Nondetection / True Seeing /

[stevelabny]

Nondetection states that the warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells and then lists clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, the detect spells and crystal balls.

Presumably this works on other scry-type spells, but what about divination spells such as see invisibility or true seeing?

If not, is there any spell that can be used as a ward AGAINST those two spells?

I'm running an Eberron game soon, and I would hate for every changeling / magically disguised bad guy to be busted by numerous characters as soon as they are 9th-11th level. (the spell and the prestige classes that grant the True Seeing ability)

 

[Lord Pendragon]

True Seeing pretty much trumps everything. There's got to be a top-of-the-heap, and True Seeing is it. If there were a spell that trumped True Seeing, there'd have to be another spell that trumped that spell, or the BBEG would never have to worry about discovery at all.

The True Seeing spell is only 1 minute per level, though, so the best way for that BBEG to remain hidden is for him to never give them a reason to cast True Seeing specifically to view him.

 

[Jack Simth]

Nondetection

Abjuration

Level: Rgr 4, Sor/Wiz 3, Trickery 3 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature or object touched Duration: 1 hour/level Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object) The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells. Nondetection also prevents location by such magic items as crystal balls. If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item, the caster of the divination must succeed on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against a DC of 11 + the caster level of the spellcaster who cast nondetection. If you cast nondetection on yourself or on an item currently in your possession, the DC is 15 + your caster level.

If cast on a creature, nondetection wards the creature’s gear as well as the creature itself.

Material Component: A pinch of diamond dust worth 50 gp.

(emphasis added)
True Seeing and See Invisibility do not trump Nondetection - both are divination spells, Nondetection hinders divination spells (the useage of "such as" indicates that the list is not exhaustive), and Nondetection is abjuration, not illusion, so is not itself countered by True Seeing. However, neither Nondetection nor True Seeing are really at the top of the heap, as it's a caster level check to see which wins. Granted, the Nondetection caster has an advantage when casting the spell on himself (DC 15 + Caster level, rather than the 50/50 chance for casters of equal level provided by the DC 11 + Caster Level) but otherwise, it's the better caster that has the advantage with the two spells.


Mind blank will stop most divinations cold (no way past it, except perhaps by using a Wish to bring down the Mind Blank), but depending on how your DM reads "information gathering by divination spells or effects", See Invisibility and True Seeing may still get past it.


Prismatic Sphere and Mage's Private Sanctum will stop anything from looking in or out, and will thus stop True Seeing and See invisible - but the same could be said for a Wall of Iron (Mage's Private Sanctum has a slight advantage in that those inside can see out without interference).

 

[Lord Pendragon]

the useage of "such as" indicates that the list is not exhaustive

True. But you are assuming that because the list is non-exhaustive, it must instead be all-inclusive. I disagree.

You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are. The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. Further, the subject can focus its vision to see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extradimensional spaces). The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet.

True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects. It in no way confers X-ray vision or its equivalent. It does not negate concealment, including that caused by fog and the like. True seeing does not help the viewer see through mundane disguises, spot creatures who are simply hiding, or notice secret doors hidden by mundane means. In addition, the spell effects cannot be further enhanced with known magic, so one cannot use true seeing through a crystal ball or in conjunction with clairaudience/clairvoyance.

Nothing in the spell description indicates that Nondetection prevents it from doing exactly what it says. The only way to trump True Seeing is with a mundane disguise.

 

[Jack Simth]

True. But you are assuming that because the list is non-exhaustive, it must instead be all-inclusive. I disagree.

I am not assuming it has to be all-inclusive; tell me, if you wouldn't be able to see me but for a divination spell you have up (and you cannot see me if I am outside that divination spell's range), is that divination spell what is "detecting" me? If so, Nondetection should work against it, by the description.

Nothing in the spell description indicates that Nondetection prevents it from doing exactly what it says. The only way to trump True Seeing is with a mundane disguise.

Sure there is - the note at the top that True Seeing is a divination spell.

Seriously though - using similar logic, nothing in the spell description of True Seeing indicates that it can be taken down with Dispel Magic. Dispel Magic says it takes down spells, but True Seeing doesn't say Dispel Magic can take True Seeing down. Does this mean that Dispel Magic doesn't work on True Seeing (or just about any other spell)?

Again, by similar logic, nothing in the description of Faeirie Fire (a light spell) indicates that it can be counterspelled or dispelled with a casting of Darkness - but the description of Darkness does, although not specifically Faeirie Fire - it says it can be used to counter or dispel any Light spell of lower level (which Faeirie Fire is). Does this mean Darkness can't be used to counter or dispel Faeirie Fire?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I am not assuming it has to be all-inclusive; tell me, if you wouldn't be able to see me but for a divination spell you have up (and you cannot see me if I am outside that divination spell's range), is that divination spell what is "detecting" me? If so, Nondetection should work against it, by the description. Sure there is - the note at the top that True Seeing is a divination spell.

Again, this logic only applies if you believe that Nondetection counters all divination spells. Otherwise, the fact that it's a divination spell is a good basis for a DM to decide Nondetection wins, but hardly conclusive proof. I rule that True Seeing is not one of the spells trumped by Nondetection, and am just as secure, rules-wise, doing so.

Seriously though - using similar logic, nothing in the spell description of True Seeing indicates that it can be taken down with Dispel Magic. Dispel Magic says it takes down spells, but True Seeing doesn't say Dispel Magic can take True Seeing down. Does this mean that Dispel Magic doesn't work on True Seeing (or just about any other spell)?

Again, this logic only holds if you rule that Nondetection trumps all Divination spells. Otherwise, the fact that nothing in True Seeing indicates a weakness vs. Nondetection, and nothing in Nondetection indicates that it's specifically effective against True Seeing is just as valid a line of thought. Spells do what they say they do, nothing more. The DM has to rule that True Seeing is a "divination such as" those other examples mentioned. I rule that it is not. The other examples either provide remote viewing (True Seeing specifically doesn't work remotely,) or give the caster some sort of non-visible information. Alignment, distant location, etc. True Seeing on the other hand merely cuts through all magical subterfuge within the caster's line of sight. It doesn't provide any information that can't be readily seen, and cannot be used remotely.

I can accept that you clearly rule True Seeing as similar enough to the other "such as" spells to be covered by the spell. I don't. I think that's all it boils down to, really.

 

[stevelabny]

and this is EXACTLY why I asked the question.

I'm curious to see if there are more opinions coming, or if someone cant point me to a prior discussion / sage advice / clarification.

 

[Jack Simth]

As you are running the game, and there is some gray area, rule it however you think would make your game go better. If True Seeing no-save trumps everything, then you get the auto-bust situation you describe (and can have your NPC's always spot the party when they are relying on magical concealment, at the cost of having the PC's able to find ways to do the same). If Nondetection is effective against True Seeing, then you get a die roll to see if it works (Nondetection does not automatically stop divinations - it makes them difficult) - either a DM set DC (by the NPC caster level; situation: PC trying to see the Nondetection covered NPC) or a DM set bonus to overcome Nondetection (by the NPC caster level; situation: NPC trying to see a PC protected by Nondetection). If the PC vs. PC thing comes up, then it's the players against each other, and it hardly matters either way (for the most part, they either shouldn't really be fighting, or the spotted doesn't care if he is seen by his fellow PC while the spotter PC won't call out that the fellow PC is there). If it's NPC vs. NPC, then it is essentially DM fiat either way, and hardly matters.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

As you are running the game, and there is some gray area, rule it however you think would make your game go better. If True Seeing no-save trumps everything, then you get the auto-bust situation you describe (and can have your NPC's always spot the party when they are relying on magical concealment, at the cost of having the PC's able to find ways to do the same).

Another side-effect of this is that Disguise becomes much more valuable. And to be honest, I don't have a problem with that.

If Nondetection is effective against True Seeing, then you get a die roll to see if it works

Yes, and when you pointed this out, I started considering adopting it as a House Rule (I like the contest between the two spells). But I do believe it'd be a House Rule.

Let me see if I can explain my reasoning a bit more clearly, to justify my statement regarding a House Rule.

Basically, all the spells listed are some kind of magical detection. You're detecting something's alignment, or something's location, or the way something looks from a distance. True Seeing, on the other hand, isn't detecting anything. Instead, it operates more like a very specialized form of anti-magic, suppressing (but not dispelling) a very narrow range of spells, and only for the caster.

True Seeing seems different enough from the detection spells listed in the way it operates that I don't believe it fits into the criteria of Nondetection. Hence, True Seeing trumps Nondetection.

Or so I believe, RAW. I am now sorely tempted to House Rule Nondetection to be effective, though, because as I said before, I like the opposed roll dynamic thus created.

 

[Jack Simth]

I'd be more inclined to call it a ruling, rather than a house rule - does "such as" denote a list of sample divination spells, or does it act as a qualifier for the types of divination spells nondetection is effective against? English grammer is kinda iffy on such fine points.