Magic Aura vs. Detect Magic

[Axoren]

Is there any way to detect magic that has been hidden by Magic Aura?

Does casting Detect Magic count as interacting?

How do you face the DC of the Magic Aura?

[Pizza Lord]

Axoren wrote:

Is there any way to detect magic that has been hidden by Magic Aura?

Only by trying to identify the object, which does include using detect magic in conjunction with Spellcraft. You follow the rules for identifying. Which generally means you must be able to handle or study the item closely, not just focusing on it.

Quote:

Does casting Detect Magic count as interacting?

For purposes of allowing the Will save? Only if you interact in a way that counts as identifying. Otherwise, you will detect whatever aura the item is disguised as. For example, a +2 unholy longsword disguised as a +1 vorpal longsword will show up as a strong aura to detect magic and no aura to detect evil. A ring of featherfall disguised as a hat of disguise will detect as faint illusion to detect magic.

This would mean that an object that is disguised as non-magical will defeat detect magic in almost all cases unless the caster has a reason to specifically study the item because they think it might be magical. For instance, a glowing blue, flaming sword that doesn't detect as magic might be a likely candidate for additional inspection.

Quote:

How do you face the DC of the Magic Aura?

When an attempt to identify the item is made, you use the standard rules for Spell DCs. This will almost always be 10 + spell level + caster's casting stat modifier. In other words, DC 11 + Modifier.

[Plausible Pseudonym]

Axoren wrote:

Is there any way to detect magic that has been hidden by Magic Aura?

Does casting Detect Magic count as interacting?

How do you face the DC of the Magic Aura?

I would argue that Analyze Dweomer could bypass Magic Aura. Arcane Sight wouldn't work because it explicitly piggy backs on (improved) Detect Magic mechanics, but Analyze Dweomer doesn't do the same.

[Claxon]

Technically while Magic Aura can hide the aura of the magic item itself, it doesn't hide its own aura which is on the weapon and can be identified with detect magic and spellcraft.

Technically the spell wont work because you hide the aura of the weapon, but leave a big nasty aura of "I'm hiding something" on it instead.

[Pizza Lord]

I don't think that's the case. I am certain that the magic aura detects as the magic item desired or as non-magical.

If you cast magic aura on dust of appearance (faint conjuration) to make it seem like dust of disappearance (moderate illusion), a caster doesn't get a "faint illusion and moderate illusion." You detect only moderate illusion, which is what the magic aura does.

A torch with continual flame (faint evocation) cast on it can be disguised to detect as a phylactery of negative channeling, in which case it will detect as "moderate" for effects that detect strength and "necromancy" for effects that detect school (detect magic can do both.) It will also detect as "evil" for spells that detect alignment.

If magic aura is cast on an item to make it appear as non-magical, then someone detecting magic on it does not get told "It's not magical and also it's faint illusion'. It counts as being non-magical. That's very clear in the spell description. The 'detector' only gets a chance to recognize the false aura if they attempt to identify the item and only if they pass the Will save, they don't get to see the false aura before that.

[Claxon]

I'm not suggesting that it actually be run that way, but if you want to be very technical about it active spells are detected by detect magic, Magic Aura makes no provision about hiding its own aura, only the magic of the item you cast it on. So you end up suppressing the normal magic aura of the weapon/item, but put another one conveniently on top of it that can still be detected.

This is because the spell has a separate aura from the items aura. If you use detect magic on it you would eventually see two separate auras, one for the spell and one for the item (or lack thereof if the spell was used to hide the aura).

I understand what you're saying and generally agree that's how the spell was intended to work, but that's not actually what was written. And I'm mostly pointing it out for academic purposes.

[Pizza Lord]

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:

I would argue that Analyze Dweomer could bypass Magic Aura.

That's correct in so much as it counts as 'identifying' an object. It doesn't technically 'bypass' it though. It would allow for the Will save to detect the item's true properties (and also that it has magic aura cast upon it.) If the caster failed his Will save, then analyze dweomer will only return information based on what the magic aura says it is. While analyze dweomer doesn't use the word 'detect' it also doesn't use the word 'identify', but both qualities of the spell are recognized by the wording of its use.

Additionally, your false aura could have false command words too or any other properties that a magic item would have. For instance, if your wand of magic missiles (command word "Gitrak") detects as a wand of fear with the command word "phobiocity"). Analyze dweomer will technically tell its caster the false command word to activate it if he fails his Will save to see past the magic aura. If you were thorough enough to designate it as a 'wand of fear with 3 charges' he will even detect that false information. If you got careless and forgot to include that in your magic aura, then that could be a glaring inconsistency that alerts a 'detector' that the item warrants closer investigation (although since they failed their Will save further investigation will only reveal the same information.)

Note that if the item is 'attended' then there is a Will save to resist analyze dweomer prior to the caster being able to identify the object's properties. The spell talks about an item's wielder, but technically all magic items are considered to be 'attended' by the rules.

[wraithstrike]

Claxon wrote:

I understand what you're saying and generally agree that's how the spell was intended to work, but that's not actually what was written. And I'm mostly pointing it out for academic purposes.

Thanks. I wish more people would do this and not intentionally derail rules conversations.