D&D 3E/3.5 Does/should nondetection block detect magic? 3.5 update (kinda)

[Olive]

The text describes effects on Divinations-that-reveal-auras and Detections. Detect Magic is a Detection, so the spell can be interpreted in such a fashion that the effect-on-Detections is applicable.

-Hyp.

But I don't think it does. I think it defines a type of divination. Detect Magic shares characteristics with that type of divination, but is of the wrong school, so it isn't one.

 

[LokiDR]

How do you know? It goes on to say that it melts metals etc. It could mean that creatures take 1d6/level points of damage, and objects are "damaged" because if they get hit by a lightning bolts, they catch fire or melt, ignoring hit points.

I know because that is not what lightning bolt says. It gives damage to a creature in its path, then later says it also damages objects. Note: it does not say "ignoring hit points".

It also says "If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the bolt may continue" so it is dealing a variable set amount of damage. There is only 1 code in the spell for variable amount of damage.

You have to make the assumption that the rule "creatures take 1d6/level damage" also applies to the new category that has been added to the text after the initial brieg description of what the spell does.

Yes, but there is no other explanation. The spell does a variable amount of damage. It does not state it ignores hardness or hitpoints, so it does not ignore them. It does state it harms objects.

The initial brief description of Misdirection says it affects Divinations. But then it goes on to describe its effect on Detections.

There are detection spells that are divininations. So it is possible to union the two limits. This is as opposed to lightning bolt. 2 limits.

Since the text on Lightning Bolt's effect on objects is not limited by its initial statement that Lightning Bolt Damages Creatures, why is Misdirection's effect on Detect Magic limited by its initial statement that Misdirection affects Divinations? It doesn't say only Divinations. And the limitation at the end - "Other sorts of divination are not affected" - doesn't apply to Detect Magic, which isn't, as has been pointed out, a divination.

"from divination spells that reveal auras" That would be divination dection spells. Simple as that. "Spells that reveal auras" is just being clarified to dectection spells. Misdirection says both divination and dection which are not mutually exclusive. Lightning bolt mentions creatures and objects which is esentially mutually exclusive.

It is the difference between "It affects A B spells" and "It affects A. It affects B". In the first case, you must be both A and B. In the second case, you must be A or B.

The text describes effects on Divinations-that-reveal-auras and Detections. Detect Magic is a Detection, so the spell can be interpreted in such a fashion that the effect-on-Detections is applicable.

-Hyp.

"Divination that reveal auras". What reveal auras: dectection spells. So "Divination that reveal auras" could be written "Divination dectection spells". That phrase is absolutely clear.

Find a spell that adds a not mutually exclusive catagory to another catagory and we can use that as an example. I don't think you will find one.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

I've always played nondetection as protecting against detection spells. I mean, seriously, that's what it's for right?

 

[LokiDR]

I've always played nondetection as protecting against detection spells. I mean, seriously, that's what it's for right?

I have always thought of Detect Magic as a divination. It really is, isn't it?

 

[Olive]

So here's what the sage said to my question:

<< I noticed today that nondetection and misdirection detect divinations. As
Detect Magic is a spell of the universal school, does that mean that Detect
Magic can't be countered using either of these two spells? >>

Technically yes, but that's not the intent.
-------------------

Not surprising, at least to me.

 

[Olive]

Interstingly enough, due to 3.5 this is no longer an issue... I wonder if this was part of the reason for the change?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Sure makes sense to me. I'm suprised they didn't eliminate the Universals altogether for simplicity. I could see the remaining spells put into other schools fairly simply.

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, I think "universal" school spells are a cop-out. Stupid. I'd put 'em all in a school if I were doing 4e, and make people live with the consequences of having a barred school. After all, specialists get a lot from their specialization- especially that bonus spell at each level!

 

[Jhyrryl]

Of the 3.0 Universal spells, read magic, detect magic, and the symbols have been moved to appropriate schools. That leaves arcane mark, prestidigitation, permanency, limited wish, and wish as the last remaining Universal spells. I see all of these as "pure magic" effects that shouldn't be classified by school, especially since all but arcane mark are capable of producing effects from any school (or impacting effects from any school in the case of permanency.

 

[the Jester]

Of the 3.0 Universal spells, read magic, detect magic, and the symbols have been moved to appropriate schools. That leaves arcane mark, prestidigitation, permanency, limited wish, and wish as the last remaining Universal spells. I see all of these as "pure magic" effects that shouldn't be classified by school, especially since all but arcane mark are capable of producing effects from any school (or impacting effects from any school in the case of permanency.

Here's what I'd do:

Arcane mark could be transmutation or illusion (figment), depending on how you look at it;
Prestidigitation and permanency oughta be transmutation, imho;
Limited wish and wish oughta be conjurations or evocations (in 1e, they were conjuration/summoning spells). I'd go with conjuration, though they don't fit neatly in any of the subschools.

YMMV, of course.