|
I'm looking for rule quotes in PFRPG regarding this combination. (I'd prefer Beta, but I'm willing to consider Final rules as well since we will eventually move to those.)
For reference:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/nondetection.html
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/seeInvisibility.html
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/detectMagic.html
This combination of spells has been hotly debated on ENworld.org in the past and I don't want to dredge up all of those old wounds. :) I'm looking for a ruling on whether my interpretation, below, is "reasonable" by the RAW and/or your interpretation of the RAW, should they not be clear. (Please explain yourself in the second case.)
1. Nondetection is a Sor/Wiz 3 spell.
2. Nondetection protects against divination spells that detect the creature.
3. See invisible is a Sor/Wiz 2 spell.
4. See invisible has a range of Personal and a target of You.
5. Detect magic is a Sor/Wiz 0 spell.
6. Detect magic is a 60-ft emanation.
Since the nondetection spell seems to apply against divination spells cast to detect the recipient, and since the see invisible spell is a personal spell, does nondetection block see invisible? I can see arguments both ways.
Similarly, can detect magic locate someone who's invisible and hidden by nondetection? Again, since the detect magic isn't targeted at the warded creature, I can see an argument both ways for this one too.
Please don't consider other aspects of this combination ("what is a 'detect' spell?" or "what is a 'divination' spell?") as they are not germane to my question. (You're welcome to start another thread for that, but I'll warn you that it'll be a big one. ;))
Thanks everyone!
I'm looking for rule quotes in PFRPG regarding this combination. (I'd prefer Beta, but I'm willing to consider Final rules as well since we will eventually move to those.)
I only have the PRD to work with, but I would be honestly surprised to find these issues spelled out in the rules anywhere. While I have not read any of the threads you referred to, I think that some notion of what Detect and Locate spells do is necessary to resolve all of your questions.
Since the nondetection spell seems to apply against divination spells cast to detect the recipient, and since the see invisible spell is a personal spell, does nondetection block see invisible? I can see arguments both ways.
From PRD (Nondetection spell) - "The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells."
From PRD (See Invisibility) - "You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision"
Since the text for See Invisible is clear about what it does, and the text of Nondetection is a bit ambiguous about whether it applies to See Invisibility (or True Seeing), I believe that Nondetection doesn't interfere with See Invisibility's operation.
Similarly, can detect magic locate someone who's invisible and hidden by nondetection? Again, since the detect magic isn't targeted at the warded creature, I can see an argument both ways for this one too.
I can't quote any rules to support either side of this. In my opinion, this is exactly the sort of call that a DM on his own. My own opinion is no, you can't use Detect Magic to find a magically invisible target, but I am unaware of any rules to back this up.
Edit: I took a second look at your last question, and I have to say definitely no. Nondetection prevents the Detect Magic from detecting the invisible target, and this is clear from Nondetection's description.
The question I was answering was actually whether Detect Magic could be used to find magically invisible targets at all (without throwing in Nondetection).
See invis is not a detect spell so nondetection does not work against it. Detect magic, detect evil,........, and divination spells are foiled by it.
I'm afraid you are going to have to go with your own intuition on this one. The whole problem with the non-detection spell description resides in those two words "such as". These words can be read to mean "for example" or they can be read to mean "similar to". The first interpretation lends itself to the idea that all divination spells are affected and the list of spells following are examples of divination spells. The second that only divination spells with an undefined set of qualities similar to the spells listed are affected. Thus arriving at a conclusion using RAW is impossible (unless there are other rules I've yet to see that clarify this, I'd love to know about them if they exist).
I think your interpretation is certainly reasonable. The best you can do is come to a decision and play it consistently.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm afraid you are going to have to go with your own intuition on this one. The whole problem with the non-detection spell description resides in those two words "such as". These words can be read to mean "for example" or they can be read to mean "similar to". The first interpretation lends itself to the idea that all divination spells are affected and the list of spells following are examples of divination spells. The second that only divination spells with an undefined set of qualities similar to the spells listed are affected. Thus arriving at a conclusion using RAW is impossible (unless there are other rules I've yet to see that clarify this, I'd love to know about them if they exist).
I think your interpretation is certainly reasonable. The best you can do is come to a decision and play it consistently.
It clearly calls out detect spells, which there is a slew of, of which see invis is not. If the spell was called detect invisibility I would agree with it.
And Andrew if it were intended to foil all divination spells they would have simply said it foils all divination spells and been done with it.
The way it reads is clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object and the detect line of spells.
PS: I do realize my previous post was not well written.
See invis is not a detect spell so nondetection does not work against it. Detect magic, detect evil,........, and divination spells are foiled by it.The school of spells for "See Invisibility" is Divination, therefore it should apply.
IMarv
This is an example of "such as" not being clear enough |: Because see invisibility and true seeing aren't in the list after the "such as", are they included or not?
My personal ruling is that true seeing/see invisibility alter the way you sense things -- they don't actually give you extrasensory information like sensors or detect spells do. Besides, the line
If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item...
reinforces my belief that nondetection only applies to the effects of spells on a creature, not to the effect of a creature's vision *enhanced by* a spell.
Anyway, this is a classic dead horse -- it's been around for quite a while (:
|
|
This is an example of "such as" not being clear enough |: Because see invisibility and true seeing aren't in the list after the "such as", are they included or not?
Hopefully you'll notice that I don't care one bit about the definition of "divination" spell. It's not germane to my question.
My personal ruling is that true seeing/see invisibility alter the way you sense things -- they don't actually give you extrasensory information like sensors or detect spells do. Besides, the line
If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item...reinforces my belief that nondetection only applies to the effects of spells on a creature, not to the effect of a creature's vision *enhanced by* a spell.
Bingo! I see the nondetection spell as saying that the spell must target the warded creature or item or the nondetection effect doesn't apply. It's clearly spelled out in the spell description. At least, IMO it's clear. :)
So for the sake of argument, let's say that true seeing and see invisible both work against creatures protected by nondetection for the above reason (those spells don't target the warded creature). This is the way I plan to rule it.
Now what about a spell such as detect magic? It's an emanation and also does not target the warded creature. Would detect magic show a magical aura in the area of the warded creature?
Spells that are specifically targeted at a creature (such as the ones mentioned in the spell description: clairvoyance, scry, locate creature, find the path (when used on a creature), and so forth) would be blocked by nondetection.
Would that ruling be considered by you (that's the collective "you" that refers to the community here!) a reasonable interpretation?
Now what about a spell such as detect magic? It's an emanation and also does not target the warded creature. Would detect magic show a magical aura in the area of the warded creature?
The detect spell is telling you information about something in its area. You are relying on the magic for information. Nondetection works on those spells.
True seeing and see invisibility don't give extrasensory information. They allow your senses to be improved. True seeing confers "the ability to see all things as they actually are" but it doesn't actually provide you with any information you wouldn't normally be able to see without the visual inhibitors.
The silence spell is an interesting parallel to this issue. If cast on a willing creature and that willing creature moves into an area with an unwilling creature, there is no save or spell resistance. Why? Because the sound itself is affected, not the creature.
True seeing affects the visual input itself, not the thing seen.
This ties into the question of how much protection you get with mind blank, as it explicitly protects you against see invisibility. Can auras be detected independently of the warded person, such as using arcane sight to detect the mind blank effect rather than the person it's protecting?
Now what about a spell such as detect magic? It's an emanation and also does not target the warded creature. Would detect magic show a magical aura in the area of the warded creature?
Even more than the rest, this is going to come down to a personal ruling. Myself, I'd say no: the nondetection spell is itself undetectable. The same applies to misdirection and magic aura.
|
Since the nondetection spell seems to apply against divination spells cast to detect the recipient, and since the see invisible spell is a personal spell, does nondetection block see invisible? I can see arguments both ways.Similarly, can detect magic locate someone who's invisible and hidden by nondetection? Again, since the detect magic isn't targeted at the warded creature, I can see an argument both ways for this one too.
Just to put in my two cents... I’d say yes, non-detection can possibly foil see invisibility. I say “possibly” since it only forces a caster level check.
This ties into the question of how much protection you get with mind blank, as it explicitly protects you against see invisibility. Can auras be detected independently of the warded person, such as using arcane sight to detect the mind blank effect rather than the person it's protecting?
Well, ignoring the "such as", we're left with:
The subject is protected from all devices and spells that gather information about the target through divination magic.
versus
The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells.
"Detect by" versus "gather information about" . . .
"Gather information about" seems to imply that see invisibility is an information-gathering spell and not a vision enhancer. That pretty much eliminates my argument |:
So, sadly, the only reason I can think of to not include see invisibility/true seeing in the list of things affected by nondetection is that they don't appear in the list after the "such as".
Oh well. . .
I'm with the "might" camp. As in, it could potentially block see invis, etc. But as someone else had said all it really does it initiate a caster lvl check. If the check succeeds, the nondetection spell is foiled, and the person with it on isn't even aware of what happenned. If check fails, the person isn't detected.
Spells that are specifically targeted at a creature (such as the ones mentioned in the spell description: clairvoyance, scry, locate creature, find the path (when used on a creature), and so forth) would be blocked by nondetection.
Would that ruling be considered by you (that's the collective "you" that refers to the community here!) a reasonable interpretation?
It makes sense to me.
|
|
Thanks for all of the replies so far everyone! As postulated in the original post, I don't care about the "such as" clause -- I've read all of those arguments on the ENworld threads that I mentioned in the OP. I'm only concerned with the "divination spell against the warded creature" phrase of the nondetection spell.
Now what about a spell such as detect magic? It's an emanation and also does not target the warded creature. Would detect magic show a magical aura in the area of the warded creature?Even more than the rest, this is going to come down to a personal ruling. Myself, I'd say no: the nondetection spell is itself undetectable. The same applies to misdirection and magic aura.
This is reasonable to me. The detect magic is an emanation so I can see an argument that the warded creature is having a divination spell cast "against" it. Sort of. As I mentioned, the detect magic does not have a Target: header in its description so by the rules, it is NOT a targeted spell. This has various implications for the spell when it's used (a targeted spell that is saved against causes a "tingle" for the target and the spellcaster also knows the spell failed; that doesn't apply to area effect spells).
But as I said, I can understand and even agree with your interpretation.
So the nondetection itself is undetectable... What about the magic sword being carried by the warded creature? What about the invisibility spell currently hiding the warded creature?
Edited for New thought: What if the detect magic cone is moved away from the warded creature and then back again. Does the spellcaster using detect magic get another caster level check? (Note that the nondetection spell doesn't have the "for 24 hours" qualification on it that other spells/effects have.)
So the nondetection itself is undetectable... What about the magic sword being carried by the warded creature? What about the invisibility spell currently hiding the warded creature?
The sword, definitely not; it's an attended item, which means that when in doubt, it's affected by anything which affects the owner. (Consider that it gets the owner's saving throws.)
The invisibility spell's aura is an interesting question. I'd say no, but that's not based on any text, just an extension of the attended item concept to "personal auras" which may or may not fit your game's metaphysical model. Note that if it were an invisibility sphere it's unequivocably detectable: specifically, you can detect the 10' emanation, and extrapolate that the caster is in the center square.
Edited for New thought: What if the detect magic cone is moved away from the warded creature and then back again. Does the spellcaster using detect magic get another caster level check?
I would say no, as would be the case with spell resistance: one spell, one check. But by RAW, if the caster dismissed detect magic and recast it another check would be allowed.
|
|
What about the invisibility spell currently hiding the warded creature?The invisibility spell's aura is an interesting question. I'd say no, but that's not based on any text, just an extension of the attended item concept to "personal auras" which may or may not fit your game's metaphysical model. Note that if it were an invisibility sphere it's unequivocably detectable: specifically, you can detect the 10' emanation, and extrapolate that the caster is in the center square.
I'm pretty sure I've seen the experts on ENworld battle it out that detect magic can indeed detect the magical aura from an invisible creature, but I'd have to Google to find a particular thread...
Edited for New thought: What if the detect magic cone is moved away from the warded creature and then back again. Does the spellcaster using detect magic get another caster level check?I would say no, as would be the case with spell resistance: one spell, one check. But by RAW, if the caster dismissed detect magic and recast it another check would be allowed.
Okay, that's cool. :)
According to what I've seen, the only thing that can block See Invisible, True Seeing et al is the 10th level Gnomish Illusionist substitution level "Insidious Illusions" on page 149 of (the now out-of-print) Races of Stone. And that still allows a caster level check to see through the illusions, including Invisibility.
If I could just put on an Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location and have my Ring of Invisibility work with 100% efficiency against See Invisible, I would, laughing up my sleeve at the poor gnomish illusionist who's mighty racial capstone power is trumped by a 3rd level spell that everyone can take, because even Insidious Illusions don't work all the time.
So, short answer, Nondetection shouldn't work that way, but Insidious Illusion can.
And FWIW, I'd house rule that all Illusionists in Pathfinder should be allowed to take those substitution levels, not just the gnomes, because otherwise high level diviners beat up high level illusionists and steal their lunch money.
And FWIW, I'd house rule that all Illusionists in Pathfinder should be allowed to take those substitution levels, not just the gnomes, because otherwise high level diviners beat up high level illusionists and steal their lunch money.
The illusionists have more than enough of everyone else's lunch money. And they can also convince an angry mob that the diviner is (insert anything vulnerable to torches and pitchforks).
I anticipate a "mutually beneficial arrangement."
Nondetection protects against active divinations. Scrying, detect X, etc. These spells actively seek out information. See invisibility is a passive divination; instead of going out and "pinging" like the detect spells or hunting down a target like scrying, it affects the caster, giving him immunity to the invisibility type of illusions.
In my campaigns, I rule that nondetection works on see invisibility as all divination spells.
Nondetection has a costly material component, and is not 100% chance to work. It doesn't seem unbalanced to rule it that way.
Just my two cents.
An interesting question is WHEN you have use of a certain magic effect.
The invisibility spells (and similar, obfuscating ones) are useful all the time when you use them. Using such a spell gives you a direct boost.
The detection spells are really only useful when there is something to detect. If you cast see invisible and there are no invisible creatures around, you have a wasted spell. Therefore, the detection spells need to be a bit more powerful (ability to affect various disguises, duration, etc) than the effects they detect, if they are to be balanced.
The nondetection spell is a special case: You only really have use for it when you have other effects to mask you, AND someone tries to use a detection spell against you. Sure, it might happen, but it's really once in a blue moon in most games.
The exception is of course those effects that are permanent. A permanent see invisible spell makes all invisibility spells useless against you. A permanent nondetection boosts your own invisibility spells that much more. Creatures with natural see invisible play in a different way more often than they would have if they had to use the see invisible ability when suspecting an invisible foe.
Where does it say Detect Magic is "pinging"?
I put "pinging" in quotes because it's not a precise rules term. I'm pretty sure that was obvious.
The only thing I see a fixed range and area of effect, but Darkvision has a fixed range too.
Darkvision passively changes the caster's vision.
Detect [foo] gives the caster the ability to make an active, magical observation, requiring continuous concentration and an active attempt by both the caster and the spell to detect something.
Again, the difference is that darkvision doesn't require either the caster or the spell to do anything to a target affected by nondetection. Detect [foo] does: the caster has to concentrate on the target for 3 rounds straight.
I called the detect line of spells "pinging" because they function similarly to active sonar. You have to send out the signal in order to receive any information from the spell. That's not true with darkvision, see invisibility, true seeing, etc.
I called the detect line of spells "pinging" because they function similarly to active sonar. You have to send out the signal in order to receive any information from the spell. That's not true with darkvision, see invisibility, true seeing, etc.
That was essentially my argument, but it's ruled out by the mind blank text. See invisibility is included in a list of spells that "gather information" -- therefore it's an active "pinging" spell just like a detect spell.
Mind Blank is really it's own category of spell. It really is designed to protect against virtually all mortal detection and mind affecting magic definitely against such plebian (to an archmage) spells like See Invisibility True Seeing is an interesting question. I'd say it would allow you to pierce the illusion, but you'd be protected against revelation of the true form. (Mind Blank protects the person, not an active illusion being projected on top)
I'm not questioning what mind blank does. I'm talking about the language used to describe see invisibility in the mind blank description. See invisibility was lumped in a list of divination spells that "gather information" -- since the "gather information" text strongly suggests that the spell provides information as opposed to improves senses, it can be fooled by nondetection.
I'm looking for rule quotes in PFRPG regarding this combination. (I'd prefer Beta, but I'm willing to consider Final rules as well since we will eventually move to those.)
I think you are looking for some clear delineated guidance is a place where the rules are vague.
In my judgment a lower level spell should never trump a higher level one unless it is specifically mentioned in one of the spell descriptions. So detect magic would never detect an invisible target. Likewise I don't see detect invisible piercing non-detection. See Invisible specifically neutralizes one effect so it applies to Greater Invisibility and Invisibility Sphere.
Some of this is RAW, some is RAI, some is Rules as Ogre Sees Dem (RAOSD). The rules are often vague, contradictory, and subject to interpretation, and NOT the most important aspect of the game. You can run these rules in any of the above ways and not only will the game be just as fun but your players will likely never know the difference. It's almost always better to be consistent and quick about rules judgments than it is to be accurate.