Nondetection / True Seeing /

[Goolpsy]

why should mink blank effect "see invisibility" Wow, now you cant read my thoughts.. so you cant use your eyes either?

 

[Teemu]

If nondetection would only work against "clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells", why would it also work against "location by such magic items as crystal balls"? This would mean that you could be protected against the scrying spell of a crystal ball, but not the spell itself.

Doesn't make sense.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So your interpretation is the the authors wanted us to imagine a common theme/limitation using only the three listed items (which in your estimation are different enough from all other divination spells so that we can see the commonality) and then just didn't bother to mention explicitly what the commonality was?

No, my "interpretation" is that that is what they wrote. Whether or not that's what they wanted to write is immaterial. As for the commonality ...

1. Clairaudience/clairvoyance: Divination spells which allow you to view things at a distance via a remotely-created sensor. Also would include spells like Arcane Eye and Scrying.

2. Locate object: Spells which tell you the direction (and distance, sometimes) based on the diviner's mental image. Also would include spells like Locate Creature.

3. Detect spells: Spells which provide information about a creature's "metastats" - the state of its soul, its creature type, etc. Note that a Detect Magic spell would actually register against a creature so warded, because it could potentially detect the Nondetection spell itself, even though the creature would not register.

Now, since you're taking me to task because of my emphasis on the lack of a comma, I present Exhibit B, the Obscure Object spell (note, incidentally, that it is the very next spell in the SRD after Nondetection):

This spell hides an object from location by divination (scrying) effects, such as the scrying spell or a crystal ball.

Note, here, that the comma is used - and therefore, Obscure Object protects against all divination (scrying) effects; it is sufficient information to evaluate the sentence, and "the scrying spell or a crystal ball" is merely additional, superfluous, information.

So, this means we have two choices if we want to divine the writers' intentions:

1. The writers knew what they were doing. Nondetection protects against certain flavors of divination spells, regardless of their subtype, and Obscure Object protects against one particular subtype of divination effects. The writers' use of commas is consistent with their desired meaning.

2. The writers have no clue. It is equally as likely that the writers meant Nondetection to protect against all divinations as they meant Obscure Object to work against certain kinds of divination (scrying) effects. The writers' use of commas is inconsistent with their desired meaning.

Since I'm willing to give the writers the benefit of the doubt, I go with #1 - which means that we interpret the rules according to what the rules of grammar of the English language are, rather than as we might wish they were.

 

[Stalker0]

I still haven't seen one clear "rules" argument to say that nondetection doesn't work against true seeing, yet I have seen a very clear rule that say it would...ie nondetection wards against divination, true seeing is a divination.

Does anyone have an rules that counter this?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Uh, see above?

 

[Storyteller01]

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so forgive any ignorance.

For the True Seeing arguement, I think this line is key:
The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect ...

From the list given in the Nondetection description, it seems that the purpose of the spell is to not be located by scrying or ranged divination. It's intended to keep people from finding you.

It would not, IMO, protect from True Seeing since I'm not trying to locate you; or more specifically I've already located you. I can see you (detect you) just fine.

There's nothing in the Nondetection description that states Nondetection protects other effects once you are detected. Any other abilites in place (illusion, shape change, etc) interact with True Seeing as usual.


Thanks Anon, for the See Invisibility clarification...

 

[green slime]

True seeing triumphs non-detection, IMO.

 

[anon]

And I would suggest that the Obscure Object spell exactly supports my point.

When the authors wanted us to know that there was a more specific limit than simply "divination" they told us what it was by adding the parenthetical "(scrying)" to their discription. Lacking similar limitor, nondetection ought be interpretted as blocking all divination spells.

As a side note I think your explanation of the types and kinds of spells which are similar to the three items listed is reasonable and consistent, and therefore your overall interpretation of the spell is also reasonable and consistent. I just disagree that it is necessary.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And I would suggest that the Obscure Object spell exactly supports my point.

When the authors wanted us to know that there was a more specific limit than simply "divination" they told us what it was by adding the parenthetical "(scrying)" to their discription. Lacking similar limitor, nondetection ought be interpretted as blocking all divination spells.

Except for those pesky little metarules called English grammar.

 

[Iku Rex]

Hello again. I was looking in on this thread, and since it seems like Patryn of Elvenshae's arguments went unanswered I think another post is in order.

1. Comma usage a matter of style. Some googling for "such as" and comma (with variations) turns up numerous grammar guides, and proves that even the (presumed) professionals don't agree on "Patryn of Elvenshae's" comma rule.

I could elaborate on that (and I will, if people insist, but I'd rather not have to write a long post on "comma usage in conjunction with the term 'such as' among grammarians publishing comma guides on the Internet") but the main issue is what the PH is supposed to mean, right?

So let's looks at some PH examples. (There are more.)

You can enchant an animal and direct it with simple commands such as 'Attack,' 'Run,' and 'Fetch.'

"Such as" provides examples of "simple commands". Any "simple command" will do - it doesn't have to be a "simple command" arbitrarily determined to resemble 'Attack,' 'Run,' and 'Fetch.' Example: 'Stay'.

Endure elements doesn't provide any protection from fire or cold damage, nor does it protect against other environmental hazards such as smoke, lack of air, and so forth.

"Such as" provides examples of "other environmental hazards". Any "other environmental hazard" will do - it doesn't have to be an "other environmental hazard" arbitrarily determined to resemble smoke, lack of air, and so forth. Example: Avalanche.

A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth.

"Such as" provides examples of "combustible materials". Any "combustible material" will do - it doesn't have to be a "combustible material" arbitrarily determined to resemble parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth. Example: Gunpowder

Like any other stone wall, this one can be destroyed by a disintegrate spell or by normal means such as breaking and chipping.

"Such as" provides examples of "normal means" [of destroying a stone wall]. Any "normal mean" will do - it doesn't have to be a "normal mean" arbitrarily determined to resemble breaking and chipping. Example: Acid.

The above examples prove that PH spells are NOT written based on a style guide advocating Patryn of Elvenshae's comma rule. (Or, the writers aren't following it, which amounts to the same thing.)

Using the same format:

The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells.

"Such as" provides examples of "divination spells". Any "divination spell" will do - it doesn't have to be a "divination spell" arbitrarily determined to resemble clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells. Example: True seeing.


2. Even if you conclude that nondetection only protects against divination spells that "detect", it protects against see invisible and true seeing.

Nothing about the workings of "clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells" make them radically different from see invisible and true seeing.

(I notice that when asked what the spells in question have in common, Patryn of Elvenshae instead points out what other spells might have in common with those listed. By that standard any spell not explicitly mentioned can be arbitrarily excluded, as it's bound to be different in some way or another. Also, it describes the rule "such as clairaudience/clairvoyance OR locate object OR detect spells".)

See invisible "detects" invisible (in fact, the spell used to be called "detect invisible"). True seeing "detects" invisible and ethereal creatures, as well as illusions, magical disguises and magical obfuscation. If you're trying to sneak past a guard by magical means, you'd better hope he hasn't cast true seeing, or you'll be detected. Unless, of course, you have some way to keep people from detecting you with divination spells.

Want published rules? Ok. Can do.

Like I already said, the DMG (dust of disappearance) identifies see invisible and (by extension [?]) true seeing as "magical means to detect".

Superior invisibility, in Compete Arcane, "renders the recipient immune to detection by see invisibility, faerie fire, glitterdust, invisibility purge, dust of appearance and the blindsense ability, though creatures under the effect of the spell can still be detected by true seeing or the blindsight ability." (my emphasis

This shows that WotC game designers consider true seeing a way to perform "magical detection".