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

[Dandu]

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

 

[HoboGod]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?