Detect Magic vs. Hide/Invisibil.

[Horrendos]

Hiho Community,

is it possible to detect someone hiding or using a INv-Potion with the Spell Detect Magic if he/she is wearing magical items?

The Range of the Spell is a 60ft-Cone.


thx
Horrendos

 

[notjer]

well I dont know, but it would be kind of lame if detect magic is better than the spell detect invisibility for detecting those who use invisibility imo...

 

[Yair]

Assuming the person hiding has magic items or functioning spells (like invisibility) on him, yes you would detect their aura's strength and location (by the third round, if you focus on the area). Since there is no line of sight, you would not be able to determine the school.
Note that a thin sheet of lead will conceal the aura, and that the DM is given some leeway in that "Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras."

If you don't like this you can house-rule it ("detect magic only works on items you can see" or somesuch), but IMHO by the rules detect magic will detect those stealthy pesks.

A relatred problem is illusion spells - not very impressive when a 1st level spell can determine their illusionary nature...

 

[Falconnan]

well I dont know, but it would be kind of lame if detect magic is better than the spell detect invisibility for detecting those who use invisibility imo...

Detect magic allows:
1st round-presence or absence of magical auras
2nd round-Number of magical auras and power of the strongest
3rd round-Strength and location of each aura

It is important to note that for detect magic to identify which square of the 60 foot cone the target is in, you would have to keep the cone on one spot for three rounds, and they would have to stay in the area of the cone for that long. If they move out of the cone, or you move the cone to a new area, the three rounds to locate the aura start again.
Also, you know the location of the aura. This does not get rid of the 50% miss chance. Finally, as soon as they move, they know you might be able to find them, and if they are a rogue or assassin, you are screwed.

Arcane sight would let you find their square, but that miss chance is still there. Basically, these spells are only somewhat helpful. Hope that helps.

 

[Falconnan]

Since there is no line of sight, you would not be able to determine the school.

Actually, line of sight simply means that there is nothing between you and the subject to interfere with vision. It is not quite the same as saying you have to be able to see the target. Besides, it's a detect spell. If you have to be able to see it before you detect it, that would seem kind of pointless, don't ya think?

For example:

"There's an invisible guy in here?"
"You mean we can't see him?"
"Right. But I think he's over by the chair."
"Nuts! I can't use my spells to find something if I don't know where it is."

Food for thought.

 

[Yair]

Actually, line of sight simply means that there is nothing between you and the subject to interfere with vision. It is not quite the same as saying you have to be able to see the target. Besides, it's a detect spell. If you have to be able to see it before you detect it, that would seem kind of pointless, don't ya think?
[snip funny example]

Food for thought.

I believe you are confusing Line of Effect

Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It’s like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it’s not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.

With Line of Sight ,

3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. 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 + half caster level for a nonspell effect.)

I can't find a direct qoute of what a "line of sight" is, but it seems obvious to me that if you can't see something, it isn't in your line of sight. I may be mistaken.
While the spell works in general to detect all things in the area, the ability to discern the school of magic specifically is limited to line of sight.

But we agree in practice: the spell can be used to locate the hiding person (to within 5' - he still has full concealment as you noted).

 

[Hypersmurf]

I can't find a direct qoute of what a "line of sight" is, but it seems obvious to me that if you can't see something, it isn't in your line of sight. I may be mistaken.

You do have line of sight to someone who is invisible, if there are no obstacles, or mist, or darkness, or whatever. You just can't see them

But the invisibility affects the person, not the aura of the spell, so it's no more or less visible than it would be otherwise

-Hyp.

 

[Bauglir]

Line of sight and line of effect are very similar, but there are a few differences.

Lets say you're in a room by a glass window, and someone passes by outside - you would have line of sight to that person, but not line of effect (the window would block that) - imagine a laser from your eyes to that person - that's line of sight. Now lets say that person was invisible - their invisibility in no way impedes that laser (note that you don't need to know where to point this hypothetical laser, it is sufficient that it can exist).

IMO at least

 

[Yair]

Line of sight and line of effect are very similar, but there are a few differences.

Lets say you're in a room by a glass window, and someone passes by outside - you would have line of sight to that person, but not line of effect (the window would block that) - imagine a laser from your eyes to that person - that's line of sight. Now lets say that person was invisible - their invisibility in no way impedes that laser (note that you don't need to know where to point this hypothetical laser, it is sufficient that it can exist).

IMO at least

But the question is (if you can target the laser only on things within your light of sight) could you target the *person* with the laser? I argue that you can target the square he is standing on, but not him - since he is not in sight. This falls under the "whatever else may be limiting your vision" category. But I am on shaky grounds, I admit.
Can someone locate a good definition of line of sight?

 

[Yair]

Now that I'm home, I've opened the PH glossary:

If you can't see the target (for instance, if you're blind or the target is invisible), you can't have line of sight to it even if you could draw an unblocked line between your space and the target's.