Hide vs. Detect spells and the like

[radmod]

A couple of caveats about a long winded post - bear with me please. First, I'm not sure how well this has been addressed here, but of what I've seen there have been no definite answers (essentially there are two camps). Second, I've been doing D&D for a long time, so I often get rules mixed up between 1e to 3.5e. Finally, this has nothing to do with 4.0.

The question is how do various detect spells, SLAs work vs. hide.
For invisibility, I've always thought it to be clear. Invisibility makes you and your gear invisible. This includes the 'aura' that is detectable. Glitterdust falls on you (and essentially becomes part of you) so a reapplication of invisibility can make it invisible. Faerie Fire, OTH, OUTLINES you so re-invisibility does not make it go away.
Now to hide. Apparently detection spells do not necessarily require L0S as they are senses (a blind character can still sense evil like a mage could detect magic in a closed box). As such, a hide would not make the aura of your magic go away. Playing RAW, it would make it very difficult for a rogue to hide against a paladin or a permanent detect magic/arcane sight. And that, quite frankly, bites ("What do you mean my Hide check of 50 does no good?").

I believe the real question becomes "how big is an aura?" IIRC, some are defined as being 10 ft. (aura of courage) but most are undefined. A pro-evil (technically not an aura) creates a 1 ft. barrier. According to the DM spell, some auras overwhelm others. This seems to imply a more powerful aura would likely have a 'larger' aura.

So how big is an aura? How does having more powerful magic items affect the size of your aura? Can one effectively hide against detections spells?

I'm thinking a few solutions right now:
1) The logical solution is that against a detect spell a hide check would take a penalty for the things that could be detected. Just like trying to hide behind a tree while holding a couple of logs would give a circumstance penalty so would having more and more powerful items. The problem with this is that a lot of math would be involved.
2) When a character attempts to hide against something that could 'detect' it, the 'detector' makes two spot checks, a normal one and a special one, using the same die roll for both checks. The special check would be done like a detect spell vs. non-detection only in this case the check is vs. the Hide check. The 'detector' would add the caster level/character level of the spell/SLA to the die roll. If they detect the hider then they know his general area (his space).
3) Probably the easiest idea (and it works with #1 above) is to treat the hidden person's aura as a size modifier. That is, DM provides 4 separate aura strengths (faint, moderate, strong, overwhelming) that could be related to a size modifier (large, huge, gargantuan, colossal). Obviously, no magic would be normal size. A PC's aura size would be the 'size' of the most powerful magic item or functioning spell. Thus a rogue with a +1 dagger would take a penalty of -4 on a hide (or provide a +4 bonus to a spot) against a player with a detect on. Likewise, one with a relic would take a -16. A PC's personal aura (evil, good, lawful, etc.) would be based on HD with those having active auras (Paladins) taking an additional -4 penalty.
So, for example, a 10th level rogue with a +1 dagger is hiding from a Wiz and a Paladin. His hide check is a 27. The wizard (with DM) gets a +4 bonus to spot while the Pally gets a +8 (moderate) on the spot.

Now that I've written all this, someone please tell me this is covered elsewhere and essentially settled.

BTW, Arcane Sight and the like would be affected in the same manner UNLESS, of course, the hider was literally out of sight and just not concealed (behind a desk, a tree, etc.)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

(FWIW, I'm referencing 3.5.)

Most detection spells use the word "sense," implying the ability is something beyond sight, for instance. If the detection can penetrate materials, hiding is only effective if the cover you're using to hide (if any) is too thick to penetrate. (By effective, I mean that eventually the detected aura will be pinpointed. That's all the detector would have, however.)

BTW, I think you're over-thinking some things. For example, glitterdust specifically uses the word "outlines," which was your criteria for faerie fire working through multiple invisibility spells. IMO, if you're under the influence of either of those spells, or similar spells, you just can't be invisible.

 

[Starbuck_II]

For invisibility, I've always thought it to be clear. Invisibility makes you and your gear invisible. This includes the 'aura' that is detectable.

An aura isn't an object. Invisibility only makes creatures and objects invisible (read the spell).

Sorry, I know you think illusion is the best school ever, but Divination beats it. That is the schools purpose.

 

[radmod]

An aura isn't an object. Invisibility only makes creatures and objects invisible (read the spell).

Sorry, I know you think illusion is the best school ever, but Divination beats it. That is the schools purpose.

Wherever did you get the impression I think illusion is the best school ever? That's the first thing I drop when specializing. Especially since 3.5 watered it down (though it needed to be).
An aura is part of the person's being, like his arm or leg. As such, it falls under the invisibility spell.

As to Glitterdust: No, it does not 'outline'; the dust 'covers' causing 'outlining'. Perhaps it's semantics but that's very important in D&D. The glitterdust is an object that can be made invisible. Faerie Fire, OTH, is not an object and therefore is unaffected by invisibility.
BTW, that's the way every group I've ever seen has played it, from 1st ed. to now.

The point to and question in my original post is about how hide can be made better or clarified so that stealthy characters aren't screwed by simple spells/SLAs. In a campaign I'm in, a stealthy character with a +20(+) Hide is essentially being screwed by my own Permanent Arcane Sight + See Invisibility. His inviso is useless but he can easily beat my Spot (+10). I don't think it's fair that I can use DM/AS to pinpoint his location so easily and I'm looking for some good ideas/arguments.

 

[radmod]

(FWIW, I'm referencing 3.5.)

Most detection spells use the word "sense," implying the ability is something beyond sight, for instance. If the detection can penetrate materials, hiding is only effective if the cover you're using to hide (if any) is too thick to penetrate. (By effective, I mean that eventually the detected aura will be pinpointed. That's all the detector would have, however.)

That's a really good argument but still screws the standard rogue (unless he doesn't want to have magic items, etc.). The question I would have then is what about vs. Arcane Sight which isn't a sense but requires the ability to see the target (or somesuch). Can a PC hide from Arcane Sight but not Detect Magic? This where I have problems correlating the two.

 

[IronWolf]

As to Glitterdust: No, it does not 'outline'; the dust 'covers' causing 'outlining'. Perhaps it's semantics but that's very important in D&D. The glitterdust is an object that can be made invisible.

This portion is probably more of a rules forum question, but....

Glitterdust sparkles:

All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades.

And invisibility does not appear to douse light/sparkling:

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).

That's cool if that is how the groups you have been in, but I am not sure I am buying it as the intent of RAW.

 

[TheClone]

Try this thread. Should cover exactly the same topic and solves it mostly to an end.

 

[radmod]

Ironwolf, I am completely embarrassed. You picked up on the one word that several of us in RL had completely missed: "sparkle". Now that I'm rereading the spell and actually reading "sparkle" in there, I have to admit you are right. Sometimes us old-timers are so set in our ways, I think we unconsciously ignore what we don't want to see. I'll pass on the news to the rogue who's trying to hide from me (really, though, I DON'T want to see him, it will kill him - literally).

 

[radmod]

Try this thread. Should cover exactly the same topic and solves it mostly to an end.

Unfortunately, it doesn't (specifically hide vs. AS), which was why I posted this. I'm just trying to see what people think. As I said on the other thread, the RAW seems to indicate that a successful hide check would block sight, therefore AS wouldn't work (but a DM would). I just can't get the two to mesh up as I would like.
Right now I'm just going to have to go with the sense (DM) vs. the vision thing (AS). Kind of like you walk into a dark room and can smell the fresh baked cookies but just can't see them.

 

[TheClone]

I was wondering the whole time why hide doesn't help against DM. Because you need cover to hide and cover most of the time will block DM, because it is too thick (like a foot of stone or whatever it was). But I didn't want to put more oil to the fire.I guess, I'd judge that based on the occasion but it surely helps to have read these two discussions.