Arcane sight - Invisible - Magic Missile

[Rickmeister]

Rule clarification required chaps!

This happened in the campaign yesterday. I figured it hit (coz it didn't really matter at the time) but I'm wondering since it will probably happen again.

Is arcane sight a really that good of an enchantment detector/invisiblity raper? :-/

---

Caster #1: Arcane Sight
Enemy #1: Normal invisibility
Caster #1: Magic Missile

Success? Yes / no?

---

Caster #1: Arcane Sight
Enemy #1: Natural invisibility
Caster #1: Magic Missile

Success? Yes / no?

[Josh M Foster]

Rickmeister wrote:

Rule clarification required chaps!

Caster #1: Arcane Sight
Enemy #1: Normal invisibility
Caster #1: Magic Missile

Success? Yes / no?

---

Caster #1: Arcane Sight
Enemy #1: Natural invisibility
Caster #1: Magic Missile

Success? Yes / no?

1: No. You locate the aura, you don't pinpoint the creature.

Magic Missile wrote:

The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment.

The creature still has total concealment, though you know which square it occupies.

2: No. There's not even an aura to locate

[Hama]

You don't see invisible creatures unless you have see invisibility or true seeing cast on yourself. INvisibility mutes magical auras as part of it's effect, or you could simply detect auras of the creature;s magical items and blast away. SO, 1. No, 2. No.

[BobChuck]

To re-iterate:

Arcane Sight tells you "there's a moderate illusion effect in this square". Detect Magic would tell you the same thing, if you spent three rounds concentrating and the target didn't move (0th spell for the lose).

In either case, you do not "see" the precise outline of the person, only a general idea of where he is (the target has total concealment). It's enough to make an attack with a 50% miss chance or to drop an AoE, but not enough for magic missile (which specifically states it does not work against total cover or concealment).

[Hama]

Dunno, i would rule that even with arcane sight or detect magic, you wouldn't see anything. After all, it is invisibility.

[james maissen]

Rickmeister wrote:

Success? Yes / no?

No for both, as the spell is targeted and you need to see a target. You've got the square pinpointed at best, much like you could do (say in 3.5 with a successful listen check).

-James

[Kalyth]

Hama wrote:

Dunno, i would rule that even with arcane sight or detect magic, you wouldn't see anything. After all, it is invisibility.

Invisibility does not mask any magical aura there are specific spells that do that.

Invisibility is a magical effect and can be detected with Detect Magic/Arcane Sight. The effect can be detected but the subject is still not visible so Total Concealment.

[Josh M Foster]

Kalyth wrote:

Invisibility does not mask any magical aura there are specific spells that do that.

Invisibility is a magical effect and can be detected with Detect Magic/Arcane Sight. The effect can be detected but the subject is still not visible so Total Concealment.

You're right about that. Invisibility masks a creature from being seen visibly, but it does not mask the spell energy in any way any more than it blocks scent. Think of Arcane Sight as picking up on the Magic "smell" and translating the data into the visual, if that helps. (Not a perfect analogy, but useful, I hope)

As you hinted, Magic Aura could mask the spell energy, rendering this strategy to locate the square useless. Basically, using my above analogy, it conceals any "smell" a magic effect could exude.