Nondetection vs Sending?

[carborundum]

Quick question - do you need to make a caster level check to transmit a sending to someone using nondetection?
Fluff says no, snice it is not a detect spell or crystal ball/scry type spell.
Crunch seems to say yes, since it is still a divination.

I'm DM and asked the player to make the check to use sending to contact a possible ally who is on the run. He protested and we tabled the discussion for after the game. What do you guys think?

 

[frankthedm]

While I can understand the idea of the sending spell not being able to find the Nondetection'ed target, do note that Sending is Evocation in 3.5 and Nondetection only affects a fairly narrow class of spells and items.

Sending
Evocation

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nondetection.htm
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.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Crunch seems to say yes, since it is still a divination.

Yeah, sending has been an Evocation since it first appeared(?) in 2e.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Also, can't an individual suppress a spell effect in some cases if it's in his or her favor? Would the ally want to receive the Sending?

 

[frankthedm]

Also, can't an individual suppress a spell effect in some cases if it's in his or her favor?

Rarely and it is called out by the spell itself. Many spells are [D]ismissible by the caster however.

 

[carborundum]

Thanks guys! I was so convinced that sending was divination I never even checked.
I'll think of another reason why he needed a caster level check (which he made btw). Maybe the whole area is... hey, thats a good idea...