Search results

3.5 SRD, "Magic Overview: Arcane Spells: Preparing Wizard Spells: Spell Selection and Preparation": Similar language under "Divine Spells".

I disagree. If there's two monsters, there are clearly two effects. Just because the header format doesn't provide for "Effects(s)" is insufficient evidence otherwise. Consider also the following which argues that one monster = one effect, and contradicts your prior argument that there's a...

Just for the record, my reading is exactly the opposite.

I'd say blocks it.

Seems simple. You don't see it, you can't target it. (Similarly, even if you see someone cast invisibility on their self, and know they're still in the area, you still can't target them with a spell.)

Well, I don't think so, because arcane sight still only talks about auras, while only greater arcane sight talks about individual spells. Anyway, I appreciate the discussion. I realize that most people don't play it this way, but my honest reading is that auras are a one-per-object-or-creature...

Absolutely. :) Now, would you agree that you've been able to "detect" spells in the 1st & 2nd rounds? If so, then we agree that "detect" != "see". And hence with specific regard to the detect magic short description, it can hold true without "seeing" spells, only "detecting" them.

The quote is only shorthand for what detect magic does. I completely agree that locating an aura = detecting a spell. But my point is: (1) auras are properties of objects and creatures, not spells themselves, and hence (2) "detecting" a spell is not the same thing as "seeing" it. A question: At...

In fact, you don't even need to pretend. In fantasy & the occult, that's exactly what auras are: a glow of one particular color around or above any person or object. That's easily Google-able. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=reading+auras

Interestingly, I gave the same choice and everyone chose level loss. My biggest power-gamer made an argument that "XP I can earn back in the future; Con loss is irrecoverable and makes for a permanently crippled character that I don't want to play".

I totally agree, if you can see it, you can dispel it (no Spellcraft roll to identify needed). The only place we differ is whether detect magic lets you see spells -- a much better example, I would think, is me looking at you with thermal imaging-goggles. I'm not seeing "you", I'm seeing your...

As I read up in this, it also occurs to me that some of those examples also unfortunately contradict the paragraph under "Magic Item Basics" where it says this (from the SRD): Perhaps we need to go through and see of all the multi-examples share the same spell level or not. Of course, this...

I would think Moderate transmutation. Possibly Moderate transmutation and illusion.

My pleasure. I would assume it's in 3.5, but I don't have that DMG.

An aura is only a side-effect of a spell. None of those detect spells actually let you see spells (yes, you "detect spells"... by inference, when you "see an aura"). In fact, they don't even tell you exactly what spells are there, except for greater arcane sight. In short, I can't imagine what...

Boy, I've derailed this thread. :) Well, no, because the full quote from detect magic is: It's talking about a locality, "areas" and "local magical emanations". That line isn't about magic on one object, it's about magic on separate objects in one area. A better example is any magic item...

Even seeing an "aura" is not the same as seeing a "spell". Most detect magic-type divinations will show an aura, a strength, and maybe a school -- but not the spell itself. The way I read it in the rules, objects or creatures only have one aura, regardless of how many spell effects they have on...

And I actually agree that greater arcane sight (in 3.5) is the only thing I can see that would allow that, as well.

Supposedly Liftport, Inc. has already opened a factory in New Jersey to produce the carbon nanotubes for use in a space elevator. From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in April: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/221576_liftport26.html

Because Mind Flayers & Beholders were actually mentioned in the 3.0 SRD in other contexts. Therefore the PI designation says "even if they're in the SRD, they're still not OGC". 3.0 SRD References to Beholder: Card in deck of illusions, example of Good flight maneuverability, example of target...