Nondetection / True Seeing /

[Iku Rex]

Iku Rex, I'm done debating in this thread.

You've been debating? Refusing to acknowledge counterarguments and questions from other posters is not "debating".

Clearly, there are those who believe my reasoning is flawed re: True Seeing. Fair enough. But you haven't said anything that others haven't said upthread, and you aren't going to change my mind any more than my arguments will change yours.

Actually, my conclusion is based on facts and reason.

I would change my mind if you offered valid arguments supported by facts.

At least you admit that the same is not true for you. :\

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Iku Rex,

Obviously, we have differences of opinion here. I would appreciate it if you refrained from throwing disparagements after I've already left the debate.

 

[Iku Rex]

Obviously, we have differences of opinion here.

Uh, yes. What's your point?

I would appreciate it if you refrained from throwing disparagements after I've already left the debate.

Can you be a bit more specific?

If you didn't want any comments on your refusal to enter into a real debate or your vicious personal attacks*, you should have replied to my questions and arguments and refrained from personal attacks.

*"you aren't going to change my mind any more than my arguments will change yours". I don't appreciate being told that I am unable to change my mind when confronted by reason. That's pretty much the definition of "insane". (Or were you indirectly admitting that your conclusions are not based on reason?)

 

[Henry]

Gents, let it go. There's no need for further snipes or insults.

 

[anon]

I believe that if the Non-detection spell intended the "such as" list to be representative of a certain type of divination spell (as opposed to simply being a quick list of common divinations) then Non-detection would have given us more guidance as to what the sub-set of divination was meant to be. For example it might have said:

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

where the ellipsis would be replaced by the conditions necessary to derive which divination spells were potentially blocked. There is no explicit statement or implication that there is a sub-set of divination spells.

The simpliest explanation usually wins. The grammar implies strongly the list NOT exhaustive and implies no limitation other than Divination spell. Logic dictates that all divination spells are potentially blocked, IMHO.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The simpliest explanation usually wins. The grammar implies strongly the list NOT exhaustive and implies no limitation other than Divination spell. Logic dictates that all divination spells are potentially blocked, IMHO.

No, logic doesn't dictate that, because if they meant all divinations, then the extra explanatory text is extraneous and confusing. Moreover, because of the way English grammar work, the following two sentences are not identical:

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

and

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

Notice the added comma? It is exactly the difference between:

I like George Martin's book, A Feast for Crows.

--vs.--

I like George Martin's book A Feast for Crows.

In the first sentence (which corresponds to the modified case), you have sufficient information within the first statement: "George Martin's book." The comma separates a clause which is completely unnecessary to evaluate the meaning of the sentence, because, the way it is written, George Martin has written only one book, which, by the way, is titled A Feast for Crows.

In the second sentence (which corresponds to the actual rules text), you do not have sufficient information within the first statement to evaluate its meaning. In this case, you must further limit the set of all GM's books to determine about which the author is speaking. The way this sentence is written, George Martin has written many books, and of them, I like a particular one. Which one? A Feast for Crows.

So, back to the rules text of the Nondetection spell.

If it were meant to block all Divination spells, then "by divination spells" would be sufficient information, and the remainder of the sentence would be set off in a comma - it would be, as far as the meaning of the sentence is concerned, superfluous information.

It is not, however.

Therefore, "by divination spells" is not sufficient information to determine the meaning of the sentence and the examples are part of the limits placed on the set of "divination spells." Nondetection, then, specifically blocks certain kinds of divination spells: those which are like "clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells."

Just like A Feast for Crows is not superfluous information in the second sentence above, the examples are not superfluous here.

The question you must then answer is: "Is spell Y like clairX, locate object, or a detect spell?"

If the answer is yes, then nondetection works against it.

If the answer is no, then nondetection does not work against it.

 

[anon]

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?

And your basis for this is the lack of a comma, which you interpet to mean that the list was meant to obliquely establish a set of rules.

While the writer's often miss things that seem rather obvious to us, it seems unlikely to me that they wouldn't simply have either listed the entire sub-set, or establised clear rules for us.

Let me ask this then, what is the commonality? and/or which spells do you rule it blocks?

 

[stevelabny]

Patryn actually hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned...and THAT is what my original question was. "Do True Seeing and See Inivisibility fall under the "such as" or don't they?"

From the previous games I've played, Non-detection has never worked on See Invisibility or True Seeing. I know this is true, because I've never seen a caster level check required to see invisibility or combined with true seeing. Also the few people I have asked privately seem to think that the spell only works on the "detect" spells and the "scry-related" spells (as mentioned in my original post) , and that true seeing and see invis. don't fall into either grouping.

It seems that most of the people on this thread have always assumed that nondetection DOES work on these spells. Which is interesting. And mostly tells me that if I play my Eberron game this way, it won't really "break" anything.

 

[Goolpsy]

Now im going to give my 5 cent

The spell doesn't block all Divination spells used against you... for example.. it doesn't block a foreign wizard using Tongues to speak to you... Neither does it block Detect thoughts.. but it does however "block" everything trying to locate you such as see invisibility for example..

If you are hidden by a blur spell... + a nondetectino spell... and a wizard uses prying eyes to scout you.. they do succed as you aren't invisible they just saw you.

What i mean is... Divination directed preciely at you for some reason... negating your hidding effects wont work... but divinations 'not' donig that would...
if the eyes could see invisibility and you were invisible... they would have to roll one of those checks to succed... else ythey jsut would see you... but if you weren't invisible.. they would see you right away..

As true seeing is amoung those spell of which see through the magical means of hiding.. it just wont work.

 

[anon]

The Sage has been consulted, and his response was:

Mind blank is not effective against see invisibility (non detection is).

for those who value such things.