After observing their position for three rounds (if they stayed in your detection cone) you could locate a magic aura in their space. You could identify the aura as an illusion using Knowledge (arcana), DC 17.
Could you give the source of this info?
|
KnowledgeAfter observing their position for three rounds (if they stayed in your detection cone) you could locate a magic aura in their space. You could identify the aura as an illusion using Knowledge (arcana), DC 17.Could you give the source of this info?
Which part seems obscure?
there is nothing stating that it makes the aura invisible too. detect magic would eventually (after 3 rounds of concentration) allow you to find which square they were in, although you still couldn't see them.
KnowledgeAfter observing their position for three rounds (if they stayed in your detection cone) you could locate a magic aura in their space. You could identify the aura as an illusion using Knowledge (arcana), DC 17.Could you give the source of this info?Which part seems obscure?
I simply wanted to confirm that you have a valid source for that information.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One minor point to add to this thread: some people are talking about seeing the auras, but you don't "see" them. In fact, they don't even have to be within line of sight for you to detect and locate them (though they do have to be in line of sight to use Knowledge[arcana] to identify the school of magic involved).
I've always thought of it as sensing the aura, not actually seeing it, so no pinpointing on round 1.
Personally I would not allow detect magic to auto find invisible creatures.
Invisibility-"certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving."
First besides that detect magic is a 0 level if they were using analize dweomer that would be one thing, but a 0 level spell should not auto nulify a spell who's whole purpose is to make you hidden.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Personally I would not allow detect magic to auto find invisible creatures.
Invisibility-"certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving."
First besides that detect magic is a 0 level if they were using analize dweomer that would be one thing, but a 0 level spell should not auto nulify a spell who's whole purpose is to make you hidden.
Then how do you feel about this?
Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there.
Each bag costs a copper piece and weighs only half a pound. And this is without having to spend 3 rounds concentrating!
So either your sense of balance is off, or you're under the mistaken idea that pinpointing the square (by either method) would negate the 50% miss chance that comes with invisibility.
Also remember Magic Aura a level 1 spell already hides magic auras from the detect magic spell. Invisibility which is a more powerfull spell along the same lines and also allows you to hide yourself.
I would personally use the rules as it is writen in invisibility and make it so you have to make that perception check to see it.
|
Invisibility has a lot of weaknesses because having things moving around invisible is a huge bonus for a lot of things. If your that worried about it just have the person move around a bit. Detect Magic is only a 60' cone.
Also you can't use something like Magic Aura to suggest that higher level spells share similar traits to them. Spells do specific things. Unless they are actually in a chain like the Image spells your argument is unfortunately not comparing apples to apples.
A second level spell See Invisibility totally counters Greater Invisibility and Mass Invisibility plus a good number of other spells much higher level then it. Why just hate for the very hard to use in that matter and actually reveals nothing about invisibility cantrip?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If you can pinpoint the locstion of magic auras through (slightly less than) a foot of stone I don't see why invisibility would hide it. Especially since the invisible pesrson can keep moving and destroy any chance that detect magic has at pinpointing him.
Ok lets remember a few things
1) Stone is not magical
2) Detect magic is a 0 level detection spell
3) Magic Aura is a level 1 illusion spell ment to hide things specifically from detect magic.
4) Invisibility is a level 2 illusion spell ment to hide things BUT if the person has a way to detect them it is harder to do so. (+20 or +40 respectivly)
So just from these things we know lets remember some examples of magic that the pathfinder system uses.
Lets take light and darkness for example. Both are at different ends of the spectrum just like our detect magic and invisibility are. Remember the rules a light or darkness spell will override its opposite if it is higher level or cancell each other out if they are the same level. So by that president normally invisibility would override detect magic EXCEPT invisibility gives a mechanic instead for you to see through it. Remember specific overrides general in rules.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Banecrow, I feel your pain. I made the same arguments myself back in the day. But for the black and white FAQ ruling that was directly on point, I would probably not allow Detect Magic to detect Invisibility.
Edit: Here's a thread from way, way, way back in the day where we hashed this out.
Banecrow, I feel your pain. I made the same arguments myself back in the day. But for the black and white FAQ ruling that was directly on point, I would probably not allow Detect Magic to detect Invisibility.
What faq?? Please link.
I know someone said there was a faq for 3.5 but this is not 3.5 this is Pathfinder.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I know someone said there was a faq for 3.5 but this is not 3.5 this is Pathfinder.
Given that neither spell changed in a material way between the transition from 3.5 to PFRPG, that's a pretty specious argument. I thought at some point someone from Pathfinder weighed in to confirm the prior FAQ ruling, but I'm not turning it up.
Given that neither spell changed in a material way between the transition from 3.5 to PFRPG, that's a pretty specious argument. I thought at some point someone from Pathfinder weighed in to confirm the prior FAQ ruling, but I'm not turning it up.I know someone said there was a faq for 3.5 but this is not 3.5 this is Pathfinder.
Still Pathfinder does run things differently. Whenever we want to rule on something for Pathfinder, we have to use its rules and faq's.
It does not matter how things were done in 3.0, 3.5 etc, this game may be similar but it is not them.
If you want to see if we can get a FAQ about this go ahead and mark my post as a FAQ canidate, if we get enough interest we might get one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Directly from the Invisibility section in the CRB's Glossary on the PRD:
"Invisibility does not thwart divination spells."
Detect magic is divination. Seems pretty cut and dry that detect magic can see an invisibility spell's aura.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
At the same time pathfinder makes a distinction between Orisons, Cantrips and Spells. Detect Magic is a Cantrip or an Orison depending on your class, not a spell.Directly from the Invisibility section in the CRB's Glossary on the PRD:
"Invisibility does not thwart divination spells."
Detect magic is divination. Seems pretty cut and dry that detect magic can see an invisibility spell's aura.
Wizards can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells...
Clerics can prepare a number of orisons, or 0-level spells...
Not to mention that the "Spells" chapter of the Core Rulebook has headings that say "0-Level [class] Spells".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that neither spell changed in a material way between the transition from 3.5 to PFRPG, that's a pretty specious argument. I thought at some point someone from Pathfinder weighed in to confirm the prior FAQ ruling, but I'm not turning it up.I know someone said there was a faq for 3.5 but this is not 3.5 this is Pathfinder.
Sebastian, I personally agree with the use of prior 3.5 rulings via FAQ when the language is the same. However, I also think that it is a position that is decreasing in its following as the Pathfinder community moves from what was once largely prior 3.5 players to an increasing body of players who never played 3.5 and instead are coming from 4e, from other game systems entirely, or for whom PF is their first introduction to tabletop RPGs. The 3.5 carryover is comfortable for those of us who played and still play 3.5, but it is decidedly irrelevant to those players and either doesn't have that comfort or is uncomfortable.
ObOnTopic: I understand detect magic to detect the aura of invisibility. The general rule on combining magical effects are that both work as described. Invisibility explicitly doesn't stop divinations. Invisibility is a glamour, it changes a single sense, sight, related to the visibility of a target and prescribed associated objects. The aura isn't an associated object of the target. It is an associated object (need a better word) of the invisibility spell itself. Whether the aura is perceived by sight or through some other sense beyond the real world's, is immaterial, because the aura is outside the scope of the target of the spell.
That detect magic is often a selectable at will ability, and thus somewhat over used, is another issue, but it is an issue of game design, not of rule. As written, it results in a gameworld with certain expectations and characteristics. They may be different than what some of us may like or want in our gaming experience, but exploring those ramifications is some of the fun in RPGs. And ultimately,the desire for something to be a certain way, or to not be a certain way is generally an unsatisfactory way of approaching a logical discussion or its conclusions. It does, however, give rise in this context toward house rules or game system selection.
by the same token... it sounds like invis/vanish/greater invis etc block blindsense, tremorsense, scent.
detect magic takes 3 rounds of actions, during which the mage is open. and unable to do anything else. and it only gives a chance to hit the enemy... 5ft negates the whole thing... and it isnt a burst, but a cone.
Don't care much about the RAW.
Not gonna let a cantrip negate a level 2 spell.
|
Don't care much about the RAW.
Not gonna let a cantrip negate a level 2 spell.
Detect Magic hardly negates Invisibility. If your invisible character is standing in the exact same position for three consecutive rounds (or more if the initial casting chooses the wrong quadrant), and is still not satisfied with his 50% miss-chance (which is akin to Displacement), then ... I just don't know.
How does invisibility remove the ability for magic auras to be seen? Magic Auras can't be seen. Detect Magic isn't sight-based. Blind people can use it and know exactly how far the aura is away from them, and in which direction. You can pinpoint auras through walls (magical or mundane).
Serum, if I am invisible, it's not because I don't want the enemy to be able to precisely locate me to a five foot square.
It's because I don't want them to know I'm there at all.
So detect magic completely ruins what I use invisibility for.
Personally I would not allow detect magic to auto find invisible creatures.
Invisibility-"certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving."
First besides that detect magic is a 0 level if they were using analize dweomer that would be one thing, but a 0 level spell should not auto nulify a spell who's whole purpose is to make you hidden.
The spell does not defeat invisibility. It only gives you the square. The invisible person/creature still has a +2 to attack you, and a 50% miss chance. It also takes 3 rounds for you to even locate the square. You make it sound like it immediately negates everything invisibility does.
More power to you! Now go talk about it in the appropriate forum.Don't care much about the RAW.
Not gonna let a cantrip negate a level 2 spell.
Heh, gonna just pick on me or anyone else who brings that up too Jiggy?
Also, I'm pretty sure that the guidelines on spell creation in the RAW specifically say that lower level spells should not negate higher level spells, so as far as I'm concerned I'm using RAW just as much as you are.
|
|
Serum, if I am invisible, it's not because I don't want the enemy to be able to precisely locate me to a five foot square.
It's because I don't want them to know I'm there at all.
So detect magic completely ruins what I use invisibility for.
If they didn't know you were there at all in the first place, then they're not going to be using Detect Magic to try and find you. Just like they won't be using See Invisibility to try and find you, because they don't know you are there in the first place. Maintaining Detect Magic indefinitely isn't the standard exploratory procedure.
|
|
Also, I'm pretty sure that the guidelines on spell creation in the RAW specifically say that lower level spells should not negate higher level spells, so as far as I'm concerned I'm using RAW just as much as you are.
Invisibility Purge completely negates Invisibility. Even then, no one is going to cast Invisibility Purge unless they suspect there's an invisible creature in the room. So, even Invisibility Purge doesn't negate the reason why you apparently use Invisibility.
Detect Magic doesn't even come close what Invisibility Purge can do in terms of revealing Invisible creatures.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
More power to you! Now go talk about it in the appropriate forum.Don't care much about the RAW.
Not gonna let a cantrip negate a level 2 spell.
Heh, gonna just pick on me or anyone else who brings that up too Jiggy?
Also, I'm pretty sure that the guidelines on spell creation in the RAW specifically say that lower level spells should not negate higher level spells, so as far as I'm concerned I'm using RAW just as much as you are.
If someone wants to say "I don't think it's supposed to be capable of thus-and-so, therefore there must be something we're misunderstanding in the rules; let's investigate", that's one thing.
But saying "screw the rules, I'm doing X instead" in the Rules forum is about as appropriate as if I came into someone's Suggestions/Homebrew thread about their tweaks to such-and-such a rule and 'corrected' them about how the rule actually works.
Basically, "I don't care about the rules" has no place in the "Rules" forum. And I know you're sharp enough to get that, AD. I'm a bit disappointed (another reason I didn't call others out - I have higher expectations of you).
|
|
Serum, if I am invisible, it's not because I don't want the enemy to be able to precisely locate me to a five foot square.
It's because I don't want them to know I'm there at all.
So detect magic completely ruins what I use invisibility for.
Which begs the question as to whether the problem is in a cantrip to provide a series of clues, over an extended period of time with a heavy load on the user's action economy, of increasing precision; or in wanting a spell to do something it doesn't do.
I WANT to be able to lose 5 pounds per week by eating multiple bags of Doritos per day. It's really frustrating that I can't. As in most situations, frustrations arise out of the difference between expectations and how things really work.
Jiggy, OK, you got me. :-) I should not have been so flippant.
Just so you know, I'm running a campaign right now and the party literally has at least one character with "detect magic" going every waking moment. So this idea that 'well, they wouldn't have detect magic going all the time' is clearly not true in that case.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Just so you know, I'm running a campaign right now and the party literally has at least one character with "detect magic" going every waking moment. So this idea that 'well, they wouldn't have detect magic going all the time' is clearly not true in that case.
That's not a job for houserules, that's a job for throatpunch!
;)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Just so you know, I'm running a campaign right now and the party literally has at least one character with "detect magic" going every waking moment.
Actually, I suppose this points to one aspect where my "no material change to the spells" argument falters. Unlike in 3.5, Detect Magic is usable at-will by most spellcasting classes. I still don't think it's a meaningful difference, particularly since the RAW is pretty clear that Detect Magic can locate the aura and doesn't include any specific codification (i.e., either Detect Magic saying that it can't detect the aura of Invisibility or Invisibility saying that it doesn't radiate an aura for purposes of Detect Magic) of the general principles such as "a cantrip shouldn't be able to counter a second level spell."
There's a similar argument regarding Feeblemind and...Break Enchantment (I think) if anyone really loves these types of RAW v. design principles debates.
School divination; Level bard 0, cleric/oracle 0, druid 0, inquisitor 0, magus 0, sorcerer/wizard 0, summoner 0, witch 0
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Component: V, S
EFFECT
Range 60 ft.
Area cone-shaped emanation
Duration concentration, up to 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
You detect magical auras. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
1st Round: Presence or absence of magical auras.
2nd Round: Number of different magical auras and the power of the most potent aura.
3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura: DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + 1/2 caster level for a nonspell effect.) If the aura emanates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).
Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras.
Aura Strength: An aura's power depends on a spell's functioning spell level or an item's caster level; see the accompanying table. If an aura falls into more than one category, detect magic indicates the stronger of the two.
For reference so I dont have to go bouncing to definitions...
Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras.
This has potential, as does a rather amusing thought I had.
If invis person had access, could he cast presto, too?
change colors of a bag of coins, and drop them in the detector's path... is a bit cruel to target that way, i guess. but an amusing thought...
** spoiler omitted **
For reference so I dont have to go bouncing to definitions...Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras.This has potential, as does a rather amusing thought I had.
If invis person had access, could he cast presto, too?
change colors of a bag of coins, and drop them in the detector's path... is a bit cruel to target that way, i guess. but an amusing thought...
I like that thought, actually. That might be useful in a way to confuse the dude with "detect magic" continually on.
What can I say, i'm twisted. and i guess some people do have it permanently on (via permancy) but seems dangerous, at least 3.5 you could get knocked out coming across something too strong.
and could make coins invis too, though more of an investment as the mage directs the barb, 'No! no... more to your left!'
Just so you know, I'm running a campaign right now and the party literally has at least one character with "detect magic" going every waking moment. So this idea that 'well, they wouldn't have detect magic going all the time' is clearly not true in that case.
Yeah I hear that. Out of combat It's now just faster for me to assume the magic users have detect magic up and that every has guidance at all times -_-
|
|
I'm getting curious to hear the counterargument to what I brought up, regarding a standard action and a copper piece doing what it takes this cantrip 3 rounds (with enemy cooperation) to accomplish.
60ft cone (detect magic) vs 5ft square (flour/copper piece).
I'm not sure if detect magic still picks them up if they are moving and nobody has mentioned it - I assume it does.