I have a Wizard in the party that has a permanent See Invisibility spell cast on him. I ruled that he couldn't see through a Greater Invisibility cast by a vampire sorcerer. Was I correct or wrong?
Agreed, you were wrong.
Yep, wrong.
I've seen the sentiment of "a lower level spell should not beat a higher level one" before. Seems a common disconnect.
You were definitely wrong. Nondetection can and Mind Blank will defeat See Invisibility, though. As will Sequester, but that one's not going to come up in combat.
Yeah, see invisibility will detect greater invisibility unless there is something else to counter it.
If you have a problem with it, remember that permanency spells can be removed by Dispel Magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but remember that you have to be able to see the target to cast Dispel Magic on them. It cannot be cast in an area. Greater Dispel Magic, on the other hand, can be.
No, he meant the wizard with permenant see invisibility, not the invisible person
Indeed. Just because a wizard casts permanency doesn't mean he gets to permanently keep it. Walls of dispel magic or having an enemy cast dispel magic on him are valid tactics.
Nondetection is debatable. See Invisibility isn't a 'detect' spell, so arguably it's not included in the subset of divination spells protected against by Nondetection.
Nondetection provides a sample of spells that are protected not an exhaustive list.
The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as
Bolded for emphasis. This is a non-exhaustive list.
Far from providing any exclusions, the spell says:
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.
The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such asBolded for emphasis. This is a non-exhaustive list.
Yes, I agree that it's a non-exhaustive list. The existence of the list, however, indicates that there are some divination spells that nondetection has no effect on. It is therefore up to the GM to determine whether or not any given divination spell is one "such as" clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I agree that it's a non-exhaustive list. The existence of the list, however, indicates that there are some divination spells that nondetection has no effect on.The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such asBolded for emphasis. This is a non-exhaustive list.
Not necessarily. "A mammal is any animal with hair that lactates, such as a cow, bear, cat, or platypus." Or "A prime number is any natural number greater than one whose only factors are 1 and itself, such as 2, 3, 13, and 101." I hope you're not going to suggest that the explanatory examples somehow negate the definitions I presented, and that 5 is somehow not a prime because it's not in the list.
This is supported by the general "If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item,..." following. That, to me, is a pretty clear statement that nondetection effects all targeted attempts.
Now, I do believe that the divination spell itself would not be affected. If I want to know whether it's safe to enter the Crypt of Celine Dion, that's not targeted at any particular creature or thing, but instead just tells me that there will be negative consequences (because if I waste time on dungeon explorations, I will probably not be able to do my income tax on time, and that will case a major legal and financial issue down the road).
|
Yes, I agree that it's a non-exhaustive list. The existence of the list, however, indicates that there are some divination spells that nondetection has no effect on. It is therefore up to the GM to determine whether or not any given divination spell is one "such as" clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells.The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such asBolded for emphasis. This is a non-exhaustive list.
See invisibility is... well, I don't think there is much to say that nondetection defeats it. There is some evidence that it could, and some evidence that it couldn't. It is very unclear.
I think it should, honestly, since it is not perfect. That would mean a prepared caster would have a chance that see invisibility doesn't see through their invisibility.
As a GM in PFS I don't think it would allow it, but in a home game I would.
Here's some weird flavor support for the idea that Nondetection stops See Invisibility: the exalted boons for Groetus in the new Inner Sea Faiths.
Second boon offers a combination of Invisibility (not Greater), Nondetection, and Sanctuary for 10/min level so you can go walkabout to long times to creep on people. But wait, there's more! If you manage to penetrate the Nondetection or Sanctuary effects you can also get hit by a Confusion effect for one round.
I think it's clear the intent is:
1. You're invisible, and hard to detect with True Seeing or Nondetection.
2. But if they do manage to make the check to see you, they have to save vs. Confusion.
3 Then if they manage to attack through Sanctuary, they once again have to save vs. Confusion.
It's a layered, cooperative, cohesive group of spells, and it assumes that Nondetection stops attempts to see invisibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, as I said. Debatable.
With a sufficiently pedantic reading, anything can be debated.
Using common English interpretation of the provided rules, not so much.
See invisibility allows for a creature to see somebody with greater invisibility on them. The question has been answered, let's not derail the thread.
The problem is, the example spells are quite diverse, and it is difficult to come up with much that seems like a common theme that would limit them. Obviously, nondetection blocks some, but not all divination spells, but which ones, other than those specified is difficult to determine.
It is almost as though they wrote nondetection with a built in protection against those trying to divine its applicability.
|
|
Yup, as I said. Debatable.With a sufficiently pedantic reading, anything can be debated.
Using common English interpretation of the provided rules, not so much.
You've got to be kidding me. Since See Invisibility is not a detect spell, nor one of the listed examples, there is NOTHING that demands Nondetection protects against it, nor anything that demands Nondetection doesn't protect against it.
In fact, looking at the spells that are listed, Nondetection seems to protect specifically against spells that target specific objects, areas, or creatures, along with detect spells. See Invisibility is a perception enhancement, so does not seem to belong in that list.
There is no 'common English interpretation' that either specifically includes or excludes See Invisibility, so I reject your comment 100%.
Clairvoyance/clairaudiance is not a targeted spell. It creates a sensor, which can not see/hear someone with nondetection up. It is sense based and uses your sight/hearing abilities. So does See Invisibility, just it doesn't use a sensor separate from your eyes.
See invisibility allows for a creature to see somebody with greater invisibility on them. The question has been answered, let's not derail the thread.Er, since that part of the thread has been answered, why not continue the thread as to whether someone with greater invisibility and nondetection can be seen with 'see invisibility'?
It certainly is related and relevant.
I have a Wizard in the party that has a permanent See Invisibility spell cast on him. I ruled that he couldn't see through a Greater Invisibility cast by a vampire sorcerer. Was I correct or wrong?
Entire question asked and answered. Any discussion about unrelated matters (in this case, nondetection) should either be in PMs or in a more relevant thread.
By RAW it's clear nondetection works on all divination spells, acting as a lower level mindblank.
The problem is, the example spells are quite diverse, and it is difficult to come up with much that seems like a common theme that would limit them. Obviously, nondetection blocks some, but not all divination spells, but which ones, other than those specified is difficult to determine.
It is almost as though they wrote nondetection with a built in protection against those trying to divine its applicability.
I don't think that's fair. They provided an additional clause that's being ignored:
"If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item...."
A divination spells that is not targeted at a creature or object, then, is not resisted. For example, anticipate peril provides a general bonus to initiative checks, and nondetection would not prevent you from receiving that bonus if you were ambushed by such a creature. Cultural adaptation provides the caster with a bonus to things like Disguise. Heightened awareness provides a general Perception bonus which would not be negated if the hiding creature had nondetection on it.
As with the spell itself, this is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but merely an illustration.
|
|
The problem is, the example spells are quite diverse, and it is difficult to come up with much that seems like a common theme that would limit them. Obviously, nondetection blocks some, but not all divination spells, but which ones, other than those specified is difficult to determine.
It is almost as though they wrote nondetection with a built in protection against those trying to divine its applicability.
I don't think that's fair. They provided an additional clause that's being ignored:
"If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item...."
A divination spells that is not targeted at a creature or object, then, is not resisted. For example, anticipate peril provides a general bonus to initiative checks, and nondetection would not prevent you from receiving that bonus if you were ambushed by such a creature. Cultural adaptation provides the caster with a bonus to things like Disguise. Heightened awareness provides a general Perception bonus which would not be negated if the hiding creature had nondetection on it.
As with the spell itself, this is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but merely an illustration.
How do you explain Clairvoyance/clairaudience then? By your explanation, nondetection wouldn't work against it.
How do you explain Clairvoyance/clairaudience then? By your explanation, nondetection wouldn't work against it.
Clairvoyance is targeted at a specific area, which may contain you, as is detect thingamajig. Heightened awareness is not targeted.
|
|
Clairvoyance is targeted at a specific area, which may contain you, as is detect thingamajig. Heightened awareness is not targeted.
How do you explain Clairvoyance/clairaudience then? By your explanation, nondetection wouldn't work against it.
Clairvoyance does not target a person or an area. Clairvoyance creates a sensor. Sort of like a floating eye or ear. If you don't believe me, re-read the spell.
You do pick a location for the sensor to appear. But that is not the same thing.
Even if you were 100% correct, nondetection still does not protect areas or locations. Only an object or creature. And, remember, if a spell does not target you... it doesn't target you. AOEs do not target all those in the target area. Again, this assumes you are correct... which i'd be willing to be you are not.
Thus, your version of nondection could not protect someone from clairvoyance, despite it being listed in the spell as one of the spells nondetection protects you from.
It's not about being targeted, it's about a divination spell gathering information about it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's relist the spells given as examples...
locate object : Can be 'targeted' but does not need to be. As it can search for general types. Is actually an AOE, but only pinpoints 'targeted types or specific item'.
Examples of Locate Object:
I cast nondetection on my average longsword.
SOmeone casts Locate Object and is looking for longswords.
Mine is the nearest. But locate object does not point to it.
(Non targeted, AOE, does not see)
I cast nondetection on my unique signet ring.
SOmeone casts Locate Object and is looking for my specific signet ring.
I am in range. They do not find it.
(Semi-targeted in an AOE, picked something unique, does not see)
Detect spells : Definitely not targeted. Is often a cone-shaped emanation. You sense the type of thing the spell detects.
Example of Detect:
Someone casts Detect Evil and points cone in my direction.
Joe who is evil stands next to me. I am also evil.
I have nondetection up.
The spell detects Joe, but not me
(Non-targeted, emanation, detects certain things, does not detect anything with nondetection up)
Clairvoyance/clairaudiance : creates a sensor in a given area. The sensor sees or hears. You direct the direction of sight. It uses your own natural senses, plus some help in the dark.
Example of clairvoyance:
I am in the throne room of King Dan.
I have nondetection up. King Dan does not.
Someone who knows King Dan's throne room casts clairvoyance and sends the sensor to the throne room. They look around the room using the sensor as if it were their eyes.
The sensor sees Dan, but not me.
(Non-targeted other than deciding what area to generate the sensor in, uses sight or hearing, does not see/hear those who have nondetection)
So, we have protection against spells that do not target people or object, have AOE effects or simply applies 'I can see it with my eyes' logic.
Most of these spells do not offer any sort of 'target person or object'.
But, definitely, as you said, Heighten Awareness would not be protected against. Since it is a self-enhancement, as you noted.
|
|
Now, is 'see invisibility' a self-enhancement or not? It's not a cone, or AoE. It doesn't have a listed range. It just enhances your vision able to see invisible creatures.
That, to me, sounds like self-enhancement.
It could be considered, yes. But it is not necessarily so. Thus why it is such a hairy issue.
Let's put it this way, if the spell were 'Detect Invisibility' it wouldn't even be a question. It would be protected against. It fits in with the rest of the spells. It detects invisibility and uses your vision. Sort of like a cross-breed between clairvoyance and the detect spells. Finds a specific kind of thing, is ranged based on sight, gives information about the thing looked for(such as 'invisible' or 'ethereal').
It's really hard to say it really isn't, and really hard to say it definitely is.
Honestly, I believe it may need a FAQ.
edit - definitely needs
Mindblank has similar wording, along with a different such as list:
"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)."
Vs. Nondetection:
"The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells."
One the one hand, the phrasing and lists are similar, making one think the spells in the such as lists are similar. One the other, the inclusion in one list for See Invisibility, and not the other might have been intention.
Frankly, I don't have a clue how it should be or what way the design team would rule.
These spells are too well warded.
|
|
Mindblank has similar wording, along with a different such as list:
"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)."
Vs. Nondetection:
"The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells."
One the one hand, the phrasing and lists are similar, making one think the spells in the such as lists are similar. One the other, the inclusion in one list for See Invisibility, and not the other might have been intention.
Frankly, I don't have a clue how it should be or what way the design team would rule.
These spells are too well warded.
The only one listed specifically there that isn't also listed (semi)specifically in nondetection is see invisibility. Since Crystal Balls use scry, and it protects against those.
You could read the spell as...
The spell is like nondetection...
except expanded...
It protects against ANYTHING that uses divination magic, including any device. Nondetection only works against dvination spells that attempt to gather information about the target and devices 'like crystal ball'. Which, crystal balls can also can include see invisibility.
and it also does this...
"This spell also grants a +8 resistance bonus on saving throws against all mind-affecting spells and effects. Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to gain information about the target."
and nondetection should already...
"In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn't detected. Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all."
A wish used to divine is not a divination spell. Also mindblank grants a +8 to vs mind-effecting.
Oh, and the capper... Nondetection isn't 100%. There is a DC involved. Nondetection can fail to protect you. Mindblank has no DC. It never fails.
The spell is not ambiguous. It says:
"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."
And the bolded section is where the ambiguity comes in.
See Invisibility isn't against the warded creature. It only targets the caster him/herself.
To use an analogy, Golems are immune to spells that allow SR, and Bull's Strength allows SR, but the Golem is not immune to the extra damage you deal from your increased strength because you were the target, not the Golem.
This just seems like one of those questions that both interpretations are fairly reasonable, each DM likes the one he has, and it's just going to vary from table to table.
The same objection could apply to Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, though.
This really needs to be taken to it's own thread so we can get some FAQ hits.
|
|
The spell is not ambiguous. It says:
"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."
And the bolded section is where the ambiguity comes in.
See Invisibility isn't against the warded creature. It only targets the caster him/herself.
To use an analogy, Golems are immune to spells that allow SR, and Bull's Strength allows SR, but the Golem is not immune to the extra damage you deal from your increased strength because you were the target, not the Golem.
This just seems like one of those questions that both interpretations are fairly reasonable, each DM likes the one he has, and it's just going to vary from table to table.
Read further up for my analysis of each spell specifically called out in Nondetection.
It actually isn't 'target' based. Despite what it may seem when it says 'against'.If it were, only locate object could even remotely count as a 'targeting' spell. Which would invalidate the spells listed as being protected against.
Also, yes, someone should pop us a new thread.
Yes, I agree that it's a non-exhaustive list. The existence of the list, however, indicates that there are some divination spells that nondetection has no effect on.Not necessarily. "A mammal is any animal with hair that lactates, such as a cow, bear, cat, or platypus." Or "A prime number is any natural number greater than one whose only factors are 1 and itself, such as 2, 3, 13, and 101." I hope you're not going to suggest that the explanatory examples somehow negate the definitions I presented, and that 5 is somehow not a prime because it's not in the list.
No, of course I wouldn't suggest that. But those examples are quite different from the spell text in question, due to the context. There is no need to give a few explanatory examples of divination spells in a Pathfinder spell description, since it is explicitly stated in those same rules what a divination spell is. Indeed, it would be very unhelpful and counter-productive to do so!
Furthermore, you'll note that both your examples employ a comma before "such as", which serves to indicate that remainder of the sentence is a non-essential extra - simply explanatory examples. The spell text has no such comma, which changes the meaning considerably: "...divination spells such as [these]."
This is supported by the general "If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item,..." following. That, to me, is a pretty clear statement that nondetection effects all targeted attempts.
Only if you read that sentence on its own, out of context. In context, it's clear that "a divination" means "a divination of the types previously specified (that is, detection by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells, or location by such magic items as crystal balls)".
Mindblank has similar wording, along with a different such as list:
"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)."
Vs. Nondetection:
"The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells."
One the one hand, the phrasing and lists are similar, making one think the spells in the such as lists are similar. One the other, the inclusion in one list for See Invisibility, and not the other might have been intention.
Frankly, I don't have a clue how it should be or what way the design team would rule.
These spells are too well warded.
Mind Blank works in a much broader sense in that it blocks divination spells that gather information indirectly. Contact Other Plane, for example, will not work against someone with Mind Blank. Non Detection is more limited in that scope, in addition to permitting a caster level check to overcome.
Nondetection is debatable. See Invisibility isn't a 'detect' spell, so arguably it's not included in the subset of divination spells protected against by Nondetection.
See invisibility is a divination. Non-detection wards against divination spells, not "detect" spells.
"The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells"
I really don't understand how this is debatable.
See invisibility is a divination spell. (not debatable)
Non-detection offers some protection against divination spells. The fact that it also provides an example list isn't really a factor.
Non-detection does not say it protects against only the divination spells in said list.
I really don't get where the confusion is.
Edit: then again sometime people want to beat things into the ground. As always feel free to house rule however you'd like.
Non-detection does not say it protects against only the divination spells in said list.
I really don't get where the confusion is.
I don't think anyone is saying that only the spells on the list count.
The question is which other ones do. Presumably it isn't all divinations, or we wouldn't need a such as clause. But which ones it is and isn't (and hence where see invisibility should be) is far from clear.
I cast Sea Invisibility. Now the oceans are undetectable. And the fishermen are pissed...
I really don't get where the confusion is.The confusion comes from a combination of things.
"The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells". Nondetection does not ward against all divinations spells. Only those that somehow detects. See Invisible does not detect invisible objects or creatures, it alters your sight.
Further: "spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells". It is very important to note the "such as". While the list is not extensive, it also means that only other spells "such as" these listed here are effected by Nondetection. Spells not listed that are "spells such as" are, among others, 'Locate Creature', 'Detect Magic' (or any other spell called "Detect [something]") and "Scry", as they have similar effects as those spells listed.
See Invisible, on the other hand, is not a spell "such as" any of those listed spells.Now, I'm not weighing in on any sides here. I just wanted to clarify why this is debatable to some.
It doesn't say "detect spells," which is not a spell category anyway. Detect is an action in this case. Non detection specifically says divination spells.
Non-detection does not say it protects against only the divination spells in said list.
I really don't get where the confusion is.
I don't think anyone is saying that only the spells on the list count.
The question is which other ones do. Presumably it isn't all divinations, or we wouldn't need a such as clause. But which ones it is and isn't (and hence where see invisibility should be) is far from clear.
Why is it not divination spells when it specifically says divination spells?