Invisibility vs. Arcane Sight or Detect Magic

[RangerWickett]

I can't find a ruling for this. Arcane Sight lets you see magical auras, and an invisibility spell certainly is magical. Heck, Detect Magic lets you do the same thing. But it seems a little wrong to let a cantrip tell you where an invisible critter is.

Sure, unlike see invisibility, you don't see its precise location, so you still have a miss chance, but, well, I had on Greater Arcane Sight in a game tonight, and it would've really helped me when I was trying to target the invisible kobold rogues.

 

[green slime]

Of course it works. It is only the general area, after all, and only the school tye if lucky.

And with detect magic you have to concetrate.

 

[Christian]

I've used Detect Magic to track down invisible creatures before, and it's really not terribly helpful. Runs kinda like this:
Round one: cast the spell, determine that there are magical auras in the direction you're facing.
Round two: concentrate on auras, determine type & number.
Round three: concentrate again, pinpoint aura locations.
Round four: Attack location pinpointed in round three. Spell ends; if target hasn't moved, could be hit subject to successful attack roll and 50% miss chance.
Round five: Cast detect magic again ...

(Actually, round four was 'cast Glitterdust', a somewhat more effective tactic. )

Arcane sight should work fine, other than still having the 50% miss chance. But that's a third level spell ...

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

Once the third round passes, then you coul possibly locate the square that being is in, and use a free action to tell the other members, but that would only last as long as that being stayed there, most likely, he would not.

Also, if I saw a mage concentrating, and I was invisible, I would assume the worst, and start trying to disrupt his concentration.

Arcane sight would work, with the standard 50% miss chance, as Christian said.