|
Given the wording on both Arcane Mark and Invisibility there isn't anything to suggest that the mark already on the target's equipment or wherever doesn't also turn invisible, so to you first question the answer would be no.
Applying a new mark however would allow characters who could see it to pinpoint the square the target was in, but they would still suffer the concealment miss chance due to only seeing some floating mark rather then the target itself.
Yeah, that's pretty much how I thought that it would be. However, I am still curious as to the effectiveness of a Detect Magic.
Detect magic KINDA works, but slowly, and only to point out the square.
Round 1 you can say whether or not he's in the 60 foot cone in front of you.
Round 2 you can say what kind of hardware he's packing and what he's got besides invisibility
Round 3 You know what square he's standing in, but he's still invisible. You can't target him , but you know exactly where to throw the glitterdust, fairier fire, or bag of flower. You should also be able to tell your party fighter 2 o clock at 15 feet.
|
Detect Magic
You detect magical auras. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
Arcane Mark
If an invisible mark is made, a detect magic spell causes it to glow and be visible, though not necessarily understandable.
This is one of the unfortunate cases in which you don't know it the spell writer is using a fluff description going back to earlier editions or he mean what he say literally.
BNW interpretation and mine is that when you use Detect magic on an Arcane glow to "causes it to glow and be visible" the writer mean that the aura become visible to you, as the normal effect of Detect magic.
Some people can interpret it literally and say that Arcane mark has a special property and in presence of a Detect magic spell it start to emit a glow that is visible to everyone.
Both interpretations can be valid.
Personally I don't like the idea of a cantrip defeating an important part of the invisibility effect, especially at it would work on all kinds of invisibility, but the final decision rest in the hands of your GM.
Also, you have to concentrate to maintain detect magic. He would basically stare at the aura mark (or heck, he'd see the illusion aura of the invisibility spell for that matter), or be trying to do something with his standard action... in which case detect magic ends and he loses track of both auras.
Arcane sight would be far more useful.
With my foolish, none spell caster way of seeing this topic. I think if you are invisible, you have to be very careless to have Arcane Mark cast upon you. Even with such carelessness of a clumsy spell caster, he or she should still have flat footed to attack as no one can see when or where the attack is going to be. As for concealment, I think that caster should have concealment again attacks unless someone called shot the spot where the mark is visible.
Conclusion, if you are invisible and you got Arcane Mark cast upon you, you deserve to be hit. At least it is what I think with my logic, no right-minded spell caster should have Arcane Mark cast upon you while invisible.
This is the key statement to me:
"If an invisible mark is made, a detect magic spell causes it to glow and be visible, though not necessarily understandable."
This is not the same as:
"If a mark is made invisible, a detect magic spell causes it to glow and be visible, though not necessarily understandable."
Arcane Mark/Detect Invisibility does not defeat invisibility. The intent is that a caster can deliberately create an invisible mark that shows up under Detect Magic (much like a hand-stamp that shows up under black light).
Invisibility (2nd level) trumps Arcane Mark (0 Level).
You might be able to play semantic games if you start off with an invisible Mark, and then cast detect magic, but I wouldn't allow it.
Okay guys, I think the point here shouldn't be Level 2 has to beat level 0. Because of course, it should be because you waste so much time level up. However, I think it's about the way of using your spells. If you say you can't see the Arcane Mark on a invisible target no matter what, that's just stupid! You are saying that no matter how smart and how brave you and intelligent you are, you can outsmart a clumsy caster who think he can make stupid moves and get away with it because he has higher level spells?
No, doesn't work that way, at least it shouldn't. Like I said before, with a higher level spell, it should be stronger than cantrip, so all bonus of being invisible should stay. However, if you careless enough to get your enemy caster to get next to you and use Arcane Mark on you, both your team and yourself must have many issues in tactics and team-work. A good spell caster should be able to cast useful non-damaging spells while invisible and away for people. There should be 0% chance of getting Arcane Mark on you if you planned it right.
A spell-caster who doesn't plan his moves and spells and think he can do things that make no sense and use invisibility to get away with it, they deserve to at least be known where his square would be. Arcane Mark is a TOUCH attack!!!! TOUCH!!!! What are you doing next to their caster????
For GM, if players do things that get themselves in danger when they shouldn't be, Arcane Mark on invisibility is the kindest punishment for them to make them learn no to risk carelessly. You want your team to win against hard encounter? Train them! Teach them! Don't let fighter kill everything, send him some ghost! Don't let Wizard walk in to dangers randomly, should them dangers!
The conclusion of my point is, if you not allow a slight chance of having low level spell beats high level spells, you are encouraging spell caster to make their moves carelessly. I know spell casters who would still run into a group of ghoul and cast damaging spells when he should had hide because the cleric's back. So please, teach them a lesson and help them learn.