maybe the aura from a Detect spell is too. Detect Magic is just too easy.The Detect Magic spell doesn't replace See Invisibility by any means. You can, at best, given three rounds to observe, pinpoint the 5' square in which the weak illusion effect is located. (For all you know, it could be a minor image functioning in the location.) Hardly the same as See Invisibility.
3. If you'll read closely, you'll even notice the use of the subjunctive tense in my description of the way the rules work:
Detect Magic should not allow you to find an invisible person any more than Light should dispel Darkness.
However, if all of the above is not sufficient to convince you that I never suggested my interpretation was the official interpretation, and not the interpretation I favor based on the reasoning I discussed above as applied to the text of the core rules, let me dispel any such notion:
SEBASTIAN DOESN'T THINK DETECT MAGIC SHOULD WORK ON INVISIBILITY OR ON EXPLOSIVE RUNES. THIS IS NOT THE WAY THOSE SPELLS HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED ON THE WIZARD'S SITE BY ACTUAL GAME DESIGNERS WITH MORE EXPERIENCE THAN SEBASTIAN WILL EVER HOPE TO HAVE. SEBASTIAN IS NOT AN ACTUAL DOCTOR. HE JUST PLAYS ONE ON TV. PREGNANT WOMEN AND THOSE WITH HEART CONDITIONS SHOULD NOT POST RESPONSES TO SEBASTIAN. SIDE EFFECTS OF READING SEBASTIAN'S POSTS AS IF THEY ARE OFFICIAL INTERPRETATIONS WHEN HE DOES NOT SITE TO OFFICIAL SOURCES IN SUPPORT OF THOSE INTERPRETATIONS INCLUDE NAUSEA, IRRITABILITY, AND A THROBBING HEADACHE.
I hope that clarifies my view.
|
|
I love Sebastian's posts.
As much as we disagreed on the Create Water effect, I have to say I do agree with Sebastian on this one. A 0-level spell should not replace a 2nd or 3rd level spell unless it is under extremely limited and rare conditions. Everyone who uses a potion of invisibility or a spell to gain the same effect would not count as "extremely limited and rare" in my book.
Good call Sebi.
*edit* to add to your disclaimer..shortness of breath and explosive gas.
FH
I can not really believe this thread has gone on so long; sheesh; detect magic cannot detect invisibility; if in doubt just use the handy rule that a lower level spell cannot undo a higher level spell for these types of circumstances; if detect magic could detect invisible things then there would be no need for true seeing or detect invisibility or such as that; sheesh. If you are invisible; so is your aura so detect evil will not work either; and as your weapons and gear are invisible they too are cloaked from detect magic.
See invisibility; pg 275 PHB is the first spell that can penetrate invisibility. Any idea that Detect Magic can do it is just reading into the spell description stuff that is not there. Notice how it is the same level as the Invisibility spell; that is not a coicidence; detect thoughts doesnt work either; that is a first level spell and the invisible guy is cloaked to that also.
Well, consider the degree of effectiveness.
Detect Magic: 3 rounds of concentration, 90 degree arc, 60 feet long, locate the 5' square the invisible creature is in. This assumes that there are no other magic items or spell effects in the area to confuse the issue, and the creature does not move from the area to restart the count.
See Invisibility: 10 minutes per level, 360 degrees and to the horizon (or otherwise limit of normal vision). Additionally, it shows creatures on the ethereal plane (something detect magic can't do, as it can't pass planar boundaries). It also allows easy differentation between visible, invisible, and ethereal.
Difference between 0 level power and 2nd level spell power? Sounds about right, even with detect magic's other more common uses. Last guy I saw try to use detect so spot an invisible critter got his face eaten by the phantom fungus.
|
I have to agree with the camp that would let detect magic spot invisibility on this one. It has a limited cone of sight and in order to pinpoint a target it requires 3 rounds of concentration. However, when you are pinpointing a target, you are only getting a general sense of the aura, meaning that you know what square the target is in.
Knowing that still leaves a great deal of blanks though, everything from what/who the target to actually being able to see them. Having the blurry line around someone doesn't mean you know exactly where to swing, just what square to swing into.
I figure that a fair comparison would be that while you can have a second level spell to see invisibility you can use the zero level to scent it. If you took three rounds of sniffing around and your nose only could pick up smells in one direction.
-Tarlane
The next stop on the route of that particular logic train is to say, "well, what about the explosive runes on Sebastian's pie, will GGG's divine Detect Magic ability notice those runes and thus allow him to avoid Sebastian's clever trap?"
Answer: No. Finding traps above DC 20 (which I am assuming for purposes of this discussion that explosive runes is because I'm feeling too lazy to look it up) requires either the Trapfinding ability or a spell like Detect Traps. A lowly cantrip should not be able to find the runes, even if they have a magical aura.
Correct Answer: Yes.
In a recent game we began wondering if the arcane sight spell lets you see illusions, glyphs of warding, and other kinds of magical traps. We agreed that the spell would reveal the auras from glyphs, symbols, and most other magical traps, but not see an aura around the illusion of a door, floor, or creature.
It’s correct that the arcane sight spell won’t automatically allow you to look right through an otherwise opaque figment, such as an illusory door, floor, or wall. Any active illusion, however, has a magical aura that divination spells such as detect magic or arcane sight can reveal. In the case of arcane sight, you know immediately if anything you can see has a magical aura, and you know what that aura’s power is (as explained in the detect magic spell description). You also immediately know the aura’s location. If what you’re looking at happens to be a figment, you do not know it’s a figment. You can, however, make a Spellcraft check (making the check doesn’t require an action from you) to determine the aura’s school. If the check succeeds, you know that the aura is from the illusion school, but you cannot tell its subschool (it could be a figment, glamer, pattern, phantasm, or shadow).
Looking at an illusion with arcane sight counts as interacting with it, however, and if the illusion in question allows a saving throw to disbelieve, you can immediately make a saving throw. If you have identified the aura’s school as an illusion, you have grounds to find the illusion’s reality suspicious, and you get a +4 bonus on the saving throw (since you know it’s some kind of illusion). If you make a successful saving throw to disbelieve a figment or phantasm, then you can see through it, although the figment or phantasm remains visible as a faint outline (see the discussion of the illusion school in Chapter 10 of the Player’s Handbook).
And...
Can you detect explosive runes with detect magic before they actually explode?
Assuming you don’t cast detect magic while actually reading the runes, yes. For example, a character casting detect magic from across the room, or on a closed book with explosive runes on an interior page, would detect the explosive runes but wouldn’t set them off.
So there ya go - detect magic will absolutely allow you to locate explosive runes and similar spells.
I can not really believe this thread has gone on so long; sheesh; detect magic cannot detect invisibility; if in doubt just use the handy rule that a lower level spell cannot undo a higher level spell for these types of circumstances; if detect magic could detect invisible things then there would be no need for true seeing or detect invisibility or such as that; sheesh. If you are invisible; so is your aura so detect evil will not work either; and as your weapons and gear are invisible they too are cloaked from detect magic.
See invisibility; pg 275 PHB is the first spell that can penetrate invisibility. Any idea that Detect Magic can do it is just reading into the spell description stuff that is not there. Notice how it is the same level as the Invisibility spell; that is not a coicidence; detect thoughts doesnt work either; that is a first level spell and the invisible guy is cloaked to that also.
The spell specifically states that invisibility doesn't fool divinations, including detect spells. Detect evil (or any other alignment), detect magic, etc., are all perfectly valid ways to learn that there is something in the area you are observing. It tells you nothing more, save that it is evil or magical or whatever, depending on the spell used. Hardly game breaking. Even finding out how many somethings there are takes two rounds of concentration, and locating any of them takes another, for a total of three, all of which have to remain within the same 90 degree arc of view for that time. Again, hardly game breaking.
Count me in the camp that says detect magicpenetrates invisibility.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The spell specifically states that invisibility doesn't fool divinations, including detect spells. Detect evil (or any other alignment), detect magic, etc., are all perfectly valid ways to learn that there is something in the area you are observing. It tells you nothing more, save that it is evil or magical or whatever, depending on the spell used. Hardly game breaking. Even finding out how many somethings there are takes two rounds of concentration, and locating any of them takes another, for a total of three, all of which have to remain within the same 90 degree arc of view for that time. Again, hardly game breaking.Count me in the camp that says detect magicpenetrates invisibility.
The argument is not that it's game breaking, it's that allowing a 0 level spell to overcome a 2nd level spell is (generally speaking) not within the gambit of the rules. As mentioned, light does not dispel darkness, silence (IIRC) does not stop higher level sonic attack spells, etc.
To play devil's advocate, the argument I find most persuasive is as follows: Illusion spells and magical traps are powerful effects. One balancing element of those effects is to allow them to be detected by a variety of means (e.g. scent). A 0-level spell is one such means of detection. Detect Magic is (basically) a useless spell in the first place and allowing it to be the de facto spell for this purpose is specialized (and ineffective) enough that it does not impair the usefulness of invisibility or other illusion spells.
I can see the argument, I am tempted by the argument, but I am not yet fully swayed by the argument. YMMV.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. That's not how the rules are written, that's how the rules have been interpreted by a relatively offical source. There is no specific textual explanation in the core rules of how Detect Magic and Invisibility interact. There is an argument that just as you can't see the color of an invisible object, you can't see the aura of an invisible object. You may believe it is pretty clear if you want, but if it were so clear, why is there a multi-page explanation of the interaction on the Wizards website?
*ahem*
It is how the rules are written. As Saern pointed out, the description of invisibility specifically states that detect spells foil the illusion. There is no interpretion process involved. You are wrong Sebastian. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
(damn one hour limit on editing a post).
|
|
I can see the argument, I am tempted by the argument, but I am not yet fully swayed by the argument. YMMV.
Detect magic allows you to -- detect magic. After a little while, you can probably figure out that it is in the illusion school. You can probably also figure out that if there is nothing in the area of the magic emmination, then whatever is giving off the magic aura is probably invisible. It doesn't allow you to see the item/creature -- it allows you to detect that something magical is in the general area.
See Invisible allows you to -- see invisible. (Pretty profound, eh?) This spell actually allows you to see the creature/item in question and attack it and target it normally.
Also, by yours and other's arguments (that a lower level spell can't counter a higher level one), then see invisible shouldn't be able to counter greater invisibility or invisibility sphere. (And detect magic doesn't "counter" invisibility. The creature/item still gets the miss chance, the caster can't target the creature with anything less than an area of effect, etc.
Don't know if this helps, but these are my thoughts anyway.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Also, by yours and other's arguments (that a lower level spell can't counter a higher level one), then see invisible shouldn't be able to counter greater invisibility or invisibility sphere. (And detect magic doesn't "counter" invisibility. The creature/item still gets the miss chance, the caster can't target the creature with anything less than an area of effect, etc.
Don't know if this helps, but these are my thoughts anyway.
It is in line with my thinking. The Dispel Magic example was something that made me post my devil's advocate argument in the first place.
My biggest issue is not so much with having invisibility busted by a detect spell. As has been pointed out, concentrating 3 rounds is a high price to pay for fairly unreliable information. It's the fact that the next stop on that logic train is explosive runes, glyphs of warding, and other permenent illusion spells. I completely disagree with the idea that those spells should be uncovered by detect magic (and yes, I am aware that glyph of warding is specifically detectable with read magic).
So, rather than draw a line between invisibility and those other spells, I draw the line at invisibility. This makes detect magic slightly less useful and makes a rogue slightly more useful and that's generally the way I like it.
|
|
Here's another example, Sebastian. Protection from Evil. 1st level spell. Dominate Monster. 9th level spell. And yet the lower level one specifically counters the higher level one.
My view is that the determination of spell levels is far more complex than "spells should be countered only by spells of equal or higher level." Factors include how effectively they counter the spell, the versatility of the spells in question, number of targets, and so forth.
|
|
I rule it also so that on first and second round you just start to notice that something strange is around, and on third round you can point out a humanoid-shaped entity where there isn't one. Of course the invisible person has succeeded in his spellcraft skill during this time and has struck/escaped before if possible.
This is how I interpret it. You could theoretically detect an invisible being who stood there for 18 seconds like a git and let you do so.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Here's another example, Sebastian. Protection from Evil. 1st level spell. Dominate Monster. 9th level spell. And yet the lower level one specifically counters the higher level one.
My view is that the determination of spell levels is far more complex than "spells should be countered only by spells of equal or higher level." Factors include how effectively they counter the spell, the versatility of the spells in question, number of targets, and so forth.
Quit putting simplistic views into my mouth. I agree, the determination is more complex than comparing spell levels. Obviously, the first level of interpretation is the exact text of the spell in question. Certain spells specifically defeat higher level spells as part of the reason they exist (death ward, see invisibility, pro evil, and, by the text of the description of the invisibility status, the detection spells against invisibility). Figuring out whether Pro Evil overcomes Dominate Monster is a no-brainer, and not highly relevant to determining the interaction of two spells when the text provides little or no guidance.
However, when you have two spells that could interact (let's say, Detect Magic and Glyph of Warding or Detect Magic and 95% of illusions) but neither of which explicitly references the other, the analysis of how they interact should begin with their comparative levels and the general effectiveness of the given spell. As mentioned above, the main issue I have with Detect Magic and invisiblity is that it opens up the use of Detect Magic to be an all purpose foil to magical traps and illusions. I find this to be a highly suspect ruling given that the general trap detection spell is of higher level and the trapfinding special ability is required to detect most magical traps.
Furthermore, allowing detect magic to bust invisibility and every hidden magical effect under the sun makes it a lot more powerful than any of the various detect alignment spells. Almost every instance where something would trigger a detect alignment spell, it will also trigger a detect magic spell. Detect magic should not be as powerful as a detect alignment spell.
Invisibility is the beginning of a slippery slope of using detect magic to detect far more hazards than I believe is appropriate for a 0 level spell. This is particularly so when you consider that the primary purpose of detect magic is to identify magic items, which is why it is a 0 level spell and not a 1st level spell like every other detection spell.
|
|
Quit putting simplistic views into my mouth.
Yeah - the man wants pie, not simplistic views.
I think it has already said above, and people may not be interested in my views anyway, but the reason I changed my mind was because there is a big difference between See Invisibility and Detect Magic. As pointed out above, it takes three rounds to pinpoint the source of the magical emanation with Detect Magic, even if it falls within the range of the spell. Even once detected, it is still invisible and has full concealment against attack. With See Invisibility - well, it does what it says on the tin.
My initial gut feel was that using a cantrip to foil a second level spell felt wrong, but Detect Magic doesn't really "foil" invisibility at all like See Invisibility does. And Invisibility is only 2nd level and Greter Invisibility 4th. So it seems reasonably balanced. The "a lower level spell can't foil a higher level one" rule of thumb doesn't really work as that would mean that Detect Magic could only detect the effect of other cantrips, which would severely limit its usefulness.
But it does set a slightly odd precedent, it is true. Where do you draw the line? The limit may simply be the number of times you can cast Detect Magic in a game day. Or is it now Nystul's all round? Of course, you could try a bit of reverse psychology. While the PC wizard is busy using Detect Magic on the Illusory Wall, the giant (non-magical) boulder is rushing down to crush him from the other side. Somehow, I don't think three rounds will be enough time to work out the nature of the trap.
"Oooo, it's magical. What's that grinding noise? Let's just wait another round and I can..." SPLAT!
Heh heh heh....
I wish the Sage for dragon would chime in here; having detect anything as a 0 or 1st level spell overcome 2nd level invisibility really rubs me the wrong way. This opens up an entire host of game mechanic problems that causes me to shudder. I guess some people want to fill the world with evil, invisible marbles.
|
|
I wish the Sage for dragon would chime in here; having detect anything as a 0 or 1st level spell overcome 2nd level invisibility really rubs me the wrong way. This opens up an entire host of game mechanic problems that causes me to shudder. I guess some people want to fill the world with evil, invisible marbles.
I feel your pain. But I'm happy that it is reasonably balanced, if you remember the three round part.
|
|
It's the fact that the next stop on that logic train is explosive runes, glyphs of warding, and other permenent illusion spells. I completely disagree with the idea that those spells should be uncovered by detect magic (and yes, I am aware that glyph of warding is specifically detectable with read magic).
I hear you and understand what you are saying.
My feelings are that a careful wizard would also put non-detection on the things you mentioned. From the wizard's point of view, it is a little extra work, but depending on what is being protected, probably well worth it.
|
|
The three round wait is not the only balancing factor. Detect Magic does not foil invisibility. It reveals the presence of illusion magic in a given location. That's not the same thing. It gives no indication that there is even a person in the location.
Detect Evil/Good/whatever is more specific. If you have an invisible person standing in front of you for three rounds, Detect Magic tells you some illusion is present, which could be anything. Detect Evil will tell you there is an evil presence, which could only mean a few things.
As it is, you're better off with a 1st level Faerie Fire to foil invisibility, anyway.
I aqgree that detect magic should have limited applications with traps and wards and such. It's not like these things are glowing runes on the wall or floor (at least not to the naked, nonmagical eye; wouldn't have a very high Search DC, would it?). Rather, thank goodness for Nystul's magic aura and nondetection. I would rule that these spells are automatically incorporated into the crafting of magical traps as a standard operating procedure. As such, I might require them to be known or available to a trap crafter in order to hide their handywork (scrolls count for this purpose, allowing sorcerers without the spells to still utelize it).
Sounds a little more cumbersome, doesn't it? When was the last time your party actually trapped a lot of things, though? And if we're talking about the NPCs, this is just one of those things where the DM says, "Yes, Mr. BBEG did that." In otherwords, it's a nice little thing that stops detect magic's major power creep and rarely comes into play, anyway.
Then again, one could simply state that those spells weren't needed, but the process of crafting magical traps did produce similar effects in a less "structured" way (somewhat like supernatural abilities compared to spells). That's even simpler.
|
Director of Narrative
|
I really appreciate the amount of thought put into this discussion by all of you. One of the first posts I made on these boards about a year ago dealt with a player of mine using targeting ray on an imp who then went invisible. The mage had detect magic going and there was an debate on whether he could still locate the critter and if the ray would still be in effect. That was all settled and the detect magic/invisibility thing hasn't come up again since then. Now I am about to be a player in another DM's game, playing a warlock who gets detect magic as an ability at 2nd level, and wanted to get that whole thing cleared up. Once again thanks for all the cognitive spewings. It gives me a good framework to open this discussion up with the DM.
IMC I allow detect magic to find invisibly.
I do not allow it to find symbol spells or glyphs.
Explosive runes has never come up, but I would probably allow it to find that spell.
By the way, the more I play the game, the less I believe in one and only one "official" version of the rules.
Try this one on; if a person cast invisibility on himself; it includes his gear; does this mean that if he drops something it becomes visible? Can he see himself or his items? ok; so he has a bag of marbles; and he casts invisibility on the marbles; then roll spreads or however get these marbles all over the place near your gaurd with detect magic; so now he detects magic everywhere; but not what; this lasts for hours; how alert is this guy gonna be after that anyhow; so he knows magic is out there and has a general idea, by your guys ruling, of where, so now the marbles are acting much like Nystul magic aura is is just radiating magic, but doing nothing; though I suppose a marble or two or several could trip a guard if he goes looking for them. So by your ruling all you have done to the game is to have the caster use more spells to foil something that shouldnt have been foiled in the first place. So with your ruling a caster has to have a few other spells for misdirection just to get off the primary spell; is this the intent you are really looking for in your games? The spell already has enough weaknesses as tremer sense avoids it; unless the person has something like pass without trace; he will still leave footprints; they still make noise unless more things are used to counter that; they still have odor so things with tracking scent can find them. It really just seems to me that you guys havent given this much thought considering the game as a whole and are really rending this spell quite useless.
Have you found invisibility to be making that much impact in your games? it doesn't improve ac that much and there are feats like blindfighting and whatnot to lessen its effectiveness. I really find it surprizing that so many of you would let some wimpy 0 level spell like detect magic be a counter for 2nd level spell. I think I am beginning to understand what the guy asking about the create water 0 level spell used in combat against a fire elemental is talking about in another thread; thanks for opening my eyes.