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

[HoboGod]

Let me get your feelings on:
So if a PC is hiding behind cover (a non-3 ft. bush cover) that does not block DM?
What about the magic item in the closed box? DM detects it, would AS?
Finally, what about cover which actually blocks LOS but not DM, like a tapestry or a door?

It's hard so say, Detect Magic says that it is blocked by 3 inches of wood, but does not say either way that it grants line of sight to things not in line of sight. It's players who say that line of sight is immediately granted because you cast this spell.

As I see it, you don't need line of sight to detect presence or number of auras, but you need line of sight to pinpoint their location.

 

[jefgorbach]

Loren - agreed and what I intended on implying. You'd see a roughly humanoid shape behind/under a leafy green sheet but not whether it was a person, a statue of a person, or someone standing in front of the statue until you drop the arcane sight to remove the distracting fuzzy magical aura.

IMO it becomes a question of finesse vs hand-grenades. AS/DM reveal the aura's general location, but you STILL have to deal with the concealment modifier per normal unless the viewer chooses to use an area-effect centered in the general area. It basically reduces to deciding whether to fireball a potential magic-mouth or allow it to act first then react accordingly?

 

[Persiflage]

Detect Evil is three rounds as well. It may not seem overpowered, but for a 0th level spell, it's pretty damn powerful.

Compared to what? Caltrops? Ghost Sound? It's three rounds: three rounds of standard actions, and all you learn is that someone is in a particular square. You don't get to act on that knowledge until round 4. And that's assuming you're up against something that doesn't spot what you're doing and either "move out of your cone" or "attack you horribly" while you're busy squinting and muttering.

Concealment isn't the end-all-be-all, especially with spell casters using AoE spells like burning hands and fireball.

Anyone using those spells on anything other than mooks deserved to have their spleen aerated, but that's by the by. Total concealment means you're denied your Dex, and that triggers any number of nasty corollary effects. "Pretty damn powerful" is a subjective value-judgement, and one I don't happen to agree with: not when the effort required to achieve a fix on the location are so disproportionate, the results are fairly innocuous and the strategies for baffling the detection numerous.

I think we are pretty much on the same page here. For example, when you say "pinpoint the location" I'm actually thinking that you "see the space" the creature is in. Hence, inviso's concealment still works.

Yup. That.

However, others (not you) have casually thrown out the hiding behind cover blocks DM argument, but I question how practical that would be. Normally, when I hear a PC is hiding it's behind bushes or a tree, etc. Certainly a bush doesn't qualify as 3 ft. of wood.

No, although a tree might - or might partially. You could always argue in the case of someone hiding rather than invisible that they have concealment but not total concealment, depending on the density of the cover.

Let me get your feelings on:
So if a PC is hiding behind cover (a non-3 ft. bush cover) that does not block DM?

Then you're rumbled.

What about the magic item in the closed box? DM detects it, would AS?

Arcane Sight - by all available indications - gives you a visual manifestation of the information that Detect Magic would normally grant you after three rounds of observation. The problem with interpretation lies with two different statements made in the spell description (emphasis mine):

1) "This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you."


2) "You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight."

Based on these statements, I suppose you could quite effectively argue the case either way that Arcane Sight relies on line-of-sight. For me however, the flavour text about "seeing" things is just that, and the deciding factor comes from a third statement:

3) "The effect is similar to that of a detect magic spell, but Arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly."

This says to me that Arcane Sight is just like Detect Magic, except where it explicitly isn't. The important consideration for Detect Magic is line of effect, not line of sight, and the conditions blocking line of effect are stated in the spell description, along with other confounding factors. As such, Arcane Sight works by default in the same way, given that there are no clear indications to the contrary. The only thing that's different is that you explicitly get a visual manifestation of your "detection" rather than an unspecified "knowledge".

Wow, that was long-winded... I'm saying: "Yes, you 'see' a magical aura from the box."

Finally, what about cover which actually blocks LOS but not DM, like a tapestry or a door?

You "see" the aura.

It's hard so say, Detect Magic says that it is blocked by 3 inches of wood, but does not say either way that it grants line of sight to things not in line of sight.

I think you're needlessly complicating the issue. Why are you even talking about line-of-sight with respect to Detect Magic? The only context in which it mentions line-of-sight - as an explicit call-out - is here:

If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each.

This is the only part of Detect Magic that references sight. It's really clear: you get the other information whether or not your line-of-sight is blocked, because it's line-of-effect (specific to this spell) that determines its effectiveness. You just don't get to make Spellcraft checks unless you also have line-of-sight to the creature or object.

It's players who say that line of sight is immediately granted because you cast this spell.

That's utter nonsense; if line-of-sight were automatically granted, there'd be no qualification stating "you get to make Spellcraft checks on the auras if you have line of sight to them".

Is anyone suggesting for a minute that you either "require" or "get" line-of-sight via Detect Thoughts? Because if they are, I'd point them to the similar qualification in the spell description:

This spell does not let you determine the location of the thinking minds if you can't see the creatures whose thoughts you are detecting.

Again, it's a call-out telling you the function of the spell that you can only get if you can see something, which by implication means that you get the rest of it without being able to see the subjects.

As I see it, you don't need line of sight to detect presence or number of auras, but you need line of sight to pinpoint their location.

But you haven't really explained why you think this. Arcane Sight works like Detect Magic, except where it says differently. Detect Magic doesn't require line-of-sight in order for you to know the location of the auras, it merely requires its criteria for line-of-effect to be in operation. Anything that would block line-of-effect for Detect Magic, blocks line-of-effect for Arcane Sight, and anything that doesn't, doesn't. The fact that Arcane Sight presents its detection results as visual information isn't important.

Also note that non-magical invisibility - like that of an Invisible Stalker, Phantom Fungus, Pixie or Will-O'-Wisp - will totally hose anyone relying on Arcane Sight in place of See Invisibility.

 

[radmod]

Persiflage, it seems like you and I really are on the same page.

I consider AS to be an upgraded DM, and personally don't like the argument about line of sight blocking it.

However, I also don't like the idea that the various detect spells automatically break invisibility (or sort of break it). But, as they say, that "is a personal problem."

 

[HoboGod]

Yes, compared to other 0th level spells, which tend to be tricks, having Detect Magic reveal invisible creatures, is madness, IMHO.

I'm not going to argue that an AoE spell trumps all concealment strategies or the other way around, there are too many variables and outliers. All I'm saying is that there are effective ways to fight against total concealment penalties, AoE being one such example. If you mean to tell me that AoE spells are not powerful, I'd be rather confused as a wizard's fireball tends to do just as much damage as a TWF rogue's sneak attack at the same level.

Detecting someones thoughts doesn't involve sight, so I don't see how that's relevant to the argument. If you know someone is exactly ten feet southwest of you, then you are de facto granted a line of sight to that person when you're facing southwest. That's how I see it. That's how arguers of Detect Magic's ability to see the invisible want it to function. There's nothing about Detect Magic being able to see invisible creatures, ANYWHERE. It's a backwards loophole for people that want Arcane Sight to function similarly to See Invisibility by exploiting a vague description.

Your area of effect can extend beyond a brick wall, your line of sight cannot. If a creature is invisible, you don't have line of sight. If you don't have line of sight, the creature is invisible (or at least to you). There are explicit rules for pinpointing invisible and hidden creatures, Detect Magic isn't mentioned in them whatsoever.

 

[radmod]

At the risk of people yelling, I'll just point out how I've always seen inviso played. Effectively, inviso makes all aspects of your person invisible, including your aura. (Aura does not necessarily imply light) Thus detect spells don't work. Or, in the case of detect evil, that particular DM might have allowed you to sense the presence of evil around you but would never let you center on it.
There are plenty of other ways to detect inviso. Such as when (in 1e) we used to carry around a non-magical glitterdust/paint and throw it around to 'see' the invisible bad guy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's hard so say, Detect Magic says that it is blocked by 3 inches of wood, but does not say either way that it grants line of sight to things not in line of sight. It's players who say that line of sight is immediately granted because you cast this spell.

As I see it, you don't need line of sight to detect presence or number of auras, but you need line of sight to pinpoint their location.

Yes. If you don't have line of sight on the location you get the aura and nothing else, no frame of reference to actually place it. All you have is a bearing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren - agreed and what I intended on implying. You'd see a roughly humanoid shape behind/under a leafy green sheet but not whether it was a person, a statue of a person, or someone standing in front of the statue until you drop the arcane sight to remove the distracting fuzzy magical aura.

No--I'm saying you get both types of data at once, the AS information doesn't impair your normal vision, it's simply adding sensory data.

Thus you could immediately tell if it was a person or a statue but you couldn't tell if it was an invisible person right in front of a statue--AS merely reveals the level 2 aura. Move to the side and the deception would be revealed as now the aura isn't lined up with the statue.

 

[Persiflage]

Yes, compared to other 0th level spells, which tend to be tricks, having Detect Magic reveal invisible creatures, is madness, IMHO.

Well that's fine. I've probably helped to cause a hundred times as much carnage with Ghost Sound over the years than I ever have with Detect Magic, but fine. Your mileage varies from mine, no biggie; some people clearly agree with you. I think you've got a bit hung up on it; taking three rounds to determine that *something* magical is in a square seems a pretty weak-sauce ability to me. You could argue that you can't even tell that it's illusion magic if it's invisible: you don't have line of sight to the invisible "items or creatures bearing the aura", by definition, so you probably shouldn't get the Spellcraft check.

If you mean to tell me that AoE spells are not powerful, I'd be rather confused as a wizard's fireball tends to do just as much damage as a TWF rogue's sneak attack at the same level.

Area damage spells are not powerful, at least not in comparison to the alternatives, that's just what I'm saying. It was just a throw-away comment and I don't want to be guilty of a total thread derailment, but I'm perfectly happy to illustrate with examples in another thread if you're interested.

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

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

If you know someone is exactly ten feet southwest of you, then you are de facto granted a line of sight to that person when you're facing southwest.

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

That's how I see it. That's how arguers of Detect Magic's ability to see the invisible want it to function. There's nothing about Detect Magic being able to see invisible creatures, ANYWHERE.

No, there's not, and nobody is saying there is: or at least, I'm not. Detect Magic detects magical auras. It doesn't let you see anything. Even when you've detected an invisible creature's magical aura - if it has one - you still can't see the invisible creature, you can just detect which square its aura is in.

After three rounds.

Provided it doesn't move out of the way.

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.

It's a backwards loophole for people that want Arcane Sight to function similarly to See Invisibility by exploiting a vague description.

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.

Your area of effect can extend beyond a brick wall, your line of sight cannot.

Unless you use, you know, magic or something. Like Clairvoyance. Or Scrying. Besides which, a brick wall will usually block line-of-effect, unless otherwise stated:

A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier.

And:

A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creatures, or objects to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).

All in all, there are probably as many cases of having line-of-sight without line-of-effect as there are the other way around... but that doesn't matter with respect to Detect Magic, because it relies on line-of-effect rather than line-of-sight, and its parameters for line-of-effect are well-specified in the spell description.

If a creature is invisible, you don't have line of sight. If you don't have line of sight, the creature is invisible (or at least to you). There are explicit rules for pinpointing invisible and hidden creatures, Detect Magic isn't mentioned in them whatsoever.

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?

I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. On the one hand, you seem to be saying Detect Magic is too powerful because it lets you see invisible creatures (after three rounds of study) which we're all agreed it does not do. All it does is tell you the square a magical aura is in, assuming there is one. If the invisible creature doesn't have any magical auras on its person - and there are many ways for this to happen - or if there are more powerful effects in the area masking the aura, or if divination counter-magic is employed, it won't show you the creature.

You're saying that it's madness for a 0th-level spell to allow you to detect the presence of something invisible (which, provided said something has a magical aura, Detect Magic will do - as will a decent Spot or Listen check in most cases), but your real problem with it seems to be because of Arcane Sight - a 3rd-level spell - allowing you to pull the same trick without taking three rounds... Given that See Invisibility is a 2nd-level spell that actually does let you see invisible things, this seems a bit peculiar. I'd pretty much expect an arcane spellcaster to get a Permanent See Invisible (or an item that does the same) as soon as possible: mine always have.

If your objection is specifically to someone running around with Permanent spells, well, you've got an issue there with fundamental game balance. The way to deal with that is to house-rule away what you see the problems are, not to deny that the spells work the way they say they work.

Radmod has the right idea:

[snip] ...I'll just point out how I've always seen inviso played. Effectively, inviso makes all aspects of your person invisible, including your aura. (Aura does not necessarily imply light) Thus detect spells don't work. Or, in the case of detect evil, that particular DM might have allowed you to sense the presence of evil around you but would never let you center on it.

This is a house-rule, nobody's trying to pretend it's anything but, and it works for them. Cool.

In all of this, it's important to remember that the 3rd-level Arcane Sight is a pretty weak-sister substitute for the 2nd-level See Invisibility when it comes to detecting invisible creatures, but it's much better for detecting hiding creatures. And, of course, there are as many strategies for foiling Arcane Sight as there are for Detect Magic, and if bad-guys are on their home turf they should be aware of the threat and deploy appropriate counter-measures. For instance, you don't want to be relying on Arcane Sight if you're facing a Ninja

 

[El Mahdi]

Sounds like a job for a really cool pair of sunglasses.

From the Bard, Corey Hart:

I wear my sunglasses at night
So I can, so I can
See the weaves
that permeate our lives.
And I wear my sunglasses at night
So I can, so I can
See the magic with my own two eyes.​

Although Illusions may decieve me
Arcane Sight adds security
A Charm Person may get control of me
Unless I'm able to see​

Don't touch that case
til' the guy in shades takes a look, oh no
Might be a masquerade
of a case or maybe not, oh no
You can disbelieve it
'Cause you got it made
With the guy in shades, oh woh​

And I wear my sunglasses at night
So I don't, so I don't
Forget my name while you trigger a flame (trap)
And I wear my sunglasses at night
So I can, so I can
See the light that's right before my eyes​

​