Detect Evil - is it visible?

[Ranven]

I was wondering. If Detect Evil on paladin class is a visible spell for other characters?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin#TOC-Detect-Evil-Sp-

A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds.

My question is: for Detect Evil spell http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/detect-evil

Component V, S, DF - is it the same for Paladin in this case? That component is verbal and somantic so everyone around KNOWS that paladin is checking allignments?

[SlimGauge]

For a spell being cast, not everyone, just those with enough spellcraft to know what spell is being used.

However, the paladin's detect evil is a Spell-like Ability, and as such does not have verbal, somatic, or material components, nor does it require a focus. (see page 221).

[Ranven]

Thank you for your answer SlimGauge. I'm afraid my Game Master read rules only partially and always make fuss about every detail...

[Shah Jahan the King of Kings]

I would say that as a move action, it does take about a second or two for them to do. It's more of an RP thing, but it could be apparent as a pause, or look of contemplation, or something similar. To DM discretion, of course. I would throw it into a description of an action, and it would likely go unnoticed anyway, but to the paranoid it could give them a realistic hint. Alternatively, it could just be a pause in conversation, and the paranoid could worry for nothing.

[Happler]

It would be visible to someone using something like Arcane Sight since the paladin is effectively casting a spell.

Other than that addition, I agree with the above, it would be mostly a momentary pause for concentration, or something similar.

[Fromper]

So if the paladin just looks like they're pausing to concentrate, would a sense motive check be in order?

[Cheapy]

If they had reason to suspect anything, I suppose.

[james maissen]

Ranven wrote:

I was wondering. If Detect Evil on paladin class is a visible spell for other characters?

The spell itself? No. It makes no flashes of light or backlighting blue of ones eyes.

The Paladin using it? Yes.

It's a spell-like ability and thus it provokes.

It requires a move action and concentration. These are noticeable.

Now.. do they know the Paladin is detecting evil vs detecting undead (I think there's an archetype that swaps that..) or something else? No, but they can surmise.. especially if they know he's a paladin. The wussies typically faint at the first sight of a demon..

-James

[Happler]

Fromper wrote:

So if the paladin just looks like they're pausing to concentrate, would a sense motive check be in order?

Either that or they are constipated or gassy..

[Kalshane]

By RAW, no. There's nothing to indicate it is being used.

A lot of GMs like to add some sort of flavor to it, though, from the paladin simply giving the target "the stink eye" to the paladin's eyes actually glowing.

[Quatar]

Obviously visible. Need proof: Click here

[Shfish]

Well since the Detect (Type) spells (and SLA) require concentration to maintain, that part alone would be indicitive of something. What? The 'reciever' would have absolutely no clue short of meta-gaming to know; (DMs do that too...) UNLESS (as already stated) they specifically know he is a Paladin to begin with and are wary of such things. Of course..if they knew he was a Paladin to begin with...they likely knew he was coming...and should just as likely have a non-detection or similar spell going...

[Ragnarok Aeon]

I always figured that "detecting" looked the same as someone studying a scene.

The rules indicate no actual visual cues

Spoiler:

Some DMs love to punish paladins, so if you ever end up in game where the paladin is noticed for detecting evil, but casters are not noticed for detecting magic, I would point it out and probably stop playing a paladin in that game.

[Alitan]

Q:

Really?

Spoiler:

Last time I checked, Order of the Stick was NOT a valid reference. It's not even that funny.