Can Arcane Sight see invisibility

[Kylas]

In our latest meeting the PC's in my group were harassed by a group of NPC's one of which was invisible and managed to escape. After some downtime the wizard of the group hires a mage who casts Permanency: Arcane Sight on him. He says that now he can see invisible characters cause of their magical aura. I disagreed but couldn't find anything to counter it.

Does arcane sight, detect magic and similar effects (occult slayer gets something like this) essentially nullify invisibility. Does invisibility give off a magic aura? What about other glamers. What about alterself/changeshpe type spells.

Also, now that he has Arcane Sight he says I have to describe every magic aura that comes within his vision. How do I handle that. Do I have to always remember for every NPC's items or does he have to actually concentrate. (He'll probably argue that he is always concentrating)

 

[MarkB]

No concentration required for the basics. He can see all magical auras within line of sight, and identify them with a Spellcraft check, no action required.

Of course, all that gets him is that there's an Illusion-school aura in a particular square. He can't actually see what's projecting that aura, and he still can't see the creature itself, so he still suffers a 50% miss chance when targeting it.

And yeah, that's potentially a lot of auras and Spellcraft checks to manage.

Bear in mind that most opponents capable of routinely employing invisibility will be able to counter his ability fairly easily once they're aware of it, by hitting him with Dispel Magic. Don't make it a priority, but keep it in mind for any spellcasting recurring villain.

 

[Kat']

Well he can see the aura for sure, but that still doesn't mean he sees the invisible character, resulting in the 50% miss chance.

If you want to maintain the surprise effect, Nondetection is your friend.

 

[Jack Simth]

Hmm... where to begin...

First off, under Permanency, Arcane sight is under the list for "You can make the following spells permanent in regard to yourself." - not under "In addition to personal use, permanency can be used to make the following spells permanent on yourself, another creature, or an object (as appropriate)"; you can't hire someone to do it for you, although you could do it by way of a scroll or a Ring of Spell Storing (you read the scroll, you're the caster; you activate the ring of spell storing, you're the caster). 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.

Secondly, it just sees auras. You know which square it's in, so you've got a target for Glitterdust, but you don't see the actual person, so you still suffer a 50% miss chance.

Third - he's technically within his rights to ask you to describe magical auras he encounters; Arcane Sight doesn't even need concentration. Fortunately, most items list their aura type and strength in the item description, but to get the school, he's got a spellcraft check to make (which, for a Wizard, is likely trivial - it's only 15+spell level, or 15 + 1/2 caster level for a nonspell effect). Likewise, stronger auras can drown out weaker auras; you're well within your rights to just list the aura of the highest level spell on the target.

Fourth - there are counters. Magic Aura will do the job for items - and as he's only looking at Auras, there's no save for that use. Misdirection calls for a Will save on the part of the looker, but will also do the job quite handily. Nondetection requires a caster level check on his part - based on the caster level of the spell he's using, not his natural caster level; he's stuck with whatever caster level is on the Arcane Sight that he used. Mind Blank arguably stops it, by way of the "information gathering by divination spells or effects" clause. Greater Dispel Magic has a chance of getting rid of the effect entirely (do note: There's a minimum caster level for Arcane Sight of 11th, so you'll want the Greater version of Dispel Magic, not the normal verson).

Fifth: He's just volunteered himself out of all stealth operations. Arcane Sight makes your eyes glow, and Invisibility isn't permitted to eliminate light sources. There's an odd blue glow that gives away his position wherever he goes. Additionally, when he's not covering his eyes, he's obviously a caster (glowing eyes). Unfortunately, he can cover his eyes at all times if he uses lenses (such as, say, Goggles of Night) as the spell requires Line of Sight, not Line of Effect.

 

[Maldor]

he can still use Invisibility the light source is invisiable it is the light that is not but the light of arcane sight is not strong enough to light a area so there is not enough light to being seen the glow is just a cool bit of fluff

 

[Robichaud]

I've always interpreted this scenario as pretty simple, yeah - you can't see magical auras on an object you can't see to begin with.

 

[Darklone]

I've always interpreted this scenario as pretty simple, yeah - you can't see magical auras on an object you can't see to begin with.

Right. But you can always see the lingering auras where we was.

 

[Will]

I'd say much like the majority; you can figure out 'hey, something's in that square!' But it's still invisible.

As for the glow of arcane sight while invisible... this gets into one of those 'what do you see if a torch is invisible?' I'd say perceptive creatures in twilight or absolutely dark conditions can pick out the square such a character is in with a good spot check (DC 20?) or if they happen to be next to the character (this requires house ruling, because there's no fixed rule for this that I'm aware of).

I mean, consider that glowing eyes doesn't qualify as even the light equivalent of a candle as a light source.

This might seem a little powerful, but keep in mind one Dispel Magic means the 'permanent' spell is GONE. Thanks for the XP!

 

[Deset Gled]

he can still use Invisibility the light source is invisiable it is the light that is not but the light of arcane sight is not strong enough to light a area so there is not enough light to being seen the glow is just a cool bit of fluff

1. Punctuation and capital letters are your friends. I would humbly suggest using them in the future.

2. Invisibility states "Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). " There is no minimum amount of light necessary to shine through invisibility, and even the smallest twinkle will shine in complete darkness.

3. Fluff rules are still rules.

Bottom line, a player with Arcane Sight will never be truly invisible.

 

[Mistwell]

1. Punctuation and capital letters are your friends. I would humbly suggest using them in the future.

2. Invisibility states "Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). " There is no minimum amount of light necessary to shine through invisibility, and even the smallest twinkle will shine in complete darkness.

3. Fluff rules are still rules.

Bottom line, a player with Arcane Sight will never be truly invisible.

Rules Compendium gives the rule for seeing a light source at a distance, and it is based on the radius of the light source for visibility from the perspective of the light source location.

In open spaces, a light source can be spotted from much farther away than its radius of illumination. An observer who succeeds on a DC 20 spot check sees the light from a distance as indicated below, and one who fails the Spot check automatically notices the light source at half that range.

Observer in Complete Darkness: A light source can be spotted at a distance of up to 20 times its radius of illumination.

Observer in Dim Light: A light source can be spotted at a distance of up to 10 times its radius of illumination.

Using Distant Illumination: Observers outside the illumination radius of a light source can see into the illumination just fine, making Spot checks as normal to discern creatures or objects in the illuminated area.

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.