If a character is using Detect Magic or Detect Evil, can he see an invisible creature if it is evil, or is wearing magic items?
|
I am curious about this too. One thing to consider is the time of concentration on the spell. First round, you only detect the presence of magical auras. Second, how many and what strength. Third, where. So, three rounds for an invisible foe to realize some mage is trying to detect magic auras should be enough for said foe to react, move out of range of spell, attack, whatever.
I am curious to hear what others think on the subject. Also, I am not sure exactly what order the above determinations are as I am away from my books at the moment.
|
I read somewhere that Detect Magic will not allow you to see invisible creatures by their auras (from items, alignment or spells). Something about game balance and a cantrip suddenly becoming able to pierce through higher level spell effects. The explanation also said something like 'invisibility masks those auras to help the recipient of the spell or effect avoid detection'. I think it was on WOTC site in the Sage's advices or something several years back.
I agree with Rezdave and it would seem the official ruling does as well.
Knowing that there is a magical aura in a given area is just that. There are volumes of possible creatures, spells, effects, and general not-nice'ness that could be involved with said aura.
-Kurocyn
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I read somewhere that Detect Magic will not allow you to see invisible creatures by their auras (from items, alignment or spells). Something about game balance and a cantrip suddenly becoming able to pierce through higher level spell effects. The explanation also said something like 'invisibility masks those auras to help the recipient of the spell or effect avoid detection'. I think it was on WOTC site in the Sage's advices or something several years back.
I think it was me that said that, and the sage said the opposite, back in the last invisibility debate.
However, the sage did say that create water most certainly would not damage a fire elemental. ;-)
Edit: Yup, Rezdave's got the quote (about invisibility, the create water ruling is in the Hidden Lore of the Sage, Volume III).
The way I have always worked it in the campaigns that I have run is that when detect magic is cast any magical items light up, so with the way I do, if an invisible creature is wearing magical items then the caster will be able to see them but not the creature but he will be able to tell were it is.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I've always ruled that if you use the detect spell for all 3 rounds, you can determine the location of an invisible creature (i.e. determine which 5' square it is in), but that it doesn't give you a clear enough vision of the creature to remove the miss chance.
I would say no you can't see an invisible creature through use of detect magic/alignment spells. Since they are inherently visual feedback spells and that is exactly what invisibility masks (unlike sound or smell).
Note: As to water on fire, sometimes logic trumps "sage" advice.
|
|
I treat detect spells in a manner similar to a low-grade radar. At first, it can only give you a general idea of direction. Then it can narrow down the range if you continue to ping. Or switch them around, as you prefer. As you spend time with them, it gets more specific, but it has an upper limit as to how specific it can get in relation to what you're detecting.
For instance, Detect Evil could give you a general idea of where something that emanates an evil aura, but if it's invisible, it will not show what that something is, or whether or not its an object or creature. However, it won't help at all if the intended target is Neutral(unless you use the Evil Act variant).
As for Detect Magic, use a Spellcraft check, if the Detecting player can defeat the Invisible player, then you can proceede as in the Detect Evil example, if not, then the Detecting player is unable to detect that object/person. But it should never give you an exact space. I'd say make it a possible space somewhere in a 15 foot radius at the very least.
|
|
See, I think it depends on how you play your detect spells.
When we start counting rounds and considering concentration the detect spells really bog down the game and cause a "flow" problem. So a long time ago I decided to just give the information, pretty detailed in fact, when the PC uses the spell.
In this case I'd only allow the cantrip to "see invisibility" if we followed the rules exactly- counting the rounds, etc.
-W. E. Ray
As far as Invisibility goes, I love the Spell Glitterdust.
But just as a precaution; is it commonly agreed that you need sight, or the ability to see in order to effectively "detect" something?
and if that's true, can you or can you not "detect" evil/magic on the other side of a wall? (our paladin saved our dungeoneering butts many times with that one)
As far as Invisibility goes, I love the Spell Glitterdust.
But just as a precaution; is it commonly agreed that you need sight, or the ability to see in order to effectively "detect" something?
and if that's true, can you or can you not "detect" evil/magic on the other side of a wall? (our paladin saved our dungeoneering butts many times with that one)
A quick perusal of the SRD tells me that sight isn't necessary, since it uses terms like "sense" (under detect evil) and detect (detect magic, thoughts). It also lets you have cool blind mages and seers and stuff that are blind (with all attendant penalties) but able to interact with the world around them.
Detect evil is stopped by various substances listed in its description, and walls can do the job if of sufficient thickness for a given material (e.g. a foot of stone, 3 feet of wood or dirt, an inch of metal, etc.). So the "through the wall" thing is valid, if the walls aren't too thick.
As a DM, I would rule that Detect Magic does not detect invisible creatures.
1) A 0 level spell should not trump a second level spell (Invisibility).
2) A 0 level spell should not simulate a second level spell (See Invisiblity).
The invisible condition says "visually undetectable". So I suppose it would depend on your definition of "detect". The third round of Detect Magic specifically requires line of sight to Spellcraft the aura, but the first two do not mention sight specifically. It could be inferred either way.
But as I stated, as a DM, I would not allow Detect Magic to See Invisible.
-Jack
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As a DM, I would rule that Detect Magic does not detect invisible creatures.
1) A 0 level spell should not trump a second level spell (Invisibility).
2) A 0 level spell should not simulate a second level spell (See Invisiblity).
The invisible condition says "visually undetectable". So I suppose it would depend on your definition of "detect". The third round of Detect Magic specifically requires line of sight to Spellcraft the aura, but the first two do not mention sight specifically. It could be inferred either way.
But as I stated, as a DM, I would not allow Detect Magic to See Invisible.
-Jack
That's been my argument as well, but one thing to note is that Detect Magic has some significant limitations as compared to See Invisibility. At best, Detect Magic will give you the location of the invisible creature after 3 rounds of concentration. Even then, you'll still suffer the 50% miss chance for targeting them.
I still generally agree, but that's the counter-argument for what it's worth.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
So, if we go by the rules, does that mean that Arcane Sight automatically reveals invisible creatures? I realize it's a higher level spell, but it's still annoying when mages give themselves permanent Arcane Sight.
True, but at least it makes their eyes glow blue permanently, so it's an easy giveaway that they have some magical vision going on.
|
|
So, if we go by the rules, does that mean that Arcane Sight automatically reveals invisible creatures? I realize it's a higher level spell, but it's still annoying when mages give themselves permanent Arcane Sight.True, but at least it makes their eyes glow blue permanently, so it's an easy giveaway that they have some magical vision going on.
Either that, or they've been around the spice too much...
|
So, if we go by the rules, does that mean that Arcane Sight automatically reveals invisible creatures? I realize it's a higher level spell, but it's still annoying when mages give themselves permanent Arcane Sight.
That's when dispel magic is fun.
I agree with the assessment that detect spells do foil illusions, but are limited by concentration and area of effect. Same trick can usually foil shapechanging effects, since the creatures entire body will glow.
I would say no you can't see an invisible creature through use of detect magic/alignment spells. Since they are inherently visual feedback spells...
But they aren't inherently visual feedback spells. In fact, they work just fine through up to "1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt," all of which will block any visual feedback.
Detect magic specifies that if the aura is in your line of sight, you can attempt to identify its school of magic...and that makes it pretty clear that you don't have to see the aura to know its strength and location.
To my knowledge there is no mandate written anywhere that a lower level spell should not "trump" a higher level spell. By that logic, dispel magic should not be able to affect any spell of 4th level or higher. I do believe that the general consensus is "Yes, yes it does."
"Ah," you may say, "but dispel magic is specifically designed to strip away active effects and thus is expected to work on higher level spells!"
And my counter is that detect magic is exactly the same; designed to reveal magical auras, and thus expected to reveal said auras for any spell level, including 2nd, which includes spells like invisibility.
Besides, being able to locate an invisible creature's square (note: locate square; as in, "still invisible with a 50% miss chance) only by spending three rounds of concentration and making a skill check, and hoping that the target doesn't move out of the 60-foot cone in front of you and thus reset the "timer," is hardly a substitute for see invisibility.
The tactic would border on uselessness in combat, but if a player wants to spend the time and effort (or has nothing better to do or no other way to thwart the invisibility), then I firmly believe his action should be rewarded. I don't think play balance will be upset at all.
|
|
I use the description as per the detect magic spell. First off remember the spell is cone shaped, every time the target leaves the cone area and re-enters it, the concentration has to begin again. Or if the caster changes his position, the cone changes with him and the concentration begins again.
Another note is that the spells duration is concentration. So even if you do manage to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature you cant do anything about it. Once you stop concentrating on the spell, the spell ends.
1st Round - Presence or absence of magical auras. (You don’t actually see anything, there is no lighting up effect you just detect it).
2nd Round - Number of different magical auras and the power of the most potent aura. (Once again, you don’t actually see anything, and you only know the power of the most potent aura.)
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 Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Now, the person is still completely invisible to you, they don’t light up, they have 100% concealment from you and any of your allies. Just because you know where it is does not mean you can automatically see it.
My definition of detect magic works just like my definition of detect poison (another 0-level spell). You don’t have to visually see the poison to know it’s there, otherwise how could you tell if someone was poisoned. The poison itself has 100% concealment if it’s in a person, you cant actually "see it" but you still know it’s there.
Nothing in the spell says that items light up or stand out, you just detect the presence and location. I compare it to the skill Listen but you don’t have to roll skill checks. Detect Magic does not simulate see invisible. If the spell is dependent on actual visible sight, then how can a creature that doesnt use sight apply it or use it?
As far as a 0-level spell beating a higher level spell, that’s irrelevant in many cases.
True Seeing: Clr 5, Drd 7, Sor/Wiz 6 – Breaks many 9th Level Illusions.
Death Ward: Clr 4, Drd 5 – Breaks many 9th Level Necromancy Spells
Freedom of Movement: Clr 4, Drd 4, Brd 4 – Breaks any holding, paralyzing or impeding spells.
If I were being argumenativly difficult. I'd give the caster using detect magic a will save to see through the illusion of the person using the invisibiltiy spell.
-Stabbity