Detect Magic CAN foil invisibility, it's just laughably bad at doing so. If the invisible threat is moving at most 10 feet per round and not bothering to attack you, then detect magic is the perfect spell for the job!
|
Just a logic question here. Wouldn't throwing paint/flour on somebody whose invisible only reveal them for a moment before the paint/flour became "part of them" for purposes of the spell? Glitterdust I can give you since it's designed to mark out things that are invisible. But the paint/flour would be treated as any other item in the invisible character's possession from where I'm standing.
Under other circumstances, DM would be able to find an invisible creature/thing, but this one sounds like it specifically negates that.
I was with Claxon as far as interpretation. Divination and other forms of magical detection do not work, but any mundane form of locating something invisible would (displacement, tracks, insane Perception modifiers, blindsight/sense).
Aren't rules meant to be taken literally? specifically being stated as undetectable would mean a "detect" spell would not see it.
Sort of. The rules are supposed to be taken with a dose of common sense. One can definitely be overly literal in their understanding/twisting of a rule.
The Hidden Master ability is one such case, when taken extremely literal it means that despite the ninja touching you you can't detect. Despite the ninja being neck deep in water you can't notice it displacing water. Taken literally it would mean that the ninjas actions impact those around them, but things that affect the ninja have no observable response. Such as if you actually managed to guess what square he's in and successful attack him (how you did it is of no concern) then you're greastsword flies through the air with no resistance and no blood despite having inflicted a significant wound to the ninja, because you take the rule over literally.
Since this is a lvl 20 ability we are talking about here, im gonna say that cannot be detected means exactly that. This a lvl 20 ninja we are talking about.
|
using detect magic to find it would normally work on supernatural abilities though, but for the exception in this one. Bear in mind it takes 3 rounds to determine the location in that 60' cone, in which you're maintaining concentration as a standard action (and this is why its usually a waste of time, the loss of standard actions)
using detect magic to find it would normally work on supernatural abilities though, but for the exception in this one. Bear in mind it takes 3 rounds to determine the location in that 60' cone, in which you're maintaining concentration as a standard action (and this is why its usually a waste of time, the loss of standard actions)
It's only a waste of time in combat. If you're walking down a hallway with Detect Magic activated (as you should be) and suddenly it pings, you absolutely should pause for an additional 12 seconds to pinpoint where something is magical.
Aren't rules meant to be taken literally? specifically being stated as undetectable would mean a "detect" spell would not see it.
I think the ability is not well written, especially the part about "cannot be detected by any means" as I know a few who take it far too literally.
No, rules are written in human context, and that means the idea should be the keystone, not the literalness. If you take it literally, that the Ninja cannot be detected by ANY means, then the walking on fresh paint, through fog, over loose sand, catching on fire, walking through an inch of water -- nothing - will detect the invisibility of the ninja. Go ahead, sneak up on that god, you are literally undetectable. I think it is painfully clear this context refers to detection by spells and abilities that typically detect invisibility.
Since this is a lvl 20 ability we are talking about here, im gonna say that cannot be detected means exactly that. This a lvl 20 ninja we are talking about.
*insert smiley.jpg*
Like I said, there is always at least one who insists this brand of nonsense.
A coup de grace? No. The target has to be helpless, not unaware.
Coup de Grace: As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced “coo day grahs”) to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.
You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.
Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.
You can't deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to “find” the creature once you've determined what square it's in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).
Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.
No, helpless and unaware are not the same thing, or else any time a Rogue makes his stealth check, he could perform a coup de grace.
using detect magic to find it would normally work on supernatural abilities though, but for the exception in this one. Bear in mind it takes 3 rounds to determine the location in that 60' cone, in which you're maintaining concentration as a standard action (and this is why its usually a waste of time, the loss of standard actions)It's only a waste of time in combat. If you're walking down a hallway with Detect Magic activated (as you should be) and suddenly it pings, you absolutely should pause for an additional 12 seconds to pinpoint where something is magical.
"Hey wait guys, there's something magic in front of us..."
"Really what is it?"
"I dunno, hang on a se—" *stabbed by the ninja*
|
|
Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.
like in one fight we had a demon held down by three guards and kneeling on the ground and yet even though it could not possibly defend itself it was not considered helpless
The demon was helpless. "Held down by three guards" fits one of the definitions of helpless.
or if I have someone tied behind his back with his feet bound still not considered helpless even though once again he could not possibly take any action to defend himself against the blow
Again, such a person would be helpless, per the definition.
so why is it that a ninja who con not be detected by magic and has done nothing to give any warning that he is there would not find his target helpless to a attack that he has no idea is coming and could not defend himself against
There's a difference between "helpless," which in context means unable to take any meaningful action, and "unaware," "surprised," "flat-footed." The latter three conditions still permit reaction to the aforementioned ninja.
Ex: Walking down a tunnel, when the wizard behind you says to stop because there's something magical nearby. You stop for a moment, straining your senses for anything that isn't your own group. A rush of air is all the warning you get, but it's enough for you to shift sideways, and you feel a blade score the side of your armor, narrowly missing a vital spot.
When a target is helpless, it is next to impossible for the attacker to miss. When there's a chance that the attacker could miss, you probably aren't helpless, even if that just means you have a metric ton of armor on.
No, because the invisibility spell states it doesn't work like that.
Upon further reading, you are correct. One might be able to argue, though, that paint might soak into fabric and therefore count as "tucked into the clothing". But RAW, I stand corrected.
Ex: Walking down a tunnel, when the wizard behind you says to stop because there's something magical nearby. You stop for a moment, straining your senses for anything that isn't your own group. A rush of air is all the warning you get, but it's enough for you to shift sideways, and you feel a blade score the side of your armor, narrowly missing a vital spot.
This is why I'm taking a black sharpie to that "cannot be detected by any means" phrase in my book. If it's taken as read, then the example changes unto the point of being ludicrous:
"Walking down a brightly lit tunnel, when the wizard behind you, (despite straining his god-like magical and mundane senses to their limit and feeling completely confident that no threat is nearby), sees your body collapse into a heap, spraying blood from a wound that appeared as if from nowhere."
I'll take your interpretation any day. :)
It's only a waste of time in combat. If you're walking down a hallway with Detect Magic activated (as you should be) and suddenly it pings, you absolutely should pause for an additional 12 seconds to pinpoint where something is magical.
Perhaps, but in the games I run (and play in) we take the stand that any magic designed to conceal or be concealed like invisibility or magical traps are automatically resistant to detect magic. It is our opinion that they would be pretty stupid otherwise because they would actually draw attention to themselves under magic detection (which is pretty common) which should be directly contrary to their effect.