Can Arcane Sight see invisibility

[frankthedm]

You've already let him get away with something that requires a house-rule to do in the first place; normally, he'd be required to cast Permanency himself.

OP did not 'let' him get away with anything. DM gave the player the benefit of the doubt that the caster’s player knew what he was doing and that the character had a legal target for the spell. Next session the DM simply tells the player the permanency spell failed for some reason.

OP, considering the player made two major rules screw ups, Arcane sight being personal and not being a legal Permanency option for others, you might have to have a little talk with the player about how to read spell entries.

 

[Artoomis]

...Since this light source has a radius of illumination of 0, it will not be visible at range from another target trying to see it, since anything times 0 is 0. And since Rules Compendium specifically overrides RAW, I think the debate ends there.

Only if a magical aura is equated to a light source of range "0" and you are worried about how far away you can see it in the dark. Hardly a sure thing. That is somewhat akin to stating that if I am lit up by a Glitterdust the rules for light apply. Range 0... etc., etc.

Either you cannot see it because it is ...well.. invisible, or you can see it if it is within your range of normal vision because the aura is visible.

How far away you can see it in the dark is not the question, which is what a light range of "0" might answer, if that was what is was.

 

[Artoomis]

This is definately a judgement call, and on those I tend to defer to the FAQ, if an entry exists. The FAQ has this to say on the matter:

Is it possible for detect magic to locate an invisible
creature?
Yes, although not very efficiently. Remember that detect
magic reveals the location of magical auras over the course of 3
rounds. A creature rendered invisible by a spell or magical
effect could be located via detect magic, but only after 3 rounds
of concentration. Furthermore, the invisible creature must
remain within the spell’s area for the entire 3 rounds of
concentration; if the creature moves out of the area, the process
must start again from the beginning. However, even if
everything works according to plan, you still don’t necessarily
know that you’ve found an invisible creature—at best, the
caster of detect magic would know that she had located a faint
aura of illusion magic in a particular space.

Of course, Arcane Sight is considerably more efficient, since using three rounds to locate an aura does not apply.

However, note:

..."you still don’t necessarily
know that you’ve found an invisible creature—at best, the
caster of detect magic would know that she had located a faint
aura of illusion magic in a particular space."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Only if a magical aura is equated to a light source of range "0" and you are worried about how far away you can see it in the dark.

Missing the point - they're not talking about perceiving the aura.

They're talking about casting Arcane Sight and Invisibility on yourself, and whether someone can still see your invisible glowing eyes.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

Missing the point - they're not talking about perceiving the aura.

They're talking about casting Arcane Sight and Invisibility on yourself, and whether someone can still see your invisible glowing eyes.

-Hyp.

Ummmm.. okay. That was not clear at all. Still isn't, after re-reading, but I'll take your word for it.

 

[moritheil]

Ummmm.. okay. That was not clear at all. Still isn't, after re-reading, but I'll take your word for it.

Hyp's reading is how I take it - which is not at all what the OP was referring to, so any confusion is entirely understandable.

I think you have an excellent point that equating auras to light sources is far from iron-clad.

 

[Deset Gled]

Since this light source has a radius of illumination of 0, it will not be visible at range from another target trying to see it, since anything times 0 is 0. And since Rules Compendium specifically overrides RAW, I think the debate ends there.

I can't argue with your logic, but this new rule makes me very glad that I don't play with the RC. The concept that a light source has to have a 5' radius of illumination to be at all visible in the dark is just silly. This is a case of rounding leading to ridiculousness.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Since this light source has a radius of illumination of 0, it will not be visible at range from another target trying to see it, since anything times 0 is 0. And since Rules Compendium specifically overrides RAW, I think the debate ends there.

Wait, so ANY light source of range 0 is invisible by RCRAW (Rules Compendium RAW, let's not equate the two)? This is regardless of the source object being invisible, is it not? Let's put the Observer in bright light, so what happens when he looks at a two light sources of 0 range, one on an invisible object and one on a visible one. What does RCRAW tell you?

 

[Will]

Well, it's also pretty incorrect; in pitch darkness, the human eye can see a candle several miles away.

Now, in anything but pitch darkness, I actually agree with the RCRAW; if there are shadows and flickering lights in various places, or motes reflecting in the distance, you may very well not pick up a glimmer of light.

Keep in mind that the invisibility rules mean you don't see two glowing eyes, you see whatever is lit by them. And since the eyes aren't described as being a valid light source, clearly the amount of illumination is miniscule.

I'd probably rule that if the invisible guy with arcane vision puts his face near some visible object, observers would have a chance of noticing the strange glimmer against the visible object (why is that wall suddenly lighter blue RIGHT THERE?), but otherwise?

 

[Deset Gled]

Keep in mind that the invisibility rules mean you don't see two glowing eyes, you see whatever is lit by them. And since the eyes aren't described as being a valid light source, clearly the amount of illumination is miniscule.

I'd probably rule that if the invisible guy with arcane vision puts his face near some visible object, observers would have a chance of noticing the strange glimmer against the visible object (why is that wall suddenly lighter blue RIGHT THERE?), but otherwise?

I agree that the glowing eyes shouldn't be a dead givaway. When dealing with similar situations in the past, I have just modified the DCs and bonuses normally associated with being invisible (theoretically, this would be the same as granting the spotter a circumstance bonus). For example, the normal DC for spotting the presense an immobile, invisible creature is 30. With their eyes glowing, I would bump that down to about 20.