# Permanent Arcane Sight... help with rulings plz...



## schnee (Aug 10, 2004)

My favorite munchkin is playing a wizard. He's got permanent Arcane Sight. I'm having problems with it, as it seems way, way too good the way I'm reading it. I don't want to nerf the character unnecessarily, so... could I get some opinions here?

Does Arcane Sight automatically allow you to see invisble creatures? I've seen threads here that conclude - since AS sees magic auras, that someone with Invisibility still generates a Glamer aura that AS immediately perceives. So, no invisibility works within 120' of the mage. I'm having great difficulty in this... I see the logic, since tremorsense and blindsight beat the Inviso, but... this makes See Invisibility obsolete. It also makes Invisibilty, Greater Invisibility, illusions, and any number of other spells that conceal or alter perceptions obsolete. For a 3rd level spell? Doesn't seem right.

I can see this defeating Hide, or even Hide in Plain Sight (even thought it's a supernatural ability), but all that magic foiled? Really forces me to start planning encounters _around_ that ability, so that other characters have a chance to shine too. It becomes less of a character trait and more of a design constraint.

I don't want to fall into the mean DM trap of always defeating that ability... throwing lots of Darkness and Fog spells, opponents using Non-detection, or even the worst - enemy spellcasters throwing targeted Dispels against the guy with the glowing blue eyes after they make their Spellcraft to figure out why their ambush didn't work... I do, however, want to give him the benefits of his investment in a way that doesn't shift so much of the intelligence and first-strike capability on to him.

If I were to limit AS, I'd say it allows the spellcaster to see the Glamer aura of an invisible creature. He could tell the strength of the Inviso spell, but that aura would obscure all others. In addition, he could target the aura itself with a Dispel Magic, but not target the invisible creature (so no Disintegrate or Magic Missile). If he wanted to attack it, he'd have to use an area effect spell to hit the area around it (such as Fireball or Lightning Bolt). 

Alternately, I'd allow the use of a targeted spell - Disintegrate - but with a 50% miss chance from 'full cover' for being 'invisible'. I know that's serious house rule territory, but it would allow the spellcaster to act on their unique knowledge - with some risk.

Ahhh, I don't know... Is this just 'new to high-level DM angst'? Or does anyone else share my thinking? If my (as of yet un-implemented) rulings are short-sighted, I'd appreciate some experienced folks giving me more detail as to why I shouldn't worry about it. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 10, 2004)

Well, invisibility is a glamer.  From the rules:



> Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear




Since you alter the subjects sensory qualities, in this case, everyone who would normally see the wizard is now affected by the invisibility, I see no reason why Arcane Sight would not be affected also.  In other words, the AS wizzie doesn't see the aura, since the aura is masked by the invisibility.


----------



## schnee (Aug 10, 2004)

...

That was easy. Thanks.


----------



## green slime (Aug 10, 2004)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Since you alter the subjects sensory qualities, in this case, everyone who would normally see the wizard is now affected by the invisibility, I see no reason why Arcane Sight would not be affected also.  In other words, the AS wizzie doesn't see the aura, since the aura is masked by the invisibility.




I disagree.

As a _Detect Magic_ spell would detect the aura of the _invisibility_, so too would _Arcane Sight_.

The question is then, what is sensed? Nothing is seen, except an aura. Thus, the wizard would know there was a glamer "over there, by the barrel". But from that to concluding that the character can see exactly where the invisible creature is, is a far cry. Firstly, it maybe any other glamer. Secondly, it would function similar to scent, in that he may know which "square" the glamer is present, but still cannot see the target and suffers a 50% miss chance to all attacks. No _magic missile_. You can't MM an object or aura.

Detecting the aura is great opportunity for using _glitterdust_.


----------



## xazil (Aug 10, 2004)

I agree with Green Slime on seeing an invisible persons square.  You can let the player enjoy it while he has it, one dispel magic or greater dispel can take the permanent effect off and then it is just XP lost.   

Even with rings of counterspell loaded with one of those two spells, most of my spellcastering characters or even NPCs dont waste XP on permanency and go for magic items instead.


----------



## dvvega (Aug 10, 2004)

One other thing you should think about is how he got the permanent Arcane Sight 

... if it's from a Permanency spell then a dispel magic could make it go away without much of a problem.

Even an area dispel that targets the highest level spell on the character then the next then the next until one is dispelled could work. Permanency is  high so it would most likely be the prime dispelled spell, then his Arcane Sight will just run out.

This could lead to all sorts of interesting problems ... how does he know the permanency is gone? When the Arcane Sight duration expires (since it is now not permanent) will he notice? He could walk around for days not realising what has occurred.

... if it's from a magic item - you should have thought of the consequences before you allowed him to purchase/create it, however even this can be alleviated. For example: thieves love stealing "pretties". Is it a ring? medallion? Is it a staff? Sunder the bloody thing ... a lot of warrior who see a Wizard are going to try to stop him casting spells, what with staves using the caster level of the wielder and all.

... if it's from a permanent racial ability or feat then that's a bit more difficult. No ideas on that one.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 10, 2004)

schnee said:
			
		

> Does Arcane Sight automatically allow you to see invisble creatures? I've seen threads here that conclude - since AS sees magic auras, that someone with Invisibility still generates a Glamer aura that AS immediately perceives. So, no invisibility works within 120' of the mage. I'm having great difficulty in this... I see the logic, since tremorsense and blindsight beat the Inviso, but... this makes See Invisibility obsolete. It also makes Invisibilty, Greater Invisibility, illusions, and any number of other spells that conceal or alter perceptions obsolete. For a 3rd level spell? Doesn't seem right.




Erm...

Arcane Sight is 3rd level, See Invisibility is 2nd level.
See Invisibility has no range.
See Invisibility detects ethereal creatures.
See Invisibility works on natural invisibility (Hellcat, Will-o'-the-Wisp).
See Invisibility lasts 10 times as long as Arcane Sight, making it useful even without Permanency (which is a 5th level spell required there, BTW).
Permanent Arcane Sights costs a lot of XP and can be dispelled (especially a few levels later).

I completely fail to see how Arcane Sight is superior to See Invisibility when it comes to detecting invisible creatures. Furthermore, not every creature on the world will have permanent Arcane Sight (not even every wizard will), so why would that make Invisibility obsolete!?

It's probably fair to assume, that Arcane Sight is not as powerful as See Invisibility, since it does not let you see the creature, but only the magical auras, so some Concealment would be fair. I'd give the invisible creature standard 20% Concealment instead of the usual Total Concealment. It's surely better to see the auras, than only knowing the square, since I doubt, that the auras extent a couple feet from the creature.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 10, 2004)

Arcane Sight definitely allows you to detect a creature who is invisible due to a spell or spell-like abilities or because of a magic item, but not creatures who are invisible because of something else, or are simply hidden.

The most important thing is also that while it allows you to constantly pinpoint the creature, it doesn't let you actually _see_ it. For instance, you don't have line of sight and cannot target it with creature-target spells, and if you attack it physically (including touch and ray spells) you get 50% miss chance. See invisibility is a clear winner in this specific use!

Furthermore, it's not even 100% sure that you get the aura is of an invisibility spell/effect. You may fail the spellcraft check, and even if you don't it just says "Illusion" but could be something else, although of course a _moving_ illusion aura almost always mean one thing...   

However it's a good thing that Arcane Sight has this use, and the XP spent for permanency should be worth.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 10, 2004)

How about Glitterdust? You don't have line of sight to a creature covered by that either, or do you?

I really don't think there should be a 50% miss chance with Arcane Sight. 20% at most.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Herpes Cineplex (Aug 10, 2004)

schnee said:
			
		

> I can see this defeating Hide, or even Hide in Plain Sight (even thought it's a supernatural ability), but all that magic foiled?



Then you're just weird, because Arcane Sight does absolutely _NOTHING_ against Hide, as you can see from its description. 

Me, I'd say that Arcane Sight lets you see the aura of the invisible guy, so you know he's there.  I'd still give the invisible guy concealment, though, because Arcane Sight doesn't let you see _through_ invisibility, it just lets you see the spreading, smoky tendrils of Illusion magic surrounding the person who has Invisibility cast on them.  So Mr. Arcane Sight can feel free to target area-effect spells to catch the Invisible guy, but if he wants to hit him with a ranged touch attack or whatever, he's gotta get past the miss chance first.

--
whereas see invisibility actually lets you _see_ him and target him freely
ryan


----------



## Thanee (Aug 10, 2004)

I'd let Arcane Sight foil HiPS in the same way it foils invisibility (since LoS to the aura is not being blocked), but not real hide (where LoS to the aura _is_ being blocked).

Detect Magic would work better against hide, since it can also work through barriers to a degree (Arcane Sight works on sight only). Similar to Detect Thoughts (if there is any magic to detect, that is), just not as accurate (you don't know what's there, just that there is some magic, but at least you are alarmed that _something_ is there).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 10, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> How about Glitterdust? You don't have line of sight to a creature covered by that either, or do you?
> 
> I really don't think there should be a 50% miss chance with Arcane Sight. 20% at most.




Well I guess at the end it depends on someone wants a magic aura to be like... I don't think it's much worth debating it, since the core books don't say, I guess it's up to the gaming group.   

When I wrote my previous post I was thinking of Arcane Sight working almost like Detect Magic, you can pinpoint the location and estimate the strength and guess the school of magic.

You probably noticed that the spell description says "you _see_ magical auras" and therefore you are playing that you can... well... SEE it like it was an object. If that's your view, and the description definitely supports it, then I suppose it's fair ruling that you also have line of sight for spell targetting.

It's still totally up to anyone to decide how much does a magic aura look like however, it doesn't necessarily have to be the same shape as the creature for example...


----------



## Thanee (Aug 10, 2004)

Yeah, I guess that's what it boils down to. 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## schnee (Aug 11, 2004)

> not every creature on the world will have permanent Arcane Sight (not even every wizard will), so why would that make Invisibility obsolete!?



I was exaggerating a bit, but a permanent Arcane Sight foils the biggest tactical advantage of Invisibility... being able to watch the party and/or get into ambush position easily. It (seems to) make that part of Invisibility obsolete when dealing with encounters with this specific party.



> Then you're just weird, because Arcane Sight does absolutely NOTHING against Hide, as you can see from its description.





> I'd let Arcane Sight foil HiPS in the same way it foils invisibility (since LoS to the aura is not being blocked), but not real hide (where LoS to the aura is being blocked).



'Hide' doesn't always mean physical cover. Concealment is enough, and in the book, they quote 'shadows' as one example. Since darkvision can also spoil that (p. 152), IMO it's fair for Arcane Sight to work too.



> How about Glitterdust? You don't have line of sight to a creature covered by that either, or do you?



That's another judgment call, but why not? I guess it depends on how visual you imagine a magical aura to be, but Glitterdust specifically gives a -40 to Hide checks, while Arcane Sight doesn't mention any numbers.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 11, 2004)

schnee said:
			
		

> 'Hide' doesn't always mean physical cover. Concealment is enough, and in the book, they quote 'shadows' as one example. Since darkvision can also spoil that (p. 152), IMO it's fair for Arcane Sight to work too.




I am not sure if I know exactly what you mean, but at least it's obvious that if you don't have a magic aura around you, Arcane Sight detects nothing.

A Rogue who is simply hiding somewhere is obviously not detectable by Arcane Sight because "AS detects invisible creatures"... If the Rogue has a spell cast on him or is carrying a magic item, AS would detect the aura and possibly spoiling the hiding, but that's not to automatic. For example, the Rogue could have a magic ring and be hiding in darkness thank to the concealment; AS would detect the aura of the ring and its location, but that doesn't automatically let you spot the rogue or see it clearly... you just feel or see the ring's aura, how do you know there's a rogue attached to it?


----------



## Bryin (Aug 11, 2004)

you can "_detect_" the arua of magic not see plus its not instantly


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 11, 2004)

Bryin said:
			
		

> you can "_detect_" the arua of magic not see plus its not instantly




...we were discussing about _Arcane Sight_, what you say is true for _Detect Magic_


----------



## green slime (Aug 11, 2004)

_Arcane Sight_ is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt. So a well hidden, high level rogue could be safe through the virtue of just hiding behind a leaden tower shield...

Or he could just get a wand of _magic aura_, ding (using his UMD) his stuff once per day, and never be seen with _Arcane Sight_. I guess the poor wizard got "backstabbed" after all...


----------



## Thanee (Aug 11, 2004)

schnee said:
			
		

> 'Hide' doesn't always mean physical cover. Concealment is enough, and in the book, they quote 'shadows' as one example. Since darkvision can also spoil that (p. 152), IMO it's fair for Arcane Sight to work too.




Ok, let me rephrase that. I think Arcane Sight detects auras, as long as they are note physically hidden. Therefore it will detect someone hiding with only Concealment, since there is still Line of Sight. So it will always foil HiPS and sometimes even real Hide, unless used with cover, that is.

Or maybe gives a +20 circumstance bonus to spot at least in these situations.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## uzagi_akimbo (Aug 11, 2004)

schnee said:
			
		

> Does Arcane Sight automatically allow you to see invisble creatures? I've seen threads here that conclude - since AS sees magic auras, that someone with Invisibility still generates a Glamer aura that AS immediately perceives. So, no invisibility works within 120' of the mage. I'm having great difficulty in this... I see the logic, since tremorsense and blindsight beat the Inviso, but... this makes See Invisibility obsolete. It also makes Invisibilty, Greater Invisibility, illusions, and any number of other spells that conceal or alter perceptions obsolete. For a 3rd level spell? Doesn't seem right....
> 
> ..........
> 
> ....If I were to limit AS, I'd say it allows the spellcaster to see the Glamer aura of an invisible creature. He could tell the strength of the Inviso spell, but that aura would obscure all others. In addition, he could target the aura itself with a Dispel Magic, but not target the invisible creature (so no Disintegrate or Magic Missile). If he wanted to attack it, he'd have to use an area effect spell to hit the area around it (such as Fireball or Lightning Bolt).




We faced a similar problem IMC, because of a PC becoming a Dweomerkeeper ( the ComDiv-WE variant ), which at second level gives permanent "Arcane Sight" as a class-power. Scary, right ? Not really

Several points trender the "detect magic" function less useful than you seem to imagine, though. First-off, you have to be looking in the right direction, and realize you sense an illusion-type magic approaching, without any physical object related to it and you have to make a spellcraft-test, a conscious action IMHO, because it  is called you _can_ make a spellcraft roll, making it a choice of the character,  instead of phrasing you make a spellcraft roll, to even tell it is an illusion-type magic. This is similar to detect magic, in fact it is the same paste-and-copy text . 
This of course requires some degree of concentration, which becomes hard if you are trying to do something else at the same time. And even then, you may still not know what sort of low-level illusion you are facing (reality and circumstances may give clues, though). On the other hand, you need not spend a second and third round on determining the sort and strength of magic.

Second, you have to spot the magical aura in the first place, often not all that easy in a magic-rich environment or crowded conditions - that is, picking it out from the background noise. Easier in a peaceful rural environment,far less easy in a magic filled dungeon or BBEG lair - starting with magical lighting and going up from there.

Third, you do not get told the precise spell/power at work with Arcane Sight, ever. That is something that only Anaylze enchantment or Greater Arcane Sight can do - as stated in their respective descriptions.

Fourth - as for Illusions and Invisibility. Arcane Sight tells you only that illusion magic of a certain strength is in use in a certain area, e.g. a set of squares. What is done precisely is left to the faculties of the mage observing.  Is what you see an illusion or a  real thing on which some illusionary effect is at work ? Your call. Do you note that strangely mobile magical aura approach you from over there inthe middle of your heated debate with Comte de la Funz ? Question of your alertness and mental acumen.

Fifth - Arcane Sight works only to 120' or the limits of your sight - hence if you can only see 30' by using a torch and being a human, or 60 ' with darkvision, you only see auras within those 30'. It is stated nowhere that auras etc. glow like beacons/torches/lightsources once they come into Arcanes Sight's range. 

Sixth - even by being aware that an invisble something is coming for you, you still cannot see its imminent attack on you in detail. Hence, you do loose your Dex bonus to AC and are open to a sneak attack. You may know where he stands (the square ) but how do you tell how he stands, fights, dodges, pulls out stuff  or moves away ? Sorry, he is still invisible, even if you know he stands right next to you.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 11, 2004)

> This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you. The effect is similar to that of a detect magic spell, but arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly.



 Note, that Arcane Sight does _not_ require concenctration, discerning the school is part of the effect as per the Dispel Magic description. IMC this is done automatically, no action or effort required.



> You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight.



 Otherwise, Arcane Sight is limited to your own sight radius, as you said, but it does make the magical auras visible for you, since it allows you to see them.

 It's not hard to guess, that someone or something invisible must be approaching, if you see a bunch of magical auras closing in, where you cannot see anything else. 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## schnee (Aug 11, 2004)

> Ok, let me rephrase that. I think Arcane Sight detects auras, as long as they are note physically hidden.



Yeah, true. I wasn't trying to nitpick your previous post... just wanted to clarify that one specific thing that I found when I re-read the 'cover' section more closely.



> Arcane Sight works only to 120' or the limits of your sight



I have a hard time believing a new form of perception that has nothing to do with visible light is limited by visible light. I would argue sight in that instance means 'line of sight' like most magical effects. 



> It is stated nowhere that auras etc. glow like beacons/torches/lightsources once they come into Arcanes Sight's range.



Not 'glowing' in the sense of '-40 to Hide' like Glitterdust, but obvious and easily perceptible as things in and of themselves. I wouldn't say they cast light like a unicorn in some new-agey airbrush painting, but... tinted deep blue?... surrounded by an amber haze?... sure, why not.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 12, 2004)

Just a question:

IS arcane sight blocked by the same things that block detect magic? That's a specific line in detect magic, and arcane sight doesn't actually draw from detect magic.

It refers to detect magic only for aura powers.

There's no other ruleing specified in the general section on divinations.

Seems to me like only lead blocks arcane sight.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 12, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> IS arcane sight blocked by the same things that block detect magic?
> 
> Seems to me like only lead blocks arcane sight.




Seems to me like anything that blocks line of sight blocks arcane sight.

You can detect an aura on the other side of a wooden door with detect magic, but it's not a 'magical aura within your sight', so you can't see it with arcane sight...

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 12, 2004)

Yep, it works different. Detect Magic grants a non-visual sense, while Arcane Sight gives a visual sense.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 12, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yep, it works different. Detect Magic grants a non-visual sense, while Arcane Sight gives a visual sense.




I have a vague recollection of being convinced that the T&B version of Arcane Sight could detect auras through the same materials as Detect Magic, except that determining school required line of sight.  

But I'm away from my books, and I could be misremembering.

But the 3.5 PHB version looks pretty unambiguous.

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 12, 2004)

Seems pretty much the same text. Also "within sight".

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 12, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Seems pretty much the same text. Also "within sight".




Okay.

Maybe it was just ascribing too much scope to the 'similar to detect magic' clause.

-Hyp.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 12, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Seems to me like anything that blocks line of sight blocks arcane sight.
> 
> You can detect an aura on the other side of a wooden door with detect magic, but it's not a 'magical aura within your sight', so you can't see it with arcane sight...
> 
> -Hyp.




Interesting. The paragraph goes:
"You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight. An aura’s power depends on a spell’s functioning level or an item’s caster level, as noted in the description of the detect magic spell. *If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight*, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura; DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + one-half caster level for a nonspell effect.)"

Interesting that they have a clause for whether the creatures bearing the auras ARE within your sight. It seems to suggest that some other scenario would be possible.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 12, 2004)

Of course the first line of the spell says "This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you."

It then says "You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight."

Either
a) You can detect all auras within 120 feet, but don't get location and power

b) The spell lets you see them, therefore all auras within 120 feet are within your sight, and you know location and power.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 12, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> b) The spell lets you see them, therefore all auras within 120 feet are within your sight, and you know location and power.




See Invisibility lets you see invisible creatures and objects.

But if there's an invisible object _in a box_, you can't see it... nto because you're incapable of seeing invisible objects, but _because it's in a box_.

Arcane Sight lets you see magical auras.  But you still can't see _things in a box_.  The aura is something-you-are-capable-of-seeing, because of the spell... but the box gets in the way.  The spell allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet, but that doesn't change the fact that sometimes, objects are opaque...

-Hyp.


----------



## green slime (Aug 12, 2004)

Yet, by reading the _detect magic_ spell, we see that the aura is not contained within the box, that it "leaks" so to speak.

It would be peculiar (but not impossible) if the "leaking" aura were visible to _detect magic_ and not _arcane sight_. Is the aura visible outside the box or not? AN argument could be made either way. I prefer handling them in the same fashion. Therefore, IMC, the aura of the object contained within the box, leaks out, and is visible, to the humanoid with _arcane sight_ running. If not, you better explain this difference to the player before they spend XP on getting it made permanent.

[EDIT] Actually, the spell reads: "The spell can penetrate barriers...", so it isn't leaking auras at all... Still, that is how we do it. Makes more sense to me that way, with detecting the presence of objects/magic that have been moved/removed.[/EDIT]


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 12, 2004)

green slime said:
			
		

> Yet, by reading the _detect magic_ spell, we see that the aura is not contained within the box, that it "leaks" so to speak.




With Arcane Sight, you see auras.  With Detect Magic, you know the location of auras.

If someone casts Blindness on you, Arcane Sight won't be of much use to you, since you can't see the auras, but you'll still know the location of auras via Detect Magic.

-Hyp.


----------



## green slime (Aug 12, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> With Arcane Sight, you see auras.  With Detect Magic, you know the location of auras.
> 
> If someone casts Blindness on you, Arcane Sight won't be of much use to you, since you can't see the auras, but you'll still know the location of auras via Detect Magic.
> 
> -Hyp.




Ok, so with _detect magic_ and _blindness_, you sense the aura, but cannot define which school it is of, as you no longer have line of sight?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 12, 2004)

green slime said:
			
		

> Ok, so with _detect magic_ and _blindness_, you sense the aura, but cannot define which school it is of, as you no longer have line of sight?




Right.  Just like you can't determine the school on the ring inside the box, but you know there's an aura in there.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dark Dragon (Aug 12, 2004)

From the SRD about _Detect Magic_:



> Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras.




As AS is linked to DM, AS can be foiled in the same way as DM can. The enemy is within a _Forbiddance_, an unhallowed area or a _Dimensional Lock_ and he is invisible? Rule that AS may detect the stronger auras but the weaker (like _Invisibility_ in this case) are concealed.

The enemy has buffed himself to the maximum and has _Greater Invisibilty _ online? Rule that so many different spells along with greater invis distort the AS-based senses of your wizard that he can't pinpoint the enemy with AS. He may know that there is something weird (strong) magic somewhere within his sight...not more.

This is perfectly within the rules, IMO (see quote). AS is a strong spell when made permanent, since it detects illusions (like _illusionary wall, screen, disguise self, invisibility_), a _wall of force _ and _magical traps_.


----------



## green slime (Aug 12, 2004)

No, it detects the presence of magic. You may ascertain the school with a Spellcraft check. It does not inform you that you see an _illusory wall_


----------



## Thanee (Aug 12, 2004)

Well, but if you see a magical aura on a wall, and you know it is an illusion, that kinda takes the point of placing the illusion there away.

And Detect Magic is a 0th level spell.

I prefer my house rule, that when you detect an illusion aura, you get a Will save against the illusion (secret, of course) for interacting with it, and if you fail, you get a false reading of another school, which is set at the time the illusion is cast, i.e. abjuration or transmutation often work well.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## green slime (Aug 12, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Well, but if you see a magical aura on a wall, and you know it is an illusion, that kinda takes the point of placing the illusion there away.
> 
> And Detect Magic is a 0th level spell.
> 
> ...




Except I could see players wasting hours trying to come to grips with an _illusory wall_ cast over an ordinary wall. Can you imagine the hours spent trying to Search for hidden doors, traps, or the like?


----------



## Thanee (Aug 12, 2004)

Sure, but that's not really a common situation, or not? 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dark Dragon (Aug 12, 2004)

I've rules IMC that _Detect Magic _ (and as a consequence, AS and GAS) can't detect illusions. The only way to detect illusion is to interact with them and make a save or to use _True Seeing_. _Invisibility_ (and the greater version) has _See Invisibility, Invisibility Purge _ and _Blindsight_ as an "opposed" spells, and _Glitterdust_ and _Faerie Fire_ may help also. For other illusions, _True Seeing _ is a good choice.

As a DM, I had the same problems as schnee: one of the party wizards has AS permanently online. Removing illusion spells from the list of detectable spells (via Detect Magic and similar effects) avoided a lot of problems and gave the illusion school back a bit of power.

If a wizard has _Mind Blank _ and AS active, illusion spells become nearly worthless, because they are either easily detectable as illusions (the spellcraft DC is quite low) with AS or have the mind-affecting descriptor....


----------



## Factol Rhys (Aug 12, 2004)

Well, the problem with _Arcane Sight_ is that, according to the most liberal reading of its effects, it not only shows you where an invisible creature is, but the average PC hiding in the woods would also show up, thanks to his everything-down-to-my-belt-buckle-is-magical. To tone this down, I would say that you rule that _Arcane Sight_ is foiled by _Invisibility_, which functions by blocking a creature's vision, which _Arcane Sight_ is a part of.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 12, 2004)

Well, by a strict reading of the rules, AS does not help detect someone in hiding, but I'd at least give a circumstance bonus to spot there.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 13, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> See Invisibility lets you see invisible creatures and objects.
> 
> But if there's an invisible object _in a box_, you can't see it... nto because you're incapable of seeing invisible objects, but _because it's in a box_.




That would be because see invisibility has a specific line:

"You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are ethereal, *as if they were normally visible*"

So of course you can't see through a box - the object's visible or invisible status has nothing to do with whether it's in a box. If it was normally visible, you still couldn't see it, thus you cannot see it now.



> Arcane Sight lets you see magical auras.  But you still can't see _things in a box_.  The aura is something-you-are-capable-of-seeing, because of the spell... but the box gets in the way.  The spell allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet, but that doesn't change the fact that sometimes, objects are opaque...
> -Hyp.



Arcane sight merely says "you can see magical auras within 120 feet of you", and that "you know the location and power of all the aura's you can see".

And finally, it says "*if* the items or creatures bearing the aura are within line of sight, you can make spellcraft checks...."

Which would add together to suggest to me that you need not have a creature or item within line of sight to 'see' it's aura.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 13, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Arcane sight merely says "you can see magical auras within 120 feet of you", and that "you know the location and power of all the aura's you can see".




"And I levitate upwards 20 feet."
"You can't; the ceiling's ten feet high."
"Doesn't matter.  _Levitate allows you to move yourself, another creature, or an object up and down as you wish._  The spell says it allows me to move myself up as I wish; it doesn't say 'unless there's a solid object in the way'."

-Hyp.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 13, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "And I levitate upwards 20 feet."
> "You can't; the ceiling's ten feet high."
> "Doesn't matter.  _Levitate allows you to move yourself, another creature, or an object up and down as you wish._  The spell says it allows me to move myself up as I wish; it doesn't say 'unless there's a solid object in the way'."
> 
> -Hyp.




Actually, I'd be accepting that arguement, but only if levitate had a paragraph that stated 

"in the event that you don't move someone through a solid object ...."

See my point?


----------



## radmod (Jul 28, 2010)

Sigh.
So I read through all the posts and there is no definitive answer about whether or not AS works against hide. Some people seem to think it does, others argue it doesn't but no one is truly countering the other's argument. LOS specifically says you can't see if you're blocked. Hiding would be blocking LOS so that seems to imply AS doesn't work, EXCEPT what it all boils down to is "what is an aura" and "what is the size of an aura". If an aura is a millimeter thin field about a person than AS would not work vs. hide. If the aura takes up a five foot space then AS may work against hide (behind a tree but not a wall).


----------



## jefgorbach (Jul 28, 2010)

Obvious none of you are near-sighted because this is ridicously easy to comprehend for those us who are. 

Detect Magic/Arcane Sight simply allow the user to tell what (if any) spell effects are currently affecting an area ... like walking around without your glasses. You can generally tell what/where the room/contents are, but everything is blurry without the fine details revealing just exactly what it is you're looking at.  

The easiest way of thinking/describing it is as if each spell covers the target with a sheet colored according to what School it belongs to with stronger effects having more vibrant colors. Normally these sheets cant be seen, however Detect Magic allows you to see where it is (round 1) ... and with concentration, detemine if multiple sheets are covering it and what the most vibrant color is (round 2). Further staring determines how the colors are stacked (round 3); etc. Arcane Sight does the same thing without having to stare at the location for several rounds. 

To answer the original question, lets agree the Illusion school is represented by green sheets, beginning with a very pale green for a first level effect (like magic aura), becoming progressively darker to culminate with a very dark emerald sheet representing ninth level effects like Weird.

The mage with arcane Sight (ie without glasses) walks into a room, quickly spotting the leafy green sheet he's come to recognize as being a second level Illusion effect loosly covering something. The subject's general placement and vague humanoid shape implies its either an individual or statue, but he wont be able to determine which until he drops the magical sight to see the subject's fine details (ie puts on his glasses) because until he does so, it could just as likely be a statue enchanted to pass along a message via a Magic Mouth as someone hiding invisibly against the wall, or using any of the other second-level effects: blur, hypnotic pattern, minor image, etc.


----------



## radmod (Jul 31, 2010)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/jefgorbach.html"leafy green sheet". I love it. I think I'll steal it.
"In the center of the room you see a leafy green sheet. Roll initiative."

Being nearsighted myself, I think it's an even better analogy than you intended. Detect Magic indicates that some auras overpower others. So, for me, if I saw a leafy green sheet wearing a yellow scarf, my first impression would be of a leafy green sheet.
Also, if the sheet were hiding behind something, I really doubt I would see it. (Of course, I'm not entirely sure I would see it if I DID have my glasses on, but ...)


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 31, 2010)

arcane sight permanency'ed is one of the game changers that I feel a GM should give strong consideration to just house ruling in out of the campaign. 

if the GM keeps it, then the one character is going to eat up lots of time as the GM has to describe *all* the auras the character sees. Also the character  will strain relations with many non hostile NPCs since the casters eyes are always *glowing*. Casters that recognize the effect will probably not appreciate potentially being sized up by the "See your highest spell level" option of arcane sight.


----------



## Dandu (Jul 31, 2010)

Sounds like a job for a really cool pair of sunglasses.


----------



## HoboGod (Aug 1, 2010)

If the total cover in which one hides means you have no line of sight, then using AS shouldn't do anything at all, likewise with invisibility which the PHB glossary explicitly says line of sight does not apply. I haven't seen anything to say that the magical auras in question radiate any further than the surface of the object/person or infinitely until they reach some end point near the end of the universe. For problems of that nature, I make no judgment call until definite evidence can be brought before me. Any action which relies on one way being correct over all others, such as seeing the aura which radiates out of an area of total cover, is wrong and an illegal operation.

That's the agnostic approach, I dare not argue this from a crusader's point of view.


----------



## Persiflage (Aug 4, 2010)

For what it's worth, here's the way I handle it.  _Arcane Sight_ allows you to see magic auras.  Magic auras are not closely defined: they're effectively flavour text with no status-effecting condition associated with them.  As a DM, I get to say how that's interpreted and _I_ say that a "magic aura" as detected by _Arcane Sight _(where you explicitly "see" it, as opposed to _Detect Magic_, where you just "detect" it) is a sort of shimmery, coloured, wavery blur roughly corresponding to the size of the effect.  The near-sighted analogy is a good one, although "really near-sighted _and _drunk as a lord" is more how I imagine it.  Furthermore, _I_ say that auras don't extend far from the object: certainly not far enough that someone making use of cover can't hide.

As such, _Arcane Sight_ foils Invisibility to the extent that the caster can  - as per the Detect Magic description - "pinpoint the location" of the invisible creature.  However - as per the Blindsense description - pinpointing the location does NOT automatically negate concealment, in this case because you're basically just seeing an amorphous, irregular blob of swirly colour.  So you might well use _Arcane Sight_ and determine that there's an invisible man-sized blob in front of or behind you, but you can't make AoO's against it (because the aura's outline and movement don't particularly correspond to the creature) and it can still sneak-attack you because it still has total concealment.

This way, _Arcane Sight_ doesn't trump _See Invisibility._  It's still useful, but it won't stop a Rogue from removing your kidneys.

If someone's hiding using cover that would stop _Detect Magic_ - and such cover can include "hiding behind another creature or object that has a magical aura", then line of sight is blocked (although I would give a circumstance bonus to Spot checks made to detect the hiding creature).  If someone's hiding in shadows or "in plain sight" and is radiating magic, the Spot check to notice them with _Arcane Sight_ automatically succeeds.

I'm not claiming this answer is definitive, but it's consistent, relatively easy to adjudicate and has worked for the groups I've been playing with.


----------



## HoboGod (Aug 4, 2010)

You say "pinpoint the location" in quotes as if Detect Magic says "pinpoint the location." It doesn't, if it said "pinpoint the location" there wouldn't be an ongoing debate. It mentions you can obtain the location, but not specifically how you do it.


----------



## Persiflage (Aug 4, 2010)

HoboGod said:


> You say "pinpoint the location" in quotes as if Detect Magic says "pinpoint the location." It doesn't,




You're quite right; lack-of-proofreading error on my part, so apologies for that.



> if it said "pinpoint the location" there wouldn't be an ongoing debate. It mentions you can obtain the location, but not specifically how you do it.



I'm a bit confused.  Why would the phrase "pinpoint the location" end the debate?  Pinpointing the location doesn't negate concealment - at least not by default - so why would that help?  We _know_ the spell gives you the locations of each aura because the description says so: arguing that it doesn't say "exact location" is semantic hairsplitting to no good purpose.  We also know that _Arcane Sight_ allows you to "see" the auras, because the description says so: _Detect Magic _isn't explicit about the mechanism but I don't see that matters much.

What's maybe up for debate is whether or not this is tantamount to being able to see a creature that's hiding or invisible.  I say it's not, because knowing the location of a creature - even being able to pinpoint said location - does not automatically negate concealment.  So yes, you're right, Detect Magic doesn't use the words "pinpoint" or "exact", but even if it did, how would that help?


----------



## HoboGod (Aug 4, 2010)

There is a very good reason to argue semantics, here. The balancing factor of this spell relies completely on whether it can automatically pinpoint invisible and hidden creatures. Some DMs would completely ban this spell or only allow it as a higher level spell because they didn't want it to argue and felt that it's ability was too strong for it's level.

If it was important enough for Detect Evil to have explicit instructions and Detect Animals to have explicit instructions, it's important for this to have explicit instructions.

Compare the usage and purpose of these spells. Detect Evil is a 1st level spell, it can find the exact location of an evil creature as long as he or she is visible and not behind an inch of lead or etc. Would you say it's appropriate that Detect Magic is a 0th level spell that can find the exact location of any creature of any alignment carrying a magic item or under the effect of some spell regardless of visibility?


----------



## Persiflage (Aug 4, 2010)

Detect Magic takes three rounds to do it, so I have no problem with that, particularly as it doesn't actually negate the concealment.  You spend three rounds concentrating and learn the location of the invisible beastie, provided you were concentrating on the area that it was in.  That really isn't striking me as over-powered, particularly as the invisible beastie is still invisible.


----------



## Loren Pechtel (Aug 4, 2010)

jefgorbach said:


> The mage with arcane Sight (ie without glasses) walks into a room, quickly spotting the leafy green sheet he's come to recognize as being a second level Illusion effect loosly covering something. The subject's general placement and vague humanoid shape implies its either an individual or statue, but he wont be able to determine which until he drops the magical sight to see the subject's fine details (ie puts on his glasses) because until he does so, it could just as likely be a statue enchanted to pass along a message via a Magic Mouth as someone hiding invisibly against the wall, or using any of the other second-level effects: blur, hypnotic pattern, minor image, etc.




While it makes a good description of how Arcane Sight reveals the world I think you learn more as I don't see that Arcane Sight takes away your normal vision.

Thus you see the leafy green sheet but you also see the statue at the same time--you know there's second-level illusion magic where the statue is.

Whether it's a magic mouth on the statue or an invisible guy standing right in front of it is going to be much harder to tell, though.


----------



## HoboGod (Aug 4, 2010)

Detect Evil is three rounds as well. It may not seem overpowered, but for a 0th level spell, it's pretty damn powerful. Concealment isn't the end-all-be-all, especially with spell casters using AoE spells like burning hands and fireball.


----------



## radmod (Aug 4, 2010)

Persiflage said:


> If someone's hiding using cover that would stop _Detect Magic_ - and such cover can include "hiding behind another creature or object that has a magical aura", then line of sight is blocked (although I would give a circumstance bonus to Spot checks made to detect the hiding creature).  If someone's hiding in shadows or "in plain sight" and is radiating magic, the Spot check to notice them with _Arcane Sight_ automatically succeeds.




I think we are pretty much on the same page here. For example, when you say "pinpoint the location" I'm actually thinking that you "see the space" the creature is in. Hence, inviso's concealment still works.
However, others (not you) have casually thrown out the hiding behind cover blocks DM argument, but I question how practical that would be. Normally, when I hear a PC is hiding it's behind bushes or a tree, etc. Certainly a bush doesn't qualify as 3 ft. of wood. 

Let me get your feelings on:
So if a PC is hiding behind cover (a non-3 ft. bush cover) that does not block DM?
What about the magic item in the closed box? DM detects it, would AS?
Finally, what about cover which actually blocks LOS but not DM, like a tapestry or a door?


----------



## HoboGod (Aug 4, 2010)

radmod said:


> Let me get your feelings on:
> So if a PC is hiding behind cover (a non-3 ft. bush cover) that does not block DM?
> What about the magic item in the closed box? DM detects it, would AS?
> Finally, what about cover which actually blocks LOS but not DM, like a tapestry or a door?




It's hard so say, Detect Magic says that it is blocked by 3 inches of wood, but does not say either way that it grants line of sight to things not in line of sight. It's players who say that line of sight is immediately granted because you cast this spell.

As I see it, you don't need line of sight to detect presence or number of auras, but you need line of sight to pinpoint their location.


----------



## jefgorbach (Aug 4, 2010)

Loren - agreed and what I intended on implying. You'd see a roughly humanoid shape behind/under a leafy green sheet but not whether it was a person, a statue of a person, or someone standing in front of the statue until you drop the arcane sight to remove the distracting fuzzy magical aura. 

IMO it becomes a question of finesse vs hand-grenades. AS/DM reveal the aura's general location, but you STILL have to deal with the concealment modifier per normal unless the viewer chooses to use an area-effect centered in the general area. It basically reduces to deciding whether to fireball a potential magic-mouth or allow it to act first then react accordingly?


----------



## Persiflage (Aug 5, 2010)

HoboGod said:


> Detect Evil is three rounds as well. It may not  seem overpowered, but for a 0th level spell, it's pretty damn powerful.




Compared to what?  _Caltrops_? _Ghost Sound_?  It's three rounds: three rounds of standard actions, and all you learn is that someone is in a particular square.  You don't get to act on that knowledge until round 4.  And that's assuming you're up against something that doesn't spot what you're doing and either "move out of your cone" or "attack you horribly" while you're busy squinting and muttering.



> Concealment isn't the end-all-be-all, especially with spell casters  using AoE spells like burning hands and fireball.



Anyone using those spells on anything other than mooks deserved to have their spleen aerated, but that's by the by.  Total concealment means you're denied your Dex, and that triggers any number of nasty corollary effects.  "Pretty damn powerful" is a subjective value-judgement, and one I don't happen to agree with: not when the effort required to achieve a fix on the location are so disproportionate, the results are fairly innocuous and the strategies for baffling the detection numerous.



radmod said:


> I think we are pretty much on the same page here. For example, when you say "pinpoint the location" I'm actually thinking that you "see the space" the creature is in. Hence, inviso's concealment still works.




Yup.  That.  



> However, others (not you) have casually thrown out the hiding behind cover blocks DM argument, but I question how practical that would be. Normally, when I hear a PC is hiding it's behind bushes or a tree, etc. Certainly a bush doesn't qualify as 3 ft. of wood.



No, although a tree might - or might partially.  You could always argue in the case of someone hiding rather than invisible that they have concealment but not total concealment, depending on the density of the cover.



> Let me get your feelings on:
> So if a PC is hiding behind cover (a non-3 ft. bush cover) that does not block DM?



Then you're rumbled.



> What about the magic item in the closed box? DM detects it, would AS?



_Arcane Sight_ - by all available indications - gives you a visual manifestation of the information that _Detect Magic_ would normally grant you after three rounds of observation.  The problem with interpretation lies with two different statements made in the spell description (emphasis mine):

1)  "This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to *see* magical auras within 120 feet of you."


 2)  "You *know* the location and power of all magical auras *within your sight*."

Based on these statements, I suppose you could quite effectively argue the case either way that _Arcane Sight_ relies on line-of-sight.  For me however, the flavour text about "seeing" things is just that, and the deciding factor comes from a third statement:

3)  "The effect is similar to that of a _detect magic_ spell, but _Arcane sight_ does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly."

This says to me that _Arcane Sight_ is just like _Detect Magic_, except where it explicitly isn't.  The important consideration for _Detect Magic_ is line of _effect_, not line of _sight_, and the conditions blocking line of effect are stated in the spell description, along with other confounding factors.  As such, _Arcane Sight  _works by default in the same way, given that there are no clear indications to the contrary.  The only thing that's different is that you explicitly get a visual manifestation of your "detection" rather than an unspecified "knowledge".

Wow, that was long-winded...  I'm saying: "Yes, you 'see' a magical aura from the box."  



> Finally, what about cover which actually blocks LOS but not DM, like a tapestry or a door?



You "see" the aura.



HoboGod said:


> It's hard so say, Detect Magic says that it is blocked by 3 inches of wood, but does not say either way that it grants line of sight to things not in line of sight.




I think you're needlessly complicating the issue.  Why are you even talking about line-of-sight with respect to _Detect Magic_?  The only context in which it mentions line-of-sight - as an explicit call-out - is here:



			
				Detect Magic said:
			
		

> If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each.




This is the _only part of _Detect Magic_ that references sight_.  It's really clear: you get the other information whether or not your line-of-sight is blocked, because it's line-of-effect (specific to this spell) that determines its effectiveness.  You just don't get to make Spellcraft checks unless you _also_ have line-of-sight to the creature or object.



> It's players who say that line of sight is immediately granted because you cast this spell.



That's utter nonsense; if line-of-sight were automatically granted, there'd be no qualification stating "you get to make Spellcraft checks on the auras if you have line of sight to them".

Is anyone suggesting for a minute that you either "require" or "get" line-of-sight via _Detect Thoughts_?  Because if they are, I'd point them to the similar qualification in the spell description:



			
				Detect Thoughts said:
			
		

> This spell does not let you determine the location of the thinking minds  if you can't see the creatures whose thoughts you are detecting.




Again, it's a call-out telling you the function of the spell that you can _only _get if you _can_ see something, which by implication means that you get the rest of it _without_ being able to see the subjects.



> As I see it, you don't need line of sight to detect presence or number of auras, but you need line of sight to pinpoint their location.



But you haven't really explained _why_ you think this.  _Arcane Sight_ works like _Detect Magic_, except where it says differently.  _Detect Magic _doesn't require line-of-sight in order for you to know the location of the auras, it merely requires its criteria for line-of-effect to be in operation.  Anything that would block line-of-effect for _Detect Magic_, blocks line-of-effect for _Arcane Sight, _and anything that doesn't, doesn't.  The fact that _Arcane Sight_ presents its detection results as visual information isn't important.

Also note that non-magical _invisibility_ - like that of an Invisible Stalker, Phantom Fungus, Pixie or Will-O'-Wisp - will totally hose anyone relying on _Arcane Sight_ in place of _See Invisibility_.


----------



## radmod (Aug 5, 2010)

Persiflage, it seems like you and I really are on the same page.

I consider AS to be an upgraded DM, and personally don't like the argument about line of sight blocking it.

However, I also don't like the idea that the various detect spells automatically break invisibility (or sort of break it). But, as they say, that "is a personal problem."


----------



## HoboGod (Aug 5, 2010)

Yes, compared to other 0th level spells, which tend to be tricks, having Detect Magic reveal invisible creatures, is madness, IMHO.

I'm not going to argue that an AoE spell trumps all concealment strategies or the other way around, there are too many variables and outliers. All I'm saying is that there are effective ways to fight against total concealment penalties, AoE being one such example. If you mean to tell me that AoE spells are not powerful, I'd be rather confused as a wizard's fireball tends to do just as much damage as a TWF rogue's sneak attack at the same level.

Detecting someones thoughts doesn't involve sight, so I don't see how that's relevant to the argument. If you know someone is exactly ten feet southwest of you, then you are de facto granted a line of sight to that person when you're facing southwest. That's how I see it. That's how arguers of Detect Magic's ability to see the invisible want it to function. There's nothing about Detect Magic being able to see invisible creatures, ANYWHERE. It's a backwards loophole for people that want Arcane Sight to function similarly to See Invisibility by exploiting a vague description.

Your area of effect can extend beyond a brick wall, your line of sight cannot. If a creature is invisible, you don't have line of sight. If you don't have line of sight, the creature is invisible (or at least to you). There are explicit rules for pinpointing invisible and hidden creatures, Detect Magic isn't mentioned in them whatsoever.


----------



## radmod (Aug 5, 2010)

At the risk of people yelling, I'll just point out how I've always seen inviso played. Effectively, inviso makes all aspects of your person invisible, including your aura. (Aura does not necessarily imply light) Thus detect spells don't work. Or, in the case of detect evil, that particular DM might have allowed you to sense the presence of evil around you but would never let you center on it. 
There are plenty of other ways to detect inviso. Such as when (in 1e) we used to carry around a non-magical glitterdust/paint and throw it around to 'see' the invisible bad guy.


----------



## Loren Pechtel (Aug 5, 2010)

HoboGod said:


> It's hard so say, Detect Magic says that it is blocked by 3 inches of wood, but does not say either way that it grants line of sight to things not in line of sight. It's players who say that line of sight is immediately granted because you cast this spell.
> 
> As I see it, you don't need line of sight to detect presence or number of auras, but you need line of sight to pinpoint their location.




Yes.  If you don't have line of sight on the location you get the aura and nothing else, no frame of reference to actually place it.  All you have is a bearing.


----------



## Loren Pechtel (Aug 5, 2010)

jefgorbach said:


> Loren - agreed and what I intended on implying. You'd see a roughly humanoid shape behind/under a leafy green sheet but not whether it was a person, a statue of a person, or someone standing in front of the statue until you drop the arcane sight to remove the distracting fuzzy magical aura.




No--I'm saying you get both types of data at once, the AS information doesn't impair your normal vision, it's simply adding sensory data.

Thus you could immediately tell if it was a person or a statue but you couldn't tell if it was an invisible person right in front of a statue--AS merely reveals the level 2 aura.  Move to the side and the deception would be revealed as now the aura isn't lined up with the statue.


----------



## Persiflage (Aug 6, 2010)

HoboGod said:


> Yes, compared to other 0th level spells, which tend to be tricks, having Detect Magic reveal invisible creatures, is madness, IMHO.




Well that's fine.  I've probably helped to cause a hundred times as much carnage with _Ghost Sound_ over the years than I ever have with _Detect Magic_, but fine.  Your mileage varies from mine, no biggie; some people clearly agree with you.  I think you've got a bit hung up on it; taking three rounds to determine that *something* magical is in a square seems a pretty weak-sauce ability to me.  You could argue that you can't even tell that it's _illusion_ magic if it's invisible: you don't have line of sight to the invisible "items or creatures bearing the aura", by definition, so you probably shouldn't get the Spellcraft check.  



> If you mean to tell me that AoE spells are not powerful, I'd be rather confused as a wizard's fireball tends to do just as much damage as a TWF rogue's sneak attack at the same level.



Area damage spells are not powerful, at least not in comparison to the alternatives, that's just what I'm saying.  It was just a throw-away comment and I don't want to be guilty of a total thread derailment, but I'm perfectly happy to illustrate with examples in another thread if you're interested.



> Detecting someones thoughts doesn't involve sight, so I don't see how that's relevant to the argument.



Detecting MAGIC doesn't involve sight either: where in the _Detect Magic_ spell description does it say that it does?



> If you know someone is exactly ten feet southwest of you, then you are de facto granted a line of sight to that person when you're facing southwest.



Not if there's something between you and the spot ten feet southwest...  but anyway, how on earth is this statement relevant?



> That's how I see it. That's how arguers of Detect Magic's ability to see the invisible want it to function. There's nothing about Detect Magic being able to see invisible creatures, ANYWHERE.



No, there's not, and nobody is saying there is: or at least, _I'm_ not.  _Detect Magic_ detects magical auras.  It doesn't let you see anything.  Even when you've detected an invisible creature's magical aura - if it has one - you still can't see the invisible creature, you can just detect which square its aura is in. 

After three rounds. 

Provided it doesn't move out of the way.

Are you saying that your objection to _Detect Magic_ is that - unlike the other detect spells (in the PHB, at least: others vary) - it doesn't have a line saying "If an aura is outside your line of sight then you determine its direction but not its exact location"?

If that's all, fair enough: house-rule it in, job done.  However, it's not in the description as written and _I'm_ happy to play it as it lies.  As the spell stands, the qualification is "if the auras are in your line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each".  It's pretty clear from this that - as written - you get the rest of the information whether or not the aura is in your line of sight.  House-ruling the spell to make it function as you want it to is perfectly reasonable, but it's not a "loophole" to suggest that the spell works the way it's written.



> It's a backwards loophole for people that want Arcane Sight to function similarly to See Invisibility by exploiting a vague description.



It doesn't function anything like _See Invisibility_.  _See Invisibility_ allows you to see invisible things.  _Detect Magic _allows you to tell which square a magical aura is in, and _Arcane Sight_ does the same thing by means of visual information: _See Invisibility_ and _Arcane Sight_ are by no means equivalent, although they are nicely complementary.



> Your area of effect can extend beyond a brick wall, your line of sight cannot.



Unless you use, you know, _magic_ or something.  Like _Clairvoyance_.  Or _Scrying_.  Besides which, a brick wall will usually block line-of-effect, unless otherwise stated:  



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier.




And:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creatures, or objects to which it has line of effect  from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped  burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of  origin).




All in all, there are probably as many cases of having line-of-sight without line-of-effect as there are the other way around... but that doesn't matter with respect to _Detect Magic_, because it relies on line-of-effect rather than line-of-sight, and its parameters for line-of-effect are well-specified in the spell description.



> If a creature is invisible, you don't have line of sight. If you don't have line of sight, the creature is invisible (or at least to you). There are explicit rules for pinpointing invisible and hidden creatures, Detect Magic isn't mentioned in them whatsoever.



_True Seeing_ isn't mentioned there either.  Neither is _Glitterdust_.  Neither is Dust of Appearance.  Neither is _Invisibility Purge_.  Neither is _Faerie Fire_.  So what?

I'm not even sure what you're arguing here.  On the one hand, you seem to be saying _Detect Magic_ is too powerful because it lets you see invisible creatures (after three rounds of study) which we're all agreed it _does not do._  All it does is tell you the square a magical aura is in, assuming there is one.  If the invisible creature doesn't _have_ any magical auras on its person - and there are many ways for this to happen - or if there are more powerful effects in the area masking the aura, or if divination counter-magic is employed, it won't show you the creature.

You're saying that it's madness for a 0th-level spell to allow you to detect the presence of something invisible (which, provided said something has a magical aura, _Detect Magic_ *will* do - as will a decent Spot or Listen check in most cases), but your real problem with it seems to be because of _Arcane Sight_ - a 3rd-level spell - allowing you to pull the same trick without taking three rounds...  Given that _See Invisibility_ is a 2nd-level spell that actually *does* let you see invisible things, this seems a bit peculiar.  I'd pretty much expect an arcane spellcaster to get a Permanent _See Invisible_ (or an item that does the same) as soon as possible: mine always have.

If your objection is specifically to someone running around with Permanent spells, well, you've got an issue there with fundamental game balance.  The way to deal with that is to house-rule away what you see the problems are, not to deny that the spells work the way they say they work.  

Radmod has the right idea:



			
				radmod said:
			
		

> [snip] ...I'll just point out how I've always seen inviso played.  Effectively, inviso makes all aspects of your person invisible,  including your aura. (Aura does not necessarily imply light) Thus detect  spells don't work. Or, in the case of detect evil, that particular DM  might have allowed you to sense the presence of evil around you but  would never let you center on it.




This is a house-rule, nobody's trying to pretend it's anything but, and it works for them.  Cool.

In all of this, it's important to remember that the 3rd-level _Arcane Sight_ is a pretty weak-sister substitute for the 2nd-level _See Invisibility_ when it comes to detecting invisible creatures, but it's much better for detecting hiding creatures.  And, of course, there are as many strategies for foiling _Arcane Sight_ as there are for _Detect Magic_, and if bad-guys are on their home turf they should be aware of the threat and deploy appropriate counter-measures.  For instance, you don't want to be relying on _Arcane Sight_ if you're facing a Ninja


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 6, 2010)

Dandu said:


> Sounds like a job for a really cool pair of sunglasses.




From the Bard, Corey Hart:

I wear my sunglasses at night
So I can, so I can
See the weaves
that permeate our lives.
And I wear my sunglasses at night
So I can, so I can
See the magic with my own two eyes.​ 
Although Illusions may decieve me
Arcane Sight adds security
A Charm Person may get control of me
Unless I'm able to see​ 
Don't touch that case
til' the guy in shades takes a look, oh no
Might be a masquerade
of a case or maybe not, oh no
You can disbelieve it
'Cause you got it made
With the guy in shades, oh woh​ 
And I wear my sunglasses at night
So I don't, so I don't
Forget my name while you trigger a flame (trap)
And I wear my sunglasses at night
So I can, so I can
See the light that's right before my eyes​ 
​


----------



## HoboGod (Aug 6, 2010)

Persiflage said:


> Detecting MAGIC doesn't involve sight either: where in the _Detect Magic_ spell description does it say that it does?
> 
> Not if there's something between you and the spot ten feet southwest...  but anyway, how on earth is this statement relevant?




It's not necessarily sight that I'm talking about when I'm referring to line of sight, it's the general affect of line of sight, that which allows you to grasp the exact square of something. A listen check can provide an equivalent line of sight, for example. That's what I was trying to illustrate with the analogy.



Persiflage said:


> Are you saying that your objection to _Detect Magic_ is that - unlike the other detect spells (in the PHB, at least: others vary) - it doesn't have a line saying "If an aura is outside your line of sight then you determine its direction but not its exact location"?
> 
> If that's all, fair enough: house-rule it in, job done.  However, it's not in the description as written and _I'm_ happy to play it as it lies.  As the spell stands, the qualification is "if the auras are in your line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each".  It's pretty clear from this that - as written - you get the rest of the information whether or not the aura is in your line of sight.  House-ruling the spell to make it function as you want it to is perfectly reasonable, but it's not a "loophole" to suggest that the spell works the way it's written.




Yes, the fact that it doesn't specify _is_ my problem. I tend to argue that when there does not exist a specific function, make no assumptions and assume the least powerful effect. One statement which doesn't pertain to the function you're trying to operate isn't a blanket statement to say you automatically get the ability to locate something and the specific kind of location you want (in this case, the grid space of an invisible creature). 

Quite honestly, yes, because it doesn't specify my interpretation as I worded it, how I handle Detect Magic is a house-rule. However, allowing the ability to pinpoint exact location is _also_ a house-rule. If you played this spell without interpreting it whatsoever, then this spell would provide you only the "location" of whatever you're trying to find. You'd be hard pressed to know what that means because location is a general term that could refer to anything, even as broad as plane of existence. You're forced to house-rule, that's what I'm doing, that's what you're doing, that's what everyone must do. Neither of us have the law of RAW on our side. We are merely arguing the rationality for our decisions, for even if one side conceded (which I wouldn't necessarily want you to do,) it doesn't end the debate.



Persiflage said:


> It doesn't function anything like _See Invisibility_.  _See Invisibility_ allows you to see invisible things.  _Detect Magic _allows you to tell which square a magical aura is in, and _Arcane Sight_ does the same thing by means of visual information: _See Invisibility_ and _Arcane Sight_ are by no means equivalent, although they are nicely complementary.




I didn't say equivalent, I was quite careful in my wording to say that they would be similar. They would both operate a function that pinpoints an invisible creature.



Persiflage said:


> _Detect Magic_. . . relies on line-of-effect rather than line-of-sight, and its parameters for line-of-effect are well-specified in the spell description.




I agree wholeheartedly, but how the spell functions and what functions it bestows upon the user are different entirely. Having line of effect gives you the ability to use this spell on creatures you cannot see, but not necessarily the ability to notice something hidden or invisible.



Persiflage said:


> _True Seeing_ isn't mentioned there either.  Neither is _Glitterdust_.  Neither is Dust of Appearance.  Neither is _Invisibility Purge_.  Neither is _Faerie Fire_.  So what?




That's exactly my point, those specify in their spell descriptions that it can allow you to pinpoint/see invisible creatures. They are part of the explicit ways you can detect an unseen or hidden creature.



Persiflage said:


> . . .but your real problem with it seems to be because of _Arcane Sight_. . .




You'd think that, but nope! It's mostly those people with Detect Magic at will who move slowly toward their destination so that a small area in front of them is always on the third turn of Detect Magic, a larger area in front of them is on the second turn, and the remaining area up to 60 ft in front of them is on the first turn. The effects of Arcane Sight can be easily replicated to a limited degree, it's better not to let it grow too strong.


----------



## Persiflage (Aug 9, 2010)

HoboGod said:


> It's not necessarily sight that I'm talking about when I'm referring to line of sight, it's the general affect of line of sight,




False.  You specifically ruled out my comparison with Detect Thoughts because, and I quote:



			
				HoboGod said:
			
		

> Detecting someones thoughts doesn't involve sight, so I don't see how that's relevant to the argument.




And now you're saying  you weren't talking about sight at all?



> Yes, the fact that it doesn't specify _is_ my problem. I tend to argue that when there does not exist a specific function, make no assumptions and assume the least powerful effect.




The specific function exists: you just don't like it.  Your argument only holds water if "location" can reasonably mean something other than the most obvious interpretation which is "the square something is in".



> One statement which doesn't pertain to the function you're trying to operate isn't a blanket statement to say you automatically get the ability to locate something and the specific kind of location you want (in this case, the grid space of an invisible creature).




"The specific kind of location you want".  Oh come on.  If "location" isn't defined anywhere, as seems to be the thrust of your argument, then how would the wording "exact location" help?  Where in D&D is "location" used to mean something other than "where something is"?  Are you therefore saying that the Blindsense ability is unclear because "location" isn't defined, or do you let creatures with Blindsense know which square the characters are in, rather than just "somewhere in the room"?

What about if you pinpoint a creature's *location* with a Spot check?

What about Tremorsense?  That pinpoints a creature's *location* if it's in contact with the ground.

References to "location" are scattered all through the rules, and they all refer to "the square something is in".



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Closest Creature:* When it's important to determine the closest square or creature to a *location*, if two squares or creatures are equally close, randomly determine which one counts as closest by rolling a die.




What does location mean there?  Yes, that's right, it's a square or number of squares, because that is how you locate something in D&D, at least at a tactical level.  



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A weapon of this type enables its wielder to determine the *location*, depth, kind, and number of aquatic predators within 680 feet.




What could this mean, other than the square that enemies are in?



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> If the bearer of the rod concentrates for a full round, the rod pinpoints the *location* of the nearest enemy and indicates how many enemies are within range.






			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A blinded creature must first pinpoint the *location* of an opponent _in order to attack the right square_






			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Location:* A *location* trigger springs a trap when someone _stands in a particular square_.




Location is not an ambiguous term.



> Quite honestly, yes, because it doesn't specify my interpretation as I worded it, how I handle Detect Magic is a house-rule. However, allowing the ability to pinpoint exact location is _also_ a house-rule.




No, it is not.  Your argument that it _is_ depends on there being an interpretation of "location" other than the one you seem perfectly happy with in all other contexts: in other words, an inconsistent interpretation that makes the spell do only what you want it to do.



> You're forced to house-rule, that's what I'm doing, that's what you're doing, that's what everyone must do. Neither of us have the law of RAW on our side.




At this point, I'm going to say that the burden of proof for your assertion - i.e., that there's sufficient ambiguity in the term "location" to warrant further discussion - rests firmly with you.  The Rules As Written, with their liberal use of the word "location" to mean "where something is", seem to support my argument better than yours.



> I didn't say equivalent, I was quite careful in my wording to say that they would be similar. They would both operate a function that pinpoints an invisible creature.




Deary me... alright, they are not SIMILAR then, they are _complementary_.  For what it's worth, equivalence = "degree of similarity".  _Detect Magic_ only allows you to locate an invisible creature if it has an aura of magic that isn't disguised or suppressed in some way.  _See Invisibility_ allows you to SEE things that are INVISIBLE. 



> I agree wholeheartedly, but how the spell functions and what functions it bestows upon the user are different entirely.




OK, that was the sound of one hand clapping...



> Having line of effect gives you the ability to use this spell on creatures you cannot see, but not necessarily the ability to notice something hidden or invisible.




False.  Even if your contention was correct and you didn't know which square an invisible creature was in, the fact that there are more separate auras than "things you can see" means that you've automatically noticed that there's _something_ hidden or invisible in the area and tells you that you need to deploy counter-tactics.  Hell, if the spell registers "presence of magical aura" in Round One and if you can't see anything to be causing it, you know that there's an in-place spell effect that you can't see.



> It's mostly those people with Detect Magic at will who move slowly toward their destination so that a small area in front of them is always on the third turn of Detect Magic, a larger area in front of them is on the second turn, and the remaining area up to 60 ft in front of them is on the first turn.




Hats off to them for a fairly creative - if pretty useless - tactic.  Face it, if you're low enough level to make this worth your while, then _invisibility_ remains a *really serious problem* even if you know which square the creature is in.  You _might_ get a round's warning though, which is better than nothing.  If you're high enough level that the total concealment afforded by _invisibility_ is not a problem, you won't be messing about with yawn-inducing _Detect Magic_ tactics.  Besides which, as I've pointed out many times, this is hardly an _invisibility_ gimp: it's a slightly-effective counter-tactic to a limited subset of ways in which something can be _invisible_.


----------



## HoboGod (Aug 10, 2010)

Oh my god, you're driving this way too hard. You're nitpicking my posts for the slightest of contradictions. I'm telling you I meant the function of line of sight and you're saying that I didn't mean that at all because I used "sight" instead of "line of sight" at one point? Don't tell me what I mean when I say it, I'm the one who said it.  I'm glad to clarify anything I say, I'm confident that communication is a fluid state, I'm only human, and I cannot read your mind. All I ask is that you please attempt to understand what I'm trying to say before trying to attack it.

When you speak of closest creature, that's location relative to something else, the meaning is explicit. I'm not sure what that second one is even talking about, give me a page number or something. The rod and blindness entries both indicate to pinpoint a location, explicit meaning. The trap entry of what a location trap indicates that it is of a specific square, explicit meaning. And what's more, a location trap wouldn't necessarily relate to the meaning of location in Detect Magic as a dung beetle and dung pile aren't directly correlated (a dung beetle isn't made of dung and dung pile isn't a pile that rolls dung into balls.)



> Even if your contention was correct and you didn't know which square  an invisible creature was in, the fact that there are more separate  auras than "things you can see" means that you've automatically noticed  that there's _something_ hidden or invisible in the area and tells  you that you need to deploy counter-tactics.  Hell, if the spell  registers "presence of magical aura" in Round One and if you can't see  anything to be causing it, you know that there's an in-place spell  effect that you can't see.



I used the word "notice" in the context of pinpointing their location. I'm not arguing that you can't detect their presence. I'm only arguing that you can't find their exact location.



> The Rules As Written, with their liberal use of the word "location" to  mean "where something is", seem to support my argument better than  yours.



This is the core of our argument, where we are strongly divided. You are allowing a liberal usage of the word "location" as RAW. I am not saying that if it was worded to say "exact location," it would be any better. I'm saying if it were worded in a manner that it describes it AS the exact location. For example, if it were to say "after 3 rounds, this spell pinpoints the location of a hidden or invisible creature," that would be wording it in a manner that it locates the exact location. Such that it doesn't mention anything like that, it makes me wonder if that's what it actually says. Location IS ambiguous.



> At this point, I'm going to say that the burden of proof for your  assertion - i.e., that there's sufficient ambiguity in the term  "location" to warrant further discussion - rests firmly with you.



How can I prove ambiguity? That's like saying I have to prove that a creature believed to be scientifically undetectable doesn't exist. The fact that I can interpret it differently means there is ambiguity. I think location can refer to either direction or affirmation of existence within a line of effect. It doesn't necessarily have to pinpoint anything and the very fact that there's nothing that indicates otherwise, I'd say it's pretty ambiguous.

EDIT: And in terms of ambiguity, it's close relative "vagueness" is all over the entry on Detect Magic. The entry makes no mention of this spell being usable against creatures or invisible things. Everything else that pinpoints invisible creatures tends to be less vague on the subject.


----------

