Permanent Arcane Sight... help with rulings plz...

[schnee]

My favorite munchkin is playing a wizard. He's got permanent Arcane Sight. I'm having problems with it, as it seems way, way too good the way I'm reading it. I don't want to nerf the character unnecessarily, so... could I get some opinions here?

Does Arcane Sight automatically allow you to see invisble creatures? I've seen threads here that conclude - since AS sees magic auras, that someone with Invisibility still generates a Glamer aura that AS immediately perceives. So, no invisibility works within 120' of the mage. I'm having great difficulty in this... I see the logic, since tremorsense and blindsight beat the Inviso, but... this makes See Invisibility obsolete. It also makes Invisibilty, Greater Invisibility, illusions, and any number of other spells that conceal or alter perceptions obsolete. For a 3rd level spell? Doesn't seem right.

I can see this defeating Hide, or even Hide in Plain Sight (even thought it's a supernatural ability), but all that magic foiled? Really forces me to start planning encounters around that ability, so that other characters have a chance to shine too. It becomes less of a character trait and more of a design constraint.

I don't want to fall into the mean DM trap of always defeating that ability... throwing lots of Darkness and Fog spells, opponents using Non-detection, or even the worst - enemy spellcasters throwing targeted Dispels against the guy with the glowing blue eyes after they make their Spellcraft to figure out why their ambush didn't work... I do, however, want to give him the benefits of his investment in a way that doesn't shift so much of the intelligence and first-strike capability on to him.

If I were to limit AS, I'd say it allows the spellcaster to see the Glamer aura of an invisible creature. He could tell the strength of the Inviso spell, but that aura would obscure all others. In addition, he could target the aura itself with a Dispel Magic, but not target the invisible creature (so no Disintegrate or Magic Missile). If he wanted to attack it, he'd have to use an area effect spell to hit the area around it (such as Fireball or Lightning Bolt).

Alternately, I'd allow the use of a targeted spell - Disintegrate - but with a 50% miss chance from 'full cover' for being 'invisible'. I know that's serious house rule territory, but it would allow the spellcaster to act on their unique knowledge - with some risk.

Ahhh, I don't know... Is this just 'new to high-level DM angst'? Or does anyone else share my thinking? If my (as of yet un-implemented) rulings are short-sighted, I'd appreciate some experienced folks giving me more detail as to why I shouldn't worry about it. Thanks in advance.

 

[Hussar]

Well, invisibility is a glamer. From the rules:

Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear

Since you alter the subjects sensory qualities, in this case, everyone who would normally see the wizard is now affected by the invisibility, I see no reason why Arcane Sight would not be affected also. In other words, the AS wizzie doesn't see the aura, since the aura is masked by the invisibility.

 

[schnee]

...

That was easy. Thanks.

 

[green slime]

Since you alter the subjects sensory qualities, in this case, everyone who would normally see the wizard is now affected by the invisibility, I see no reason why Arcane Sight would not be affected also. In other words, the AS wizzie doesn't see the aura, since the aura is masked by the invisibility.

I disagree.

As a Detect Magic spell would detect the aura of the invisibility, so too would Arcane Sight.

The question is then, what is sensed? Nothing is seen, except an aura. Thus, the wizard would know there was a glamer "over there, by the barrel". But from that to concluding that the character can see exactly where the invisible creature is, is a far cry. Firstly, it maybe any other glamer. Secondly, it would function similar to scent, in that he may know which "square" the glamer is present, but still cannot see the target and suffers a 50% miss chance to all attacks. No magic missile. You can't MM an object or aura.

Detecting the aura is great opportunity for using glitterdust.

 

[xazil]

I agree with Green Slime on seeing an invisible persons square. You can let the player enjoy it while he has it, one dispel magic or greater dispel can take the permanent effect off and then it is just XP lost.

Even with rings of counterspell loaded with one of those two spells, most of my spellcastering characters or even NPCs dont waste XP on permanency and go for magic items instead.

 

[dvvega]

One other thing you should think about is how he got the permanent Arcane Sight

... if it's from a Permanency spell then a dispel magic could make it go away without much of a problem.

Even an area dispel that targets the highest level spell on the character then the next then the next until one is dispelled could work. Permanency is high so it would most likely be the prime dispelled spell, then his Arcane Sight will just run out.

This could lead to all sorts of interesting problems ... how does he know the permanency is gone? When the Arcane Sight duration expires (since it is now not permanent) will he notice? He could walk around for days not realising what has occurred.

... if it's from a magic item - you should have thought of the consequences before you allowed him to purchase/create it, however even this can be alleviated. For example: thieves love stealing "pretties". Is it a ring? medallion? Is it a staff? Sunder the bloody thing ... a lot of warrior who see a Wizard are going to try to stop him casting spells, what with staves using the caster level of the wielder and all.

... if it's from a permanent racial ability or feat then that's a bit more difficult. No ideas on that one.

 

[Thanee]

Does Arcane Sight automatically allow you to see invisble creatures? I've seen threads here that conclude - since AS sees magic auras, that someone with Invisibility still generates a Glamer aura that AS immediately perceives. So, no invisibility works within 120' of the mage. I'm having great difficulty in this... I see the logic, since tremorsense and blindsight beat the Inviso, but... this makes See Invisibility obsolete. It also makes Invisibilty, Greater Invisibility, illusions, and any number of other spells that conceal or alter perceptions obsolete. For a 3rd level spell? Doesn't seem right.

Erm...

Arcane Sight is 3rd level, See Invisibility is 2nd level.
See Invisibility has no range.
See Invisibility detects ethereal creatures.
See Invisibility works on natural invisibility (Hellcat, Will-o'-the-Wisp).
See Invisibility lasts 10 times as long as Arcane Sight, making it useful even without Permanency (which is a 5th level spell required there, BTW).
Permanent Arcane Sights costs a lot of XP and can be dispelled (especially a few levels later).

I completely fail to see how Arcane Sight is superior to See Invisibility when it comes to detecting invisible creatures. Furthermore, not every creature on the world will have permanent Arcane Sight (not even every wizard will), so why would that make Invisibility obsolete!?

It's probably fair to assume, that Arcane Sight is not as powerful as See Invisibility, since it does not let you see the creature, but only the magical auras, so some Concealment would be fair. I'd give the invisible creature standard 20% Concealment instead of the usual Total Concealment. It's surely better to see the auras, than only knowing the square, since I doubt, that the auras extent a couple feet from the creature.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Li Shenron]

Arcane Sight definitely allows you to detect a creature who is invisible due to a spell or spell-like abilities or because of a magic item, but not creatures who are invisible because of something else, or are simply hidden.

The most important thing is also that while it allows you to constantly pinpoint the creature, it doesn't let you actually see it. For instance, you don't have line of sight and cannot target it with creature-target spells, and if you attack it physically (including touch and ray spells) you get 50% miss chance. See invisibility is a clear winner in this specific use!

Furthermore, it's not even 100% sure that you get the aura is of an invisibility spell/effect. You may fail the spellcraft check, and even if you don't it just says "Illusion" but could be something else, although of course a moving illusion aura almost always mean one thing...

However it's a good thing that Arcane Sight has this use, and the XP spent for permanency should be worth.

 

[Thanee]

How about Glitterdust? You don't have line of sight to a creature covered by that either, or do you?

I really don't think there should be a 50% miss chance with Arcane Sight. 20% at most.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

I can see this defeating Hide, or even Hide in Plain Sight (even thought it's a supernatural ability), but all that magic foiled?

Then you're just weird, because Arcane Sight does absolutely NOTHING against Hide, as you can see from its description.

Me, I'd say that Arcane Sight lets you see the aura of the invisible guy, so you know he's there. I'd still give the invisible guy concealment, though, because Arcane Sight doesn't let you see through invisibility, it just lets you see the spreading, smoky tendrils of Illusion magic surrounding the person who has Invisibility cast on them. So Mr. Arcane Sight can feel free to target area-effect spells to catch the Invisible guy, but if he wants to hit him with a ranged touch attack or whatever, he's gotta get past the miss chance first.

--
whereas see invisibility actually lets you see him and target him freely
ryan