No. True Seeing is not cast on you, but on the creature which is trying to see you. Non-detection only protects against divination spells being cast on you.
No. True Seeing is not cast on you, but on the creature which is trying to see you. Non-detection only protects against divination spells being cast on you.
Clairvoyance is not cast on the target, it's a magical sensor. Same with Scrying.
Locate Object is an area spell centered on the caster.
Detect Evil also an area spell.
None of these target the creature protected by Non-Detection, yet Non-Detection specifically protects against all of these.
I would say by RAW yes, by RAI maybe not.
The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells.
True Seeing is a divination.
I would say, yes the person who cast True Seeing is required to make a caster level check. I will also note though that I believe the RAI is intended to prevent only detection style spells such as those listed and True Seeing may or may not qualify.
- Gauss
I would say by RAW yes, by RAI maybe not.
The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells.True Seeing is a divination.
I would say, yes the person who cast True Seeing is required to make a caster level check. I will also note though that I believe the RAI is intended to prevent only detection style spells such as those listed and True Seeing may or may not qualify.
- Gauss
You didn't bold all the relevant text.
The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells.
It's not all Divination spells, but only divination spells similar to clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells. That is, Divination spells utilizing remote sensing, or information gathering.
Nothing in that text states that those are the only spells affected or that all divination spells are affected. It is a DM call.
I'll buy that, although if the intent was all divination spells, it would have been better to just leave it at that than to qualify it with a list of very similar spells.
I agree with TriOmegaZero. 'Such as' is an example, not a limiting factor. But, it does lead to the RAI I later explained.
- Gauss
I'd let nondetection work, but with some kind of bonus to the caster level check to represent the fact that the creature with True Seeing has his full senses to work with, whereas the other spells mentioned all have significant limitations on what the caster can sense through them.
True Seeing... sixth level. Minimum caster level 11.
Roll an 8+ and you're golden.
I got no problem with Nondetection foiling True Seeing (in addition to the fact that it is exactly the kind of spell Nondetection is supposed to stop) because odds are it won't work.
Really, Nondetection ought to scale with the level of the caster, imo. I almost never pick it up because it blows at mid-high levels.
True Seeing... sixth level. Minimum caster level 11.
Roll an 8+ and you're golden.
I got no problem with Nondetection foiling True Seeing (in addition to the fact that it is exactly the kind of spell Nondetection is supposed to stop) because odds are it won't work.
Really, Nondetection ought to scale with the level of the caster, imo. I almost never pick it up because it blows at mid-high levels.
Um, the DC for nondetection is 15 + caster level. So if an 11th level caster cast nondetection the DC to pierce if with True Seeing is 26 (15 + 11), which is the same % chance as 5th level casters vs each other.
Also, put me down for a vote that non-detection can foil true seeing. That's afterall the entire point of the spell. To protect you from divinations. True Seeing is not going to be weeping in uselessness because of nondetection, that's for sure.
Argh. I'm STILL using outdated information.
Note to self: read your CRB spell description before posting... your old 3.x spell knowledge doesn't work.
Sigh.
hahahaha so does Nondetection (possibly) stop True Strike?
grabs popcorn
hahahaha so does Nondetection (possibly) stop True Strike?
grabs popcorn
Well, it is a Divination. lol.
|
well, detect alignment or the like doesnt detect 'where you are' it just detects your alignment, and nondetection stops that. So i'm a bit unclear of your definition. It says it stops divinations LIKE the detect spells. So with a definition that vague, would you not say true seeing is 'like' the detect spells? It allows you to detect and see through certain things.
exactly. Ive been fighting about the nondetection spell for about 4 years now. It's so vague. How does it interact with foresight or moment of prescience?
But just to be on full disclosure side, I rule fairly similar to Baelin two posts above at my table, only I go through and give the player an exact list of spells that nondetection potentially blocks. (True Strike isnt one of them.)
|
... Divination spells that enhance physical senses (like See Invisibility or True Seeing) to see through magical effects (eg Invisbility), thereby allowing you to see them normally as opposed to locating them via magic.
Interesting idea but it is a big stretch of the rules. What make you think that those spells "enhance physical senses" instead of giving you the capacity to see things that it is not possible to see with physical senses?
See invisibility don't help against mundane hiding, so I don' see how you can claim that it enhance physical senses.
True seeing allow me to see the true form of a shapechanged creature. Again, something that is no possible to see with any of the regular senses (I can realize someone/something is not what it appear to be, but not see what he/it is). At the same time it don't aid against mundane disguises.
So both spell definitely don't enhance the target physical sense but give him new capabilities.
|
True Seeing... sixth level. Minimum caster level 11.
Roll an 8+ and you're golden.
I got no problem with Nondetection foiling True Seeing (in addition to the fact that it is exactly the kind of spell Nondetection is supposed to stop) because odds are it won't work.
Really, Nondetection ought to scale with the level of the caster, imo. I almost never pick it up because it blows at mid-high levels.
This is why I am a fan of spell research. The ability to fill holes in the existing spell lists.
Something I would have by the time True Seeing became common would be a 6th or 7th level version of Non-detection.
Mind Blank works. I know Mind Blank works.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it protects against True Seeing. For gods' sake, it isn't even fool-proof, they get a CL check. How often does True Seeing give illusion casters a check to avoid it ruining their entire school?
Screw True Seeing. With something rusted over, preferably.
Mind Blank works. I know Mind Blank works.
"The subject is protected from all devices and spells that gather information about the target through divination magic (such as detect evil, locate creature, scry, and see invisible)."
Doesn't seem much different than Nondetection in wording to me (aside from being outright 100% warded rather than "difficult to detect", since mind blank offers no roll)...
People want to claim Nondetection's wording isn't good enough, what's to stop them for saying the same here?
Mind blank includes see invisibility as an example -- and specifically states "all devices and spells" -- it's just much more strongly worded.
And nondetection says divination spells. Both then go on to list examples under "such as...". Why is "all...divination magic (such as...)" any stronger than "divination spells such as..." any stronger? Because in the former it's in parentheses? How much are people going to nitpick crap?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And nondetection says divination spells. Both then go on to list examples under "such as...". Why is "all...divination magic (such as...)" any stronger than "divination spells such as..." any stronger? Because in the former it's in parentheses? How much are people going to nitpick crap?
Nitpicking on the internet? In a rules forum? Perish the thought!
I want undetectable popcorn please
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i see one answer above but.... is an invisible person under non-detection not going to be seen with someone with say permenant see invis + arcane sight?
Removed some posts and their replies. Please post civilly to each other.
The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells. Nondetection also prevents location by such magic items as crystal balls.
I see the 1st part of the spell's description as the fluff part where it tells you what the spell does in normal-english.
If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item, the caster of the divination must succeed on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against a DC of 11 + the caster level of the spellcaster who cast nondetection. If you cast nondetection on yourself or on an item currently in your possession, the DC is 15 + your caster level.
If cast on a creature, nondetection wards the creature's gear as well as the creature itself.
Then comes the rules part in rules-english. "a divination" encompasses all divination effects, with no restrictions that certain divinations are not subject to the casterlevel-check.
I find it quiet clear how to handle this spell. Nondetection CAN help against True Seeing, but it is not reliable. It can also be beat when it's casterleve is beat.