Detect magic vs invis


log in or register to remove this ad

People above generally have it right.

Think of it as radar. Provided the invisible creature stays in your "cone" for more than three rounds you get a "ping" every 3rd round. People can attack the square with a 50% miss chance, etc.

You wanted to play aliens right?
 

HandofMystra said:
I would argue that detect magic needs three rounds to get the location of an invisble creature while See Invisibility only needs a standard action.

Presumably you are referring to the casting of See Invisibility, because once it's cast, it doesn't need an action at all to see invisible things - you just see them, along with the visibile stuff.
 

And regarding the balance issues between a 0th-level and a 2nd-level spell that your DM is presumably concerned about--he shouldn't be. Having used this technique once, I can tell you without fear of contradiction that, as a method of coping with invisible opponents, it doesn't hold a candle to see invisibility. You spend three rounds trying to get a fix on an opponent, after which you get one chance to whack it. Taking that chance drops your concentration, so you can't detect your target any longer, so I hope you were successful! Alternatively, you can maintain your concentration and try to direct your teammates' fire. "He's right over there. No, there!" Real fun.

My sorcerer took glitterdust as his next second-level spell after that session. :)
 

Agreed, 3 rounds of combat is a lifetime, and you still don't negate the 50% miss chance. Heck, its probably better to walk around waving your arms about to find the guy.
 

When I was asked this question, I just said Detect Magic doesn't even notice.
If they were to press the point, fine, but I would have made just like the above posters did (3 rounds to pinpoint).
Most things using invisibility are smart enough to know what's going on, making 3 rounds a gift.

Or just cast See Invisible or True Seeing and don't worry about it.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top