Nondetection questions

[LordBiBo]

I have 2 questions about the spell Nondetection.

First is about area of effect. The spell says it can affect 1 object, though it does not list dimensions or weight or any other restrictions for 1 object like many other spells do. In this case, what is an object? Could it be something massive like a wagon, ship or castle? I would lean to yes since the size modifiers for ac for objects in the breaking objects section of the rules lists object sizes ranging from fine to colossal, which I assume a castle or ship would be, but haven't found anything definite in the rules one way or the other.

The second question is assuming the answer to the first question is yes, does that mean anyone who is within the wagon, ship or castle is also protected from scrying? The spell says creatures have their possessions protected, but doesnt say objects do the same thing. But at the same time if I were to use it on a chest, I would assume that the treasure inside the chest was protected or it would be kind of a weird spell.

[LordBiBo]

I can't find any reason why it can't work on something that large (other than the gut instinct that it seems like it should be beyond the scope of the spell). So I guess it does.

[Azothath]

1) Generally an object is a single small to diminutive item (considering most PCs are medium sized). I'd take it to be something less than a 5*5*5 square to 10*5*2.5ft (such as a door/doorway/statue).
A house is a place, not an object.

Cairvoy/aud shows a 10ft radius.
Locate Object is for something specific(known, seen, handled) or generic(nearest of it's type).
Animate Object, target is one small object.
Apport Object, target is one touched object of up to 1 lb. and 1 cu. ft.
Teleport Object, target is one touched object of up to 50 lbs./level and 3 cu. ft./level. So this 7th level spell does a mere 3*CstrLvl cuft.
Polymorph Any Object, target is one creature, or one non-magical object of up to 100 cu. ft./level. So this 8th level spell does 10*10*1*CstrLvl cuft.

2) No, unless they are contained within the item. So, nondetection cast on a bag. Money and items in the bag are safe so long as the bag is closed (cutting Line of Effect). The guy wearing the bag is NOT protected. However - it's the bag(and/or contents) that has to be the item the "detector" is scrying or trying to locate (which would be a highly specific kinda of search as usually you look for persons, not missing bags).

In my experience GMs just had the items act like they were invisible to the scrying. So a Clairvoyance would see the guy but not the hidden(nondetection) bag he had on him. Creating a "gray area" gives out too much info and makes it suspicious. Trying to Clairvoyance an item in the bag would would fail as it's not a "locale", and locate object would not turn up the item.

[Murdock Mudeater]

LordBiBo wrote:

I have 2 questions about the spell Nondetection.

First is about area of effect. The spell says it can affect 1 object, though it does not list dimensions or weight or any other restrictions for 1 object like many other spells do. In this case, what is an object? Could it be something massive like a wagon, ship or castle? I would lean to yes since the size modifiers for ac for objects in the breaking objects section of the rules lists object sizes ranging from fine to colossal, which I assume a castle or ship would be, but haven't found anything definite in the rules one way or the other.

The second question is assuming the answer to the first question is yes, does that mean anyone who is within the wagon, ship or castle is also protected from scrying? The spell says creatures have their possessions protected, but doesnt say objects do the same thing. But at the same time if I were to use it on a chest, I would assume that the treasure inside the chest was protected or it would be kind of a weird spell.

Up to the GM, but for player purposes, smaller objects are better. The key is that the absence of a large object will be more obvious than the absence of a smaller object. If an entire castle or mountain were to "suddenly" prove un-scyable, casual adventurers would likely be conscripted to investigate. They may even mobilize their military if a significant enough of an object were to go missing. This would likely negate the point of the nondetection spell.

As for objects within objects, again up to the GM. I'd handle it like invisibility unless the non-detection targeted a very large object, then I might include some of the larger (or more magically potent) objects inside as detectable.

[UnArcaneElection]

^On the other hand, if Non-Detection could be applied to something like a castle (especially if with just a single casting), it could be very useful as long as the castle was very well defended, which is reasonably likely to be the case anyway.

[LordBiBo]

Nondetection doesn't make the object absent from detection though. It just prevents scrying and detection spells from working. Its not like they scry and see an empty field where a castle is supposed to be. They try and scry the castle and get no result.

All those other spells say very specifically how big of an object "an object" is for those spells, but this spell doesn't, so I wonder if it was intentional or not. The only mention of objects I can find is regarding breaking objects. It doesnt specify what an object is, but it has a table that lists object AC adjustments from fine to colossal, which suggests that an object can be colossal.

It also lists the hardnesses of several example objects which range in size from manacles to a stone wall. It lists doors as an object, which suggests that a single object wouldnt have moving parts, but it also lists chests, which dismisses that same suggestion.

The reason this has come up at all is that my group is currently on the run in a small ship. Powerful mages are trying to scry them out to find and apprehend them, so they are looking for the easiest way to prevent their location from being found out. A casting of nondetection on the ship seemed like the easiest solution (ignoring the fact that the spell can be pierced with a high enough caster level check).

[Snowlilly]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^On the other hand, if Non-Detection could be applied to something like a castle (especially if with just a single casting), it could be very useful as long as the castle was very well defended, which is reasonably likely to be the case anyway.

I would think it would be almost standard practice.

In a world where magical espionage is a thing, no ruler with access to mid-level magic is going to leave himself, his family, or his court open to magical scrying.

[Murdock Mudeater]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^On the other hand, if Non-Detection could be applied to something like a castle (especially if with just a single casting), it could be very useful as long as the castle was very well defended, which is reasonably likely to be the case anyway.

Correct, but a Neighbooring country's main castle suddenly becoming non-detectable is probably a sign that they are planning a war with one of their neighboors in the near future. It would be a bad political move to make the castle undetectable unless you were planning something. Instead, it would be wise to use non-detection on certain areas of the castle only, as there is a difference between wanting privacy and concealing a military base.

[Snowlilly]

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^On the other hand, if Non-Detection could be applied to something like a castle (especially if with just a single casting), it could be very useful as long as the castle was very well defended, which is reasonably likely to be the case anyway.

Correct, but a Neighbooring country's main castle suddenly becoming non-detectable is probably a sign that they are planning a war with one of their neighboors in the near future. It would be a bad political move to make the castle undetectable unless you were planning something. Instead, it would be wise to use non-detection on certain areas of the castle only, as there is a difference between wanting privacy and concealing a military base.

I would assume that opposite: that both countries would be using non-detection as standard procedure.

There are always state secrets that need to be protected. Everything from sensitive economic data to who the kings current mistress is.

[UnArcaneElection]

I would expect the entire castle to be protected all the time if this was affordable.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Snowlilly wrote:

I would assume that opposite: that both countries would be using non-detection as standard procedure.

There are always state secrets that need to be protected. Everything from sensitive economic data to who the kings current mistress is.

I guess it depends how common magic is in your setting.

If it were my setting, the castle would have lead lining in the secret areas (plus a few "dummy" secret areas), but we'd only use the non-detection when it was absolutely needed. Non-detection works both ways, so if my castle goes dark, any allied forces I have outside of my castle, can't verify if the castle is okay or not.

But definitely, 'to each, their own.'

[Samish Lakefinder]

It looks to me like casting nondection on your castle would stop scrying targeting the castle, but unless your castle is lead lined it does not stop scrying on the individuals in the castle.

Lead lined war rooms are something that should be fairly common to castles in the setting. I have encountered them in game play and seen players making castles install them.

Also note that unless you have a 20th level friend cast nondetection on you or are 15th level and cast it on yourself, a crystal ball can brute force it's way through your nondetection to see you. You would likely get an idea this is happening as you would have to make a will save every few rounds until you got a 1.

[Azothath]

LordBiBo wrote:

Nondetection doesn't make the object absent from detection though. It just prevents scrying and detection spells from working. Its not like they scry and see an empty field where a castle is supposed to be. They try and scry the castle and get no result.

All those other spells say very specifically how big of an object "an object" is for those spells, but this spell doesn't, so I wonder if it was intentional or not. The only mention of objects I can find is regarding breaking objects. It doesnt specify what an object is, but it has a table that lists object AC adjustments from fine to colossal, which suggests that an object can be colossal.

It also lists the hardnesses of several example objects which range in size from manacles to a stone wall. It lists doors as an object, which suggests that a single object wouldnt have moving parts, but it also lists chests, which dismisses that same suggestion.

The reason this has come up at all is that my group is currently on the run in a small ship. Powerful mages are trying to scry them out to find and apprehend them, so they are looking for the easiest way to prevent their location from being found out. A casting of nondetection on the ship seemed like the easiest solution (ignoring the fact that the spell can be pierced with a high enough caster level check).

this is simple.

1) create false dopplegangers for the purposes of detections (name some dogs with your same names...) This just creates chaff.
2) cut the personal bonds ties by burning your stuff or giving it to the false doppels.
3) take on new IDs, use Disguise skill.
4) A simple defense is to stay in the dark or mist... eliminate landmarks or clues to your location.
5) there are some spells with long durations that prevent scrying or fool it. Try those. There are also spells that let you know when you are being scryed upon. IMO you cannot Nondetection a castle or house - but if your GM allows it, go for it.

[Lincoln Hills]

Firstly, I think Ultimate Combat has vehicle rules, which hopefully clear up once and for all whether a ship is a 'location' or an 'object'. Secondly, if nondetection worked as you suggest, casting nondetection on a suit of armor would protect its occupant from divination. (It doesn't.)