Detect magic vs. invisibility


Rules Questions

51 to 59 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Asphesteros wrote:
The black raven wrote:
If you are a devious DM/BBEG, cast an illusion of a big nasty Red Dragon on your quite real big nasty Red Dragon.
Side topic, but the obscure rules of illusion spells prevents that kind of thing, depending on the kind of illusion you're using. All the 'image' spells are "figments", and figments cannot make something seem to be something else. So, you can't use an Image spell as a poor man's mass invisibility by creating an illusion of the room just minus your party, for example, or use it as a disguise. I think the idea is it's like a hologram, the thing inside of it would interfere with the projected image, not be concealed by it or match up with it perfectly. For that you need to get yourself a Glamer. All that obtuseness is in the Magic chapter of the core book, in the Illusion sub-section of the spell description section.

You are quite right about the properties of figment vs glamer. However, a figment (such as Silent Image) works perfectly in the example I gave above, as I am not trying to get the Red Dragon to look like anything else but the Red Dragon it actually is. Thus, it does not fall under the limitation of "figments cannot make something seem to be something else".

You juste end up with your quite real Red Dragon having an aura of Illusion on it.


The black raven wrote:
Asphesteros wrote:
The black raven wrote:
If you are a devious DM/BBEG, cast an illusion of a big nasty Red Dragon on your quite real big nasty Red Dragon.
Side topic, but the obscure rules of illusion spells prevents that kind of thing, depending on the kind of illusion you're using. All the 'image' spells are "figments", and figments cannot make something seem to be something else. So, you can't use an Image spell as a poor man's mass invisibility by creating an illusion of the room just minus your party, for example, or use it as a disguise. I think the idea is it's like a hologram, the thing inside of it would interfere with the projected image, not be concealed by it or match up with it perfectly. For that you need to get yourself a Glamer. All that obtuseness is in the Magic chapter of the core book, in the Illusion sub-section of the spell description section.

You are quite right about the properties of figment vs glamer. However, a figment (such as Silent Image) works perfectly in the example I gave above, as I am not trying to get the Red Dragon to look like anything else but the Red Dragon it actually is. Thus, it does not fall under the limitation of "figments cannot make something seem to be something else".

You juste end up with your quite real Red Dragon having an aura of Illusion on it.

You don't even need to go that far. Just have the dragon cast magic aura on themselves. They will detect as having an aura of illusion magic for 1 day per level.


The black raven wrote:
You juste end up with your quite real Red Dragon having an aura of Illusion on it.

Yea, in the same space (image spells affect a space not a target, after all), that's true. The thrust of it is the superimposed image doesn't mask the real thing underneath. The party would see both, one superimposed on the other (if it didn't work like that they you *could* make it a disguise). Might appear like a double exposure.

You're right it could work though - The whole square would read as illusion, of course, and could still trick them as it could all appear like it's all an effect of the illusion.

Charender wrote:
You don't even need to go that far. Just have the dragon cast magic aura on themselves. They will detect as having an aura of illusion magic for 1 day per level.

AH bingo!


Soooo...it seem to be a little late as i see the date of that topic but...hum...can detect magic make you see a pixie and if it does, you do need 3 round to know EXACTLY where she is to grab her? ( I play a Tiny pixie of 2 inch and the mage keep calling DETECT MAGIC, grab me instantly if i cant beat his dice roll)


If the pixie turns invisble with an extraordinary ability detect magic wont work. Otherwise it will eventually find the square you are in, but there will still be a 50% miss chance since he still can't "see" you. Also if you move out of his 60 foot cone his 3 rounds will have to start over so keep moving.. :)


if he cant SEE me that mean he only see a sort of glowing ball larger than me around me so he have 50% miss chance AND i need to be in his 60ft cone-shaped area while 3 rounds?


CrazyGab wrote:
if he cant SEE me that mean he only see a sort of glowing ball larger than me around me so he have 50% miss chance AND i need to be in his 60ft cone-shaped area while 3 rounds?

Well the rules dont mention the size of teh aura so that is a nonfactor. He does need to keep you in that cone for 3 rounds. If you move out of the area of the cone the clock resets. If you stay in the cone he knows something is in a certain square after round 3. That means you still have total concealment(50% miss chance).

So yes it is 3 rounds AND a 50% miss chance.


I know I'm way late, but I'd like to point out that the mythic adventures entry for mythic invisibility says that "The invisible target can't be detected with detect magic or other spells that detect magic auras," and since it only lists differences between it and regular invisibility, it would stand to reason that invisibility is indeed subject to detect magic.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Meh.

"Everyone get behind me." Detect magic.

Do until Answer = "yes"
"Is there an aura in that direction?"

IF Answer = "yes" then:
AOE spell
Elseif:
End If
Loop

The bad boys casting alarms are gonna love this.

51 to 59 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Detect magic vs. invisibility All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.