| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh? Is there even any debate about this? Of course detect magic will detect magic invisibility...
However, you won't be able to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature/object unless you spend 3 rounds looking in the same area.
And even then, you still have a 50% miss chance.
Detect magic doesn't require you to see the target - it does work through walls after all.
As for an official answer - read the rules on invisibility in the glossary of the core rulebook. It includes:
Invisibility does not thwart divination spells.
In other words, detection spells work just fine against invisible targets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or see the rules on mythic invisibility.
The invisible target can't be detected with detect magic or other spells that detect magic auras.
If mythic invisibility stops detect magic, then the implication is normal invisibility doesn't.
3rd Round: The power and location of each aura. If an aura is outside your line of sight, then you discern its direction but not its exact location.I don't think an invisible target is considered within line of sight. So, you'd pick up direction, but not pinpoint location.
That isn't what the PRD says. It says:
3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura: DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + 1/2 caster level for a nonspell effect.) If the aura emanates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).
You automatically determine the location. You need line of sight to determine the school of magic involved.
And maintaining the spell eats up your standard action so it wouldn't usually help you target an invisible person's square yourself. You could tell your allies to attack a given square though.
Detect magic doesn't require you to see the target - it does work through walls after all.
What, really, it does? Where do you get that from? 'cause the rules state that it's an emanation. Emanations are stated to work like burst spells in most respects and a burst spell "can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin". Total cover means that you have no line of effect to the target square which walls would definitely fall under.
But to answer the original question, yes, Detect Magic absolutely detects magic invisibility. This is even explicitly addressed in Ultimate Intrigue.
For instance, a common complaint about detect magic is that it might reveal invisible creatures, but in reality, an invisible creature can easily run circles around the concentrating wizard’s cone, never allowing the wizard enough time to pinpoint it.
Detect magic doesn't require you to see the target - it does work through walls after all.What, really, it does? Where do you get that from? 'cause the rules state that it's an emanation. Emanations are stated to work like burst spells in most respects and a burst spell "can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin". Total cover means that you have no line of effect to the target square which walls would definitely fall under.
The spell itself?
Outsiders and elementals are not magical in themselves, but if they are summoned, the conjuration spell registers. Each round, you can turn to detect magic in a new area. The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.
It sees through walls, provided the wall isn't too thick. Regardless of how other emanations works, the spell specifically says it can penetrate barriers. Specific vs general, specific wins.
*sigh*See Invisible is a 2nd level spell, doesn't take 3 rounds worth of standard actions to pinpoint a location, and avoids the 50% miss chance from concealment. Furthermore, if the invisible creatures moves outside of your 60' cone during those 3 rounds of detect magic, you're screwed.
So no, you're not at all using a 0th level spell to substitute for see invisibility.
Show of hands, has anyone ever used detect magic, in combat, to successfully attack an invisible foe?
Well now I'm going to just to spite you!
Attempting to use a 0 lvl spell for same effect as a 3rd lvl spell, See Invisibility? Is the item or creature in line of sight? You would likely need to make a perception check for that since normally there is no line of sight to invisible objects/creatures/targets. Round 1 & 2 work fine, but I do not see round 3 as possible.*sigh*
See Invisible is a 2nd level spell, doesn't take 3 rounds worth of standard actions to pinpoint a location, and avoids the 50% miss chance from concealment. Furthermore, if the invisible creatures moves outside of your 60' cone during those 3 rounds of detect magic, you're screwed.
So no, you're not at all using a 0th level spell to substitute for see invisibility.
Show of hands, has anyone ever used detect magic, in combat, to successfully attack an invisible foe?
I've seen it work, its rarely worth the effort though. It doesn't really show up past the level where extra senses are easy to attain (scent, see invis, etc) which means it usually only shows up in levels where it is worse than readying actions. I also see it used with Obscuring Mist and Deeper Darkness, with the same result. Pretty sure spending those three rounds could be better spent sprinkling flour on the ground. Or setting up a folding table and tea set and requesting parley with the unseeable foe for that matter.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh*
See Invisible is a 2nd level spell, doesn't take 3 rounds worth of standard actions to pinpoint a location, and avoids the 50% miss chance from concealment. Furthermore, if the invisible creatures moves outside of your 60' cone during those 3 rounds of detect magic, you're screwed.
So no, you're not at all using a 0th level spell to substitute for see invisibility.
Show of hands, has anyone ever used detect magic, in combat, to successfully attack an invisible foe?
Totally agree that see invisible is more practical. Heck, just bring a guard dog (25gp, CRB). Dogs have scent, which is way more effective than detect magic for locating invisible creatures.
As for locating invisible OBJECTs, detect magic is amazing.
Anyway, yes, we did have an encounter where party was using detect magic to find and attack invisible assailants. It was more an act of desperation, than a planned solution. One player would detect magic and shout general locations, then the other players would bomb the area. That was a horrible battle, one we really should have been prepare for. Not a low level group, just very under-equipped.
I did something similar with Detect Evil and an invisible poltergeist thing. I stood in the corner of the room and shouted out the current location to my allies, who'd run over and flail around. Not exactly Invisibility Purge, but better than nothing.
Yes I always thought of Det Magic as being a bit like a crappy sonar!
Detect Magic is really only useful for finding invisible objects and invisible fallen allies. Conscious enemies can easily move around enough to foil being located by this cantrip.
|
|
Nice of the invisible attacker to stay put for 3 rounds in a row...
It's a 60' cone. This was an encounter on the party's ship which really didn't have deck larger than 60ft. My character also had an obscene amount of HP, so we could afford to wait three rounds for the DPS players to locate the invisible attacker, as I just took damage.
PS: You know after 1 round if magical auras are withing the target area, so if no magic in the 60ft cone after 1 round, you don't need to continue...
|
|
True, but if they're not in the cone, you have a 1 in 3 chance of choosing the correct area on your next action unless the combat area is constrained (like on a ship, or if you're in a corner of a room). Also, if the invisible creature attacks the person casting detect magic, they have to make concentration rolls to keep the spell going, no?Of course, if the invisible creature is attacking, you pretty much know what area they are in anyways.
The goal was to locate them enough to hit them with splash weapons. So, really, if they were outside of the cone on the ship, it would narrow their location enough to hit them with splash weapons. And yeah, they could attack the caster, but if one person is fighting a group, and one of that group is using a non-offensive spell that will take a while to do anything, they aren't exactly a high priority target.
Anyway, it was an act of desperation, not one of cunning plans. We really were underprepared for invisible opponents....
Nice of the invisible attacker to stay put for 3 rounds in a row...It's a 60' cone. This was an encounter on the party's ship which really didn't have deck larger than 60ft. My character also had an obscene amount of HP, so we could afford to wait three rounds for the DPS players to locate the invisible attacker, as I just took damage.
PS: You know after 1 round if magical auras are withing the target area, so if no magic in the 60ft cone after 1 round, you don't need to continue...
Right, but to know where the magic is coming from requires it to not move. So other than finding out that magic is out there if the invisible person is moving detect magic won't do anything.
|
|
Right, but to know where the magic is coming from requires it to not move. So other than finding out that magic is out there if the invisible person is moving detect magic won't do anything.Nice of the invisible attacker to stay put for 3 rounds in a row...It's a 60' cone. This was an encounter on the party's ship which really didn't have deck larger than 60ft. My character also had an obscene amount of HP, so we could afford to wait three rounds for the DPS players to locate the invisible attacker, as I just took damage.
PS: You know after 1 round if magical auras are withing the target area, so if no magic in the 60ft cone after 1 round, you don't need to continue...
Detect Magic? Not seeing where it requires the target to remain stationary. They certainly need to remain in the cone, but they can move around while in the cone.
And for the record, two things. First, this was improved invisibility with ranged weapons and spells. Second, the GM we had was really, really bad at tactical combat...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are correct, I was mistaken. If they remain in the cone the entire time it does seem like it would pinpoint them.
|
|
The cone has to stay stationary. Auras can move around in and even in and out of the cone, but after three rounds the detect magic is in pinpoint mode.
Yeah, it works, but you'd have to ensure the target doesn't leave the area AND you have to sustain damage via the target while you wait rounds for results. It's a desperate option for dealing with invisible creatures in combat. Lots of better options.
|
The cone has to stay stationary. Auras can move around in and even in and out of the cone, but after three rounds the detect magic is in pinpoint mode.Yeah, it works, but you'd have to ensure the target doesn't leave the area AND you have to sustain damage via the target while you wait rounds for results. It's a desperate option for dealing with invisible creatures in combat. Lots of better options.
Standing in the corner with some friends in front of you can help though. Using PF's "can't share spaces" rules against the invisible monster.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I said I didn't want opinions (which to me would include rules interpretations). And instead I got a bunch of people discussing how they interpret the rules and think it works.
I literally quoted an official Pathfinder book by Paizo stating that Detect Magic can pinpoint the location of magically invisible creatures. Jeraa quoted the CRB. How more "official" do you want it to be?
It doesn't require an "official answer" because it's exceedingly obvious and clear as day from just a few simple rules.
Show of hands, has anyone ever used detect magic, in combat, to successfully attack an invisible foe?
No. And indeed, I managed to run a very entertaining encounter, running an invisible bad-guy cleric against my 6-PC Rise of the Runelords party. It very much came off as a submarine hunt & seek encounter and is one of those memorable encounters we talk about years later.
The best big was that at one point, an injured party member decided to seek shelter in a side-room, thinking he was clever. Next round... the door closed after him. Everyone knew he hadn't done it, because of action economy. And realized... the evil cleric was now in the other room, with the injured party member. Oh-oh.
So yeah, detect magic doesn't effectively trump invisibility even in reasonably small spaces, if the invisible creature is clever enough and there's room to maneuver.
Thanks to Murdock Mudeater, Nixitur, Jeraa and everyone else who contributed to this thread. I was unsure of the official answer until I read this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it funny how I asked a simple yes or no question: has this specific question been officially answered? I said I didn't want opinions (which to me would include rules interpretations). And instead I got a bunch of people discussing how they interpret the rules and think it works. *Sigh*. Oh well, I kinda had a feeling this would happen, lol.
You never specified what question (there are at least 2 possibilities in this case that I can see). We just assumed. You need to be more specific.
And no. No official response is needed, so no official response has been given. The rules are very clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yes it has an official answer, the answer is yes, cause the rules say it works, and rules are official.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it funny how I asked a simple yes or no question: has this specific question been officially answered? I said I didn't want opinions (which to me would include rules interpretations). And instead I got a bunch of people discussing how they interpret the rules and think it works. *Sigh*. Oh well, I kinda had a feeling this would happen, lol.No, no you didn't ask a simple question, you asked a vague question. A simple question would be, "Can I locate an invisible creature with Detect Magic?" to which the answer is yes, as per the spell's (Detect Magic's) very description. Your question was this:
At the risk of starting a firestorm, was there ever an official ruling of any kind on this issue? I'm very specifically NOT asking for opinions or house rules (not to say that they're not valid, just that I've already read a bunch of that stuff), just wondering if an official answer was ever given.
To which the answer is "kinda." There's never been a need for a new official answer because this is already be covered in the CRB. So, I suppose, regarding progress at getting this officially answered in an FAQ, no, there is no progress.
Mind you, Detect Magic doesn't grant the ability to ignore your lack of being able to see your target when aiming attacks. You can use Detect magic to locate an invisible creature, within limitations, but you still can't see them. Locating is enough for splash weapons in their square, or bursts, or lines, and so forth, but not enough plant single target attacks without a miss chance.
Though regarding invisibilty, the best way to ignore the effects of this spell is just to close your eyes. Invisibility has no effect on creatures that can't see you anyway...
|
Attempting to use a 0 lvl spell for same effect as a 3rd lvl spell, See Invisibility? Is the item or creature in line of sight? You would likely need to make a perception check for that since normally there is no line of sight to invisible objects/creatures/targets. Round 1 & 2 work fine, but I do not see round 3 as possible.*sigh*
See Invisible is a 2nd level spell, doesn't take 3 rounds worth of standard actions to pinpoint a location, and avoids the 50% miss chance from concealment. Furthermore, if the invisible creatures moves outside of your 60' cone during those 3 rounds of detect magic, you're screwed.
So no, you're not at all using a 0th level spell to substitute for see invisibility.
Show of hands, has anyone ever used detect magic, in combat, to successfully attack an invisible foe?
And See invisibility don't require concentration, so you can act against your target.
No hand here. I think my players have noticed an invisible opponent with some kind of magical item or spell thanks to detect magic, about 3 times in 35 years of playing. I never did that.
Detecting/locating an invisible sensor (crystal ball, magic mirror, etc.)? Plenty of times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I said I didn't want opinions...
Just throwing this out there as food-for-thought: not going to happen.
This is a public forum, and I mean that in the general sense of "forum", not in the "an Internet message board thingie". You can't ever expect that you can ask a "yes/no only" question in in a public forum without discussion, debate, opinion, and general musing.
"Should we execute Prisoner X? What say ye? Yay or nay?"
You're going to get discussion over the ethics of capital punishment, discussion over the evidence of Prisoner X's offenses, discussion over possible mitigating circumstances contributing to those offenses, debate over the expense of a humane execution, over the precedent it sets for Prisoner Y who is accused of the same offense but has been promised leniency by a high-placed official... and so on.
Public forums are for discussion, by nature. So posting in public wanting people to not discuss... is going to leave you frustrated in general.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes detect magic reacts to invisibility
No it doesn't let you thwart an invisible enemy freely unless he's a complete idiot
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though regarding invisibilty, the best way to ignore the effects of this spell is just to close your eyes. Invisibility has no effect on creatures that can't see you anyway...That SHOULD be true, but really isn't...
If that where true, invisibility would read as "You gain total concealment", but then it also gives a big pile of confusing and nonsensical skill bonuses that you make you harder to detect than being on the other side of a wall or 2000 ft away would.
That was a joke. Sorry. The humor is that closing your eyes would debilitate yourself exactly as much (or more) than invisibility would when cast on your opponent. So it is, kinda, a true statement, but it's not any sort of solution. Deliberately blinding yourself, does make castings of invisibility rather pointless..
Kinda like dropping prone makes you immune to trip...Or not having any gear/weapons makes you immune to sunder/disarm. True statements, but they don't solve any problems.