The Wording of "Nondetection" states "a creature is difficut to detect by divination spells such as Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Locate Object and Detect spells" a player in my group insists that since "See Invisibility" is a Divination spell, that it would have to make the required Caster Level Check to see an Invisible creature.
They put emphisis on the "such as" element of the wording and insist this is the only way among mundane hiding a character has to magically avoid being seen by "See Invisibility" at lower levels.
What would other people think in this scenario?, the dynamics of Invisibility (such as Greater Invisibility, etc) and/or See Invisibility (such as True Seeing, etc) could be changed to other spells but the arguement is almost the same.
I'd appreciate some input people, thanks.
Ciao.
"Such as" in this case works a qualifier. If nondetection worked against all divination spells, it would say so. See invisibility affects the caster, and the caster only, just like true strike.
I think it is a valid use of non-detection, as a side note in earlier editions 'see invisibility' was 'detect invisibility' and the wording for non-detection was the same.
divinations that gather information about the location of the subject should be affected, scrying, see invisibility and the various detect spells, seem to be prime candidates.
personally I think 'nondetection''s primary purpose is to stay undetected, can't really imagine it not working for see invisibility.
A 3rd lvl spell a decently expensive material component to use on a regular basis and a casterlevel check to penetrate the spell's protection, I think denying it would kill the use of the spell.
|
I agree with Remco for the most part. And would like to add that most of the time in cases of spell vs. spell on effects, most of the time me and the gamers I've been involved with are inclined to say the higher level spell will trump the lower-level spell. For instance, true-seeing would trump non-detection in this scenario.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I don't know, See Invisibility is Divination. Darkvision is Transmutation.
See Invis is not just a modification of yourself to have the properties of seeing invisible objects (like Darkvision is to see in the dark),
but a spell continually divining your perceived surroundings.
That said, I can see the other interpretation as well. Paizo feedback would be good.
It seems like if it IS meant to essentially cover all Divinations, the wording should more strongly suggest that, i.e.
...THIS COULD PROBABLY BE CLEARED UP IN THE NEXT PRINTING/ ERRATA...
@isaac: that sounds pretty reasonable and a good approach, but then again: what about Protection from Evil?
Thanks for the insight people, its appreciated.
I allowed it in my game but as people have stated, the Higher Level spells trump the lower level spells, and Nondetection does have an expensive material component - and the caster level of a "See Invisibility" potion is on average 3rd if bought from the store, etc which means its pretty effective against non-spellcasters with its low caster level.
The Caster Level DC requirement makes the scenario a fair bet since the Nondetection doesnt automatically foil these effects but it does require a Caster Level test to be made against the spell.
The reason this whole thread arose is from the party Rogue possessing a 'Ring Of Invisibility' and had an 'Amulet Of Proof Against Detection and Location' and he asked me how both worked together against an enemy character using 'See Invisibility' (in potion form) to see the oncoming Rogue, the listed Caster Level DC of the Amulet is DC 19 and the potions caster level was 3rd, which meant the enemy had to roll a 16 to see the oncoming Rogue.
I allowed the Nondetection to function against the See Invisibility since it isnt a Transmutation effect and isnt a 'Glitterdust' effect or whatnot which would still find the hidden character.
Needless to say, Nondetection is quite a useful tool against various forms of Divination outwith that and essential to a well prepared character.
Thanks for the input everyone.
Ciao.
The reason this whole thread arose is from the party Rogue possessing a 'Ring Of Invisibility' and had an 'Amulet Of Proof Against Detection and Location' and he asked me how both worked together against an enemy character using 'See Invisibility' (in potion form) to see the oncoming Rogue, the listed Caster Level DC of the Amulet is DC 19 and the potions caster level was 3rd, which meant the enemy had to roll a 16 to see the oncoming Rogue.
I agree with your interpretation of the rules (I've always used Nondetection in the same way, too), however... See Invisibility cannot be put into a potion.
See Invisibility has 'Range: Personal, Target: You'.
And the Magic Item Creation rules states that:
"Creating Potions:
(...)
The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions."
(it's the middle paragraph)
This is the reason why Shield potions do not exist, too.
Just my 2c.
I think it is a valid use of non-detection, as a side note in earlier editions 'see invisibility' was 'detect invisibility' and the wording for non-detection was the same.
If the spell had its name changed, it is just because of this kind of problem !!
See Invisibility is not a Detect spell (well non longer) and thus is not ocncerned by Non Detection.
I agree with Wraitstrike, spells with range personal, target you, can not be made into potions. you'll need a wand or scroll and some UMD ranks for that
Clairvoyance/clairaudience is not specifically a 'detect' spell either. Since see invisibility is a divination spell I think the logic is inescapable. Non-detection would prevent the invisible person from being detected.
Of course, someone also mentioned that you can't have a see invisiblity potion, which is also correct. :-)
I think it is a valid use of non-detection, as a side note in earlier editions 'see invisibility' was 'detect invisibility' and the wording for non-detection was the same.If the spell had its name changed, it is just because of this kind of problem !!
See Invisibility is not a Detect spell (well non longer) and thus is not ocncerned by Non Detection.
non-detection does not limit itself to those spells specifically named, not as I read it anyway, it gives a few examples.
What I get from that is that it protects against divination spells that enable a caster to locate the enchanted creature or an object on his person.
I do not see a particular fault in this logic, nor a reason why it should be different, it certainly does not make the spell overpowered.
I agree with Wraitstrike, spells with range personal, target you, can not be made into potions. you'll need a wand or scroll and some UMD ranks for that
Uh... The Wraith ?...
Wraithstrike and me are two different people...
I agree with Wraitstrike, spells with range personal, target you, can not be made into potions. you'll need a wand or scroll and some UMD ranks for thatUh... The Wraith ?...
Wraithstrike and me are two different people...
yar, sorry mate, lack of sleep and all that :-)
I think it is a valid use of non-detection, as a side note in earlier editions 'see invisibility' was 'detect invisibility' and the wording for non-detection was the same.If the spell had its name changed, it is just because of this kind of problem !!
See Invisibility is not a Detect spell (well non longer) and thus is not ocncerned by Non Detection.
I'm not trying to state difinitively whether Nondetection works on See Invisibility, but the name was (IMO) not changed because of this. It was changed because it does not work like all the other detect spells work (sense presence, locate areas and know strongest, pinpoint all sources.) - it simply lets you see invisible things, without a range limit.
My opinion? Given the caster level check, I think it's reasonable for it to work on See Invis, but it *is* a different sort of spell than all the others listed - it doesn't probe outwards. Probably just for simplicity though. If it works on See Invis, I could see it working on True Seeing as well.
A valid point regarding the 'See Invisibility' potion, it was a very old adventure (The Vault Of Larin Karr) and whoever wrote it for whatever reason equipped the NPC with a potion of 'See Invisibility'.
But since See Invisibility is classed as a Divination school spell it technically still counts as a Divination through it reveals Invisible or Etheral creatures continually. Dont get me wrong, Nondetection wont help you against 'Glitterdust' and suchlike used to expose a invisible character but the Caster Level check is in my opinion game balancing because it stops Non-Detection being a 'trump' card spell vs divinations because it allows a character to possibly avoid being seen, theres never a guarantee with the spell and the creature under 'Nondetection' doesnt know that the Nondetection spell failed.
At no point did I ever argue that the Darkvision spell or the ability didnt work against it, of course it would - its a transmutation effect after all, and a natural (Ex) ability for most races. That assumes the creature using Nondetection isnt Invisible of course.
For all intensive purposes I still see it as valid in this case, even against creatures that possess the natural ability to 'See Invisibility'.
When someone uses for example, True Seeing, their caster level is going to be very significant for one, so they will likely beat the Caster Level DC to overcome Nondetection (the caster level DC for 'Nondetection' is higher if a spellcaster uses it on themselves directly through magic, not items). Not to mention the 'Nondetection' has a significant material component cost that further cements its credability in cases like this from what I can see.
Ciao.
No, not all years ending in zero are the same year Sintog.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ten year gap, is that a record?