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

[HoboGod]

Detecting MAGIC doesn't involve sight either: where in the Detect Magic spell description does it say that it does?

Not if there's something between you and the spot ten feet southwest... but anyway, how on earth is this statement relevant?

It's not necessarily sight that I'm talking about when I'm referring to line of sight, it's the general affect of line of sight, that which allows you to grasp the exact square of something. A listen check can provide an equivalent line of sight, for example. That's what I was trying to illustrate with the analogy.

Are you saying that your objection to Detect Magic is that - unlike the other detect spells (in the PHB, at least: others vary) - it doesn't have a line saying "If an aura is outside your line of sight then you determine its direction but not its exact location"?

If that's all, fair enough: house-rule it in, job done. However, it's not in the description as written and I'm happy to play it as it lies. As the spell stands, the qualification is "if the auras are in your line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each". It's pretty clear from this that - as written - you get the rest of the information whether or not the aura is in your line of sight. House-ruling the spell to make it function as you want it to is perfectly reasonable, but it's not a "loophole" to suggest that the spell works the way it's written.

Yes, the fact that it doesn't specify is my problem. I tend to argue that when there does not exist a specific function, make no assumptions and assume the least powerful effect. One statement which doesn't pertain to the function you're trying to operate isn't a blanket statement to say you automatically get the ability to locate something and the specific kind of location you want (in this case, the grid space of an invisible creature).

Quite honestly, yes, because it doesn't specify my interpretation as I worded it, how I handle Detect Magic is a house-rule. However, allowing the ability to pinpoint exact location is also a house-rule. If you played this spell without interpreting it whatsoever, then this spell would provide you only the "location" of whatever you're trying to find. You'd be hard pressed to know what that means because location is a general term that could refer to anything, even as broad as plane of existence. You're forced to house-rule, that's what I'm doing, that's what you're doing, that's what everyone must do. Neither of us have the law of RAW on our side. We are merely arguing the rationality for our decisions, for even if one side conceded (which I wouldn't necessarily want you to do,) it doesn't end the debate.

It doesn't function anything like See Invisibility. See Invisibility allows you to see invisible things. Detect Magic allows you to tell which square a magical aura is in, and Arcane Sight does the same thing by means of visual information: See Invisibility and Arcane Sight are by no means equivalent, although they are nicely complementary.

I didn't say equivalent, I was quite careful in my wording to say that they would be similar. They would both operate a function that pinpoints an invisible creature.

Detect Magic. . . relies on line-of-effect rather than line-of-sight, and its parameters for line-of-effect are well-specified in the spell description.

I agree wholeheartedly, but how the spell functions and what functions it bestows upon the user are different entirely. Having line of effect gives you the ability to use this spell on creatures you cannot see, but not necessarily the ability to notice something hidden or invisible.

True Seeing isn't mentioned there either. Neither is Glitterdust. Neither is Dust of Appearance. Neither is Invisibility Purge. Neither is Faerie Fire. So what?

That's exactly my point, those specify in their spell descriptions that it can allow you to pinpoint/see invisible creatures. They are part of the explicit ways you can detect an unseen or hidden creature.

. . .but your real problem with it seems to be because of Arcane Sight. . .

You'd think that, but nope! It's mostly those people with Detect Magic at will who move slowly toward their destination so that a small area in front of them is always on the third turn of Detect Magic, a larger area in front of them is on the second turn, and the remaining area up to 60 ft in front of them is on the first turn. The effects of Arcane Sight can be easily replicated to a limited degree, it's better not to let it grow too strong.

 

[Persiflage]

It's not necessarily sight that I'm talking about when I'm referring to line of sight, it's the general affect of line of sight,

False. You specifically ruled out my comparison with Detect Thoughts because, and I quote:

Detecting someones thoughts doesn't involve sight, so I don't see how that's relevant to the argument.

And now you're saying you weren't talking about sight at all?

Yes, the fact that it doesn't specify is my problem. I tend to argue that when there does not exist a specific function, make no assumptions and assume the least powerful effect.

The specific function exists: you just don't like it. Your argument only holds water if "location" can reasonably mean something other than the most obvious interpretation which is "the square something is in".

One statement which doesn't pertain to the function you're trying to operate isn't a blanket statement to say you automatically get the ability to locate something and the specific kind of location you want (in this case, the grid space of an invisible creature).

"The specific kind of location you want". Oh come on. If "location" isn't defined anywhere, as seems to be the thrust of your argument, then how would the wording "exact location" help? Where in D&D is "location" used to mean something other than "where something is"? Are you therefore saying that the Blindsense ability is unclear because "location" isn't defined, or do you let creatures with Blindsense know which square the characters are in, rather than just "somewhere in the room"?

What about if you pinpoint a creature's location with a Spot check?

What about Tremorsense? That pinpoints a creature's location if it's in contact with the ground.

References to "location" are scattered all through the rules, and they all refer to "the square something is in".

Closest Creature: When it's important to determine the closest square or creature to a location, if two squares or creatures are equally close, randomly determine which one counts as closest by rolling a die.

What does location mean there? Yes, that's right, it's a square or number of squares, because that is how you locate something in D&D, at least at a tactical level.

A weapon of this type enables its wielder to determine the location, depth, kind, and number of aquatic predators within 680 feet.

What could this mean, other than the square that enemies are in?

If the bearer of the rod concentrates for a full round, the rod pinpoints the location of the nearest enemy and indicates how many enemies are within range.

A blinded creature must first pinpoint the location of an opponent in order to attack the right square

Location: A location trigger springs a trap when someone stands in a particular square.

Location is not an ambiguous term.

Quite honestly, yes, because it doesn't specify my interpretation as I worded it, how I handle Detect Magic is a house-rule. However, allowing the ability to pinpoint exact location is also a house-rule.

No, it is not. Your argument that it is depends on there being an interpretation of "location" other than the one you seem perfectly happy with in all other contexts: in other words, an inconsistent interpretation that makes the spell do only what you want it to do.

You're forced to house-rule, that's what I'm doing, that's what you're doing, that's what everyone must do. Neither of us have the law of RAW on our side.

At this point, I'm going to say that the burden of proof for your assertion - i.e., that there's sufficient ambiguity in the term "location" to warrant further discussion - rests firmly with you. The Rules As Written, with their liberal use of the word "location" to mean "where something is", seem to support my argument better than yours.

I didn't say equivalent, I was quite careful in my wording to say that they would be similar. They would both operate a function that pinpoints an invisible creature.

Deary me... alright, they are not SIMILAR then, they are complementary. For what it's worth, equivalence = "degree of similarity". Detect Magic only allows you to locate an invisible creature if it has an aura of magic that isn't disguised or suppressed in some way. See Invisibility allows you to SEE things that are INVISIBLE.

I agree wholeheartedly, but how the spell functions and what functions it bestows upon the user are different entirely.

OK, that was the sound of one hand clapping...

Having line of effect gives you the ability to use this spell on creatures you cannot see, but not necessarily the ability to notice something hidden or invisible.

False. Even if your contention was correct and you didn't know which square an invisible creature was in, the fact that there are more separate auras than "things you can see" means that you've automatically noticed that there's something hidden or invisible in the area and tells you that you need to deploy counter-tactics. Hell, if the spell registers "presence of magical aura" in Round One and if you can't see anything to be causing it, you know that there's an in-place spell effect that you can't see.

It's mostly those people with Detect Magic at will who move slowly toward their destination so that a small area in front of them is always on the third turn of Detect Magic, a larger area in front of them is on the second turn, and the remaining area up to 60 ft in front of them is on the first turn.

Hats off to them for a fairly creative - if pretty useless - tactic. Face it, if you're low enough level to make this worth your while, then invisibility remains a really serious problem even if you know which square the creature is in. You might get a round's warning though, which is better than nothing. If you're high enough level that the total concealment afforded by invisibility is not a problem, you won't be messing about with yawn-inducing Detect Magic tactics. Besides which, as I've pointed out many times, this is hardly an invisibility gimp: it's a slightly-effective counter-tactic to a limited subset of ways in which something can be invisible.

 

[HoboGod]

Oh my god, you're driving this way too hard. You're nitpicking my posts for the slightest of contradictions. I'm telling you I meant the function of line of sight and you're saying that I didn't mean that at all because I used "sight" instead of "line of sight" at one point? Don't tell me what I mean when I say it, I'm the one who said it. I'm glad to clarify anything I say, I'm confident that communication is a fluid state, I'm only human, and I cannot read your mind. All I ask is that you please attempt to understand what I'm trying to say before trying to attack it.

When you speak of closest creature, that's location relative to something else, the meaning is explicit. I'm not sure what that second one is even talking about, give me a page number or something. The rod and blindness entries both indicate to pinpoint a location, explicit meaning. The trap entry of what a location trap indicates that it is of a specific square, explicit meaning. And what's more, a location trap wouldn't necessarily relate to the meaning of location in Detect Magic as a dung beetle and dung pile aren't directly correlated (a dung beetle isn't made of dung and dung pile isn't a pile that rolls dung into balls.)

Even if your contention was correct and you didn't know which square an invisible creature was in, the fact that there are more separate auras than "things you can see" means that you've automatically noticed that there's something hidden or invisible in the area and tells you that you need to deploy counter-tactics. Hell, if the spell registers "presence of magical aura" in Round One and if you can't see anything to be causing it, you know that there's an in-place spell effect that you can't see.

I used the word "notice" in the context of pinpointing their location. I'm not arguing that you can't detect their presence. I'm only arguing that you can't find their exact location.

The Rules As Written, with their liberal use of the word "location" to mean "where something is", seem to support my argument better than yours.

This is the core of our argument, where we are strongly divided. You are allowing a liberal usage of the word "location" as RAW. I am not saying that if it was worded to say "exact location," it would be any better. I'm saying if it were worded in a manner that it describes it AS the exact location. For example, if it were to say "after 3 rounds, this spell pinpoints the location of a hidden or invisible creature," that would be wording it in a manner that it locates the exact location. Such that it doesn't mention anything like that, it makes me wonder if that's what it actually says. Location IS ambiguous.

At this point, I'm going to say that the burden of proof for your assertion - i.e., that there's sufficient ambiguity in the term "location" to warrant further discussion - rests firmly with you.

How can I prove ambiguity? That's like saying I have to prove that a creature believed to be scientifically undetectable doesn't exist. The fact that I can interpret it differently means there is ambiguity. I think location can refer to either direction or affirmation of existence within a line of effect. It doesn't necessarily have to pinpoint anything and the very fact that there's nothing that indicates otherwise, I'd say it's pretty ambiguous.

EDIT: And in terms of ambiguity, it's close relative "vagueness" is all over the entry on Detect Magic. The entry makes no mention of this spell being usable against creatures or invisible things. Everything else that pinpoints invisible creatures tends to be less vague on the subject.