Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Persiflage" data-source="post: 5270293" data-attributes="member: 73597">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.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.Yup.  That.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.Then you're rumbled.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."  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!    :o"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" />You "see" the aura.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: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.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: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.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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification