|
Arcane sight pinpoints magic auras. If something is invisible, it will radiate an illusion aura and you will know what square it is in as a free action. You would also detect illusion auras from creatures using misdirection.
(Creature has misdirection on it)
Paladin: I detect evil.
DM: no evil present
Wizard: There's an illusion aura on that creature! It must be masking its alignment
Detect magic does reveal invisibility spells. You just have to concentrate for 3 rounds to do it. Arcane sight is automatic and jumps straight to the last step of detect magic.
But if you do believe that it is game breaking, then I would suggest that you make a thread along those lines in the rules section hoping that the devs will fix it.
If I made a thread over everything I thought was broken and told the devs to fix it...
Again, please move to http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2prrf?Permanency-in-PFS-updated-from-last-night in the event anyone cares to continue this discussion.
Its not usual to move threads, so don't be shocked people skip over that. You have an hour to edit post and thread name.
Also, you could be less condescending. If we stick here its not that we don't care.
|
Again, please move to this nifty link in the event anyone cares to continue this discussion.
linkified for you
|
You can't purchase see invisibility through spellcasting services as it is personal spell that targets you. Permanent arcane sight would wreck scenarios.
-Automatically pinpoint invisible creatures(invisibility spell will register)
-Automatically see through disguises of NPCs(misdirection, alter self, other shape changing/alignment hiding)
-Standard action to determine if a creature is a spellcaster and reveals how powerful of spells they have access to
You buy a scroll of it, UMD it to work and then pay the NPC to cast Permanency on you.
Both see invisibility and arcane sight can only be made permanent for the caster, not for another target. This is listed in the permanency spell.
A character can UMD a scroll of scroll of permanency, but the scroll has to be of sufficient CL and it must have been made with sufficient material component for the effect for which permanency is desired. The minimum CL rule blocks any use of permanency from a scroll when the needed CL is higher than 9, subject to introduction of a CL10+ scroll of permanency through other legal sources.
Maybe something change for pfs but as far as i know the minimum cl rule is a general rule rather then an absolute rule, mostly because higher cl is more expensive so assuming min cl simplifies the scroll reference chart which is only provided for the particularly lazy since the cost formula is also provided. And because it eliminates rolling the cl for randomly generated treasures. None of which has any significant bearing when purchasing from merchants.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
May I ask a favor?
If you think that it's a necessary thing to keep permanency out of the PFS environment, could you walk me through one of the following arguments:
1) why a permanent detect magic is bad, but detect magic at will is okay?
2) why a permanent detect invisible is bad but detect invisible lasting 200 minutes at 10th level is okay?
3) why you think a permanent enlarge person is not subject to being dismissed by an opponent casting reduce person?
I will concede that (a) recent rulings by Jason have confused magic fang versus amulet of mighty fists, and I'd like to see the developers clear that up. I concede, too, that there ought to be some language clarifying where symbols can be cast, or how often a permanent symbol can be activated. (Belefon, the symbol of slowing isn't as egregious as the symbol of healing.)
But those are issues with the underlying Pathfinder game rules themselves. I don't see as how they're made any worse in an organized play environment (as opposed to item creation rules.)
Thanks.
|
3) why you think a permanent enlarge person is not subject to being dismissed by an opponent casting reduce person?
The counter and dispels rules for spells aren't spelled out anywhere. I don't know if it could be an auto dispel, could act as a dispel with a caster level check, or they would simply counter each other for the duration of the reduced person.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
1) Permanent Detect Magic is fine, but there are other spells for which it wouldn't be fine. In an Organized Play environment, it is necessary to keep the banned/restricted list simple. Therefore, it's simpler to just ban permanency than it is to say that permanency is allowed, but a list of spells may not be made permanent. We have a lot of players who don't even find the additional resources list as it stands, or if they do, do not comprehend it.
2) It's a question of cost and investment. As I understand it, a player could purchase the permanent detect invisible, but a wizard needs to invest some time and character reseources into getting detect invisible to that length.
3) I don't know, honestly. I've never had to read the rules on permanency and reduce vs. enlarge person. I expect that a lot of other PFS GMs haven't either. There would be a lot of ad hoc table rulings, I'm sure.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Netopolis, for what it's worth, a player wanting a permanent detect invisible would have to cast it herself, because it's not a spell that can be cast on other people. She would have to be 10th level.
(It would cost 5000 gp for the permanency. A metamagic rod of extend spell, lesser comes in at 3000 gp. So the permanent spell costs more than the rod that enables the same caster to keep the same spell going for 3 and a half hours. If you could explain what you mean when you say "a player could purchase the permanent see invisibility, but a wizard needs to invest some time and character reseources into getting see invisibility to that length," I would be grateful; it seems that the caster wanting to make the spell pernanent has to invest even more resources.)
So, we're talking about arcane characters in the upper sub-tier of Tier 7-11 scenarios, and the retirement arc.
I was talking about see invisibility because others had raised it as a problem. What spells do you think are legal according to permanency, but are bad for organized play? As I say, I concede that current rulings about unarmed attacks need to differentiate greater magic fang from the powers of the amulet of mighty fists, but that's not specific to organized play.
--+--
Does anybody have any anecdotal evidence from a non-PFS game about how it was wrecked by permanency? Could anybody direct me to a thread on the general rules boards where people have had troubles with permanency? Could anybody explain why it's a more serious problem in PFS?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
3) why you think a permanent enlarge person is not subject to being dismissed by an opponent casting reduce person?The counter and dispels rules for spells aren't spelled out anywhere. I don't know if it could be an auto dispel, could act as a dispel with a caster level check, or they would simply counter each other for the duration of the reduced person.
"Dispel" is a rules term with a specific meaning, which knocks out the "suppress for the duration" possibility.
Also, there's this recent FAQ about dispelling with diametrically-opposed spells.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Since when can detect magic or similar detect invisibility? I doubt any GM is gonna allow a zero level spell that just about every spellcaster has to do something that a specific higher level spell does specifically. If the detect magic could do that, then why bother creating a see invisibility spell?
If you cast detect magic and I'm invisible (from the spell, not by some other ability) and within the 60ft cone, then you know that there's magic of some kind somewhere within the cone, but you have no idea that there might be an invisible creature.
Then it's my turn, and I move out of the cone and shove a knife up your arse for Xd6 sneak attack. But let's suppose for a moment that instead I just sit there twiddling my thumbs for my whole turn.
After a round of concentrating, you now know how many auras are in the area and the strength of the strongest one. You still don't know where any of them are (aside from "in the cone somewhere"), so even if my invisibility is the only aura, you still have no idea it's me; it could just as easily be a magical trap in the area, or an object in the area has a magical ability, or whatever.
Then it's my turn, and I move out of the cone and shove a knife up your arse for Xd6 sneak attack. Again. But let's suppose for a moment that instead I just sit there twiddling my thumbs for my whole turn. Again.
After a third round of concentrating, you now know the location of each aura. You can attempt a Knowledge (arcana) check to identify the school of magic. If you fail, you still have no idea what's going on. If you succeed, then all you know is that there's an illusion in my square. Even then, you don't know that there's an invisible creature; that's one possibility, but it could also be that the chain I'm asleep in is itself an illusion, or maybe the floor I'm standing on is an illusory cover for a pit trap. But even if you DO successfully guess that it's me, you still can't target me with spells, and attacking me is still subject to a 50% miss chance. Meanwhile, see invisibility lets you do whatever the frick you want - cast spells on me, attack me without a miss chance, whatever.
So even in a situation that's as favorable to detect magic as possible (no time crunch, no other possible sources of the aura, successful Knowledge check, etc), it's STILL far inferior to see invisibility.
Yes, detect magic can detect the aura of the invisibility spell, just like any other. This is not broken.
|
You can't purchase see invisibility through spellcasting services as it is personal spell that targets you. Permanent arcane sight would wreck scenarios.
-Automatically pinpoint invisible creatures(invisibility spell will register)
-Automatically see through disguises of NPCs(misdirection, alter self, other shape changing/alignment hiding)
-Standard action to determine if a creature is a spellcaster and reveals how powerful of spells they have access to
You buy a scroll of it, UMD it to work and then pay the NPC to cast Permanency on you.
Both see invisibility and arcane sight can only be made permanent for the caster, not for another target. This is listed in the permanency spell.
A character can UMD a scroll of scroll of permanency, but the scroll has to be of sufficient CL and it must have been made with sufficient material component for the effect for which permanency is desired. The minimum CL rule blocks any use of permanency from a scroll when the needed CL is higher than 9, subject to introduction of a CL10+ scroll of permanency through other legal sources.
I do believe you are mis-reading the spell.
You can make the following spells permanent in regard to yourself. You cannot cast these spells on other creatures.
The list referenced does NOT include the Permanency spell itself.
You use the scroll on yourself and then have a separate caster cast the permanency spell on you.This fulfills all requirements of the permanency spell. YOU cast this spell on yourself and then followed it up with a casting of Permanency.
Anyone can have a permanent version of these spells with a slight investment in UMD and a little cash.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't purchase see invisibility through spellcasting services as it is personal spell that targets you. Permanent arcane sight would wreck scenarios.
-Automatically pinpoint invisible creatures(invisibility spell will register)
-Automatically see through disguises of NPCs(misdirection, alter self, other shape changing/alignment hiding)
-Standard action to determine if a creature is a spellcaster and reveals how powerful of spells they have access to
You buy a scroll of it, UMD it to work and then pay the NPC to cast Permanency on you.
Both see invisibility and arcane sight can only be made permanent for the caster, not for another target. This is listed in the permanency spell.
A character can UMD a scroll of scroll of permanency, but the scroll has to be of sufficient CL and it must have been made with sufficient material component for the effect for which permanency is desired. The minimum CL rule blocks any use of permanency from a scroll when the needed CL is higher than 9, subject to introduction of a CL10+ scroll of permanency through other legal sources.
I do believe you are mis-reading the spell.
You can make the following spells permanent in regard to yourself. You cannot cast these spells on other creatures.The list referenced does NOT include the Permanency spell itself.
You use the scroll on yourself and then have a separate caster cast the permanency spell on you.This fulfills all requirements of the permanency spell. YOU cast this spell on yourself and then followed it up with a casting of Permanency.
Anyone can have a permanent version of these spells with a slight investment in UMD and a little cash.
We disagree. I suggest taking it over to the Rules forum as this looks like the discussion may be complex. I will do so in the next day or you don't, but I can't do it now.
|
|
Personally, invisibility is to make someone or something invisible, i would expect the spell to hide itself as well. The spell magic aura shows it to be possible.
Considering how easy and common detect magic is, any wizard inventing invisibility would take it into account.
Also, since many like myself go around with detect magic turn on all the time, it becomes like a limited dangersense when it starts including invisible things when it should really remain utility. It should tell me those bandits are well equipped it should not tell the bandits are there.
|
|
since many like myself go around with detect magic turn on all the time
Aside from my personal opinion that this is a lame meta-gamish tactic and should slow down the group's progress, it occurs to me that it might not be as effective as many people expect.
If the spell initially only registers the presence/absence of magical auras within the cone, it would be quite ineffective unless the wizard was in the scout position. Otherwise, s/he would constantly be picking up the auras from the magic emanating from companions and new auras would not change the status quo. Placing your squishy, arcanist in the lead is probably not the best idea. YMMV
|
|
Reduce both counters and dispels enlarge.
The counters means that reduce person can be used as a counterspell for someone casting an enlarge person spell.
The dispels means that a reduce person spell automatically dispels an ongoing enlarge person spell.
While under normal conditions I would agree, wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't permanency impact that? Should a simple, level one spell (reduce person) be able to completely dispel the effects of a level five spell? Doesn't really "feel" right. That makes it more effective than the 3rd level spell, dispel magic, since no caster level check is needed.
I would probably rule that it temporarily countered the enlarge for the duration of the reduce with the target reverting to the permanent effect afterwards. "Feels" more "fair." YMMV
|
|
You aren't dispelling the permanency. The permanency is altering the duration of the enlarge spell. It works much like if someone used extend spell. It still gets dispelled by the level 1 reduce person despite it using a higher level spell slot to cast. Or heighten spell to actually increase the level of the spell. Spell level shouldn't have any bearing on a spell's ability to be countered by a diametrically opposed spell.
|
|
since many like myself go around with detect magic turn on all the timeAside from my personal opinion that this is a lame meta-gamish tactic and should slow down the group's progress, it occurs to me that it might not be as effective as many people expect.
If the spell initially only registers the presence/absence of magical auras within the cone, it would be quite ineffective unless the wizard was in the scout position. Otherwise, s/he would constantly be picking up the auras from the magic emanating from companions and new auras would not change the status quo. Placing your squishy, arcanist in the lead is probably not the best idea. YMMV
I have never played a "squishy" arcanist. All my arcanists are at least mostly soloable, which means no squishyness. And sometimes i take the lead.
Although avoiding my buddies is more then easy enough anyway.