Problems with arcane sight

[ARandomGod]

I think that it all depends on what your definition of "aura" is. Detect magic stats that you detect magical aura. The plan definition of aura is "A distinctive but intangible quality that seems to surround a person or thing". That would make me belive that an invisable creature that used magic to become so would have a aura that would outline him. That would negate the miss chance.

I agree... it depends. Therefore it's a variable up to the GM. Looking at the spell level of arcane sight, I'd rule that it pinpoints the aura, but there's still a miss chance. Greater Arcane Sight I'd give the additional benifit of negating the miss chance, once again based on the level of the spell.

 

[Someone]

I agree... it depends. Therefore it's a variable up to the GM. Looking at the spell level of arcane sight, I'd rule that it pinpoints the aura, but there's still a miss chance. Greater Arcane Sight I'd give the additional benifit of negating the miss chance, once again based on the level of the spell.

Why? Arcane sight and the Greater version point to Detect Magic. Detet magic says you can, at most, pinpoint the square where the aura is, nothing more. There´no need for an ad-hoc rule when the actual rules are pretty clear, leave common sense alone and only clash with a dictionary definition.

 

[IcyCool]

Why? Arcane sight and the Greater version point to Detect Magic. Detet magic says you can, at most, pinpoint the square where the aura is, nothing more. There´no need for an ad-hoc rule when the actual rules are pretty clear, leave common sense alone and only clash with a dictionary definition.

Exactly, nothing in the Arcane Sight spells says that it defeats invisibility. The spells state that they work like detect magic, which states that you can pinpoint the square where the aura is, and that's it. Where are people coming up with the "negates invisibility" talk?

 

[ARandomGod]

Why? Arcane sight and the Greater version point to Detect Magic. Detet magic says you can, at most, pinpoint the square where the aura is, nothing more. There´no need for an ad-hoc rule when the actual rules are pretty clear, leave common sense alone and only clash with a dictionary definition.

Well, they point towards a detect magic, but a stronger and more clear detect magic. Plus the "why" is that I think you could argue within RAW that you could indeed 'see' exactly where a magic aura is even with the detect magic cantrip ... assuming it stayed still for three rounds. Although that would indeed take some arguement.

Although I agree that's too potent.

Other 'why' for that would be a simple progression in power. Detect magic requires a lot of concentration. Arcane sight does the same as detect magic but it's a lot clearer... you can see it all right away. If you know the location of the amulet, cloak, and two rings... well, you can fire at the being wearing those rings. It doesn't locate the five foot square that the items are in, it locates the items. It even locates spellcasters and creatures with arcane or divine spell-like abilities. Once again, it doesn't locate the five foot square that they're in, it locates them. Each, separately, individually. And someone with the sight up wouldn't be attempting to hit blind, they'd simply SEE the things. Really if I were to go strictly by RAW, I'd have to say that arcane sight alone pretty much negates invisibility, for those reasons. The rules do seem pretty clear to me, and they seem to pretty clearly state that you can indeed see exactly where that 'invisible' thing is. Common sense also states that it would be easy to hit something 'invisible' that you can also see.

Greater Arcane sight is even that much clearer. You not only see them, but you automatically know which spells or magical effects are active.

Exactly, nothing in the Arcane Sight spells says that it defeats invisibility. The spells state that they work like detect magic, which states that you can pinpoint the square where the aura is, and that's it. Where are people coming up with the "negates invisibility" talk?

Of course nothing in arcane sight says it negates invisibility... it just lets you SEE the invisibility's invisible-ness... And know where it is... and even target it.

I mean, nothing about invisibility says it negates divination spells. Although there are other spells that DO negate just such divination spells as this.

So, my 'why' is simple. A seventh level spell designed to see the location and type of magics should easily be able to detect someone using a second level spell to remain undetected... a third level spell being able to do so is a little iffy... and while I can reasonably see that it does see the exact location of the invisibility spell, and therefore the target, I can also see an arguement for making a house-rule to the effect that the aura can't be located beyond it's five foot square. Which would be a house-rule, obviously, but a reasonable one.

 

[ARandomGod]

Detect magic says you can, at most, pinpoint the square where the aura is, nothing more.

I think you're wrong there. I'm looking at the text of the detect magic spell, and I don't see anywhere that it says it locates only the five foot square the aura is in, no indication that it detects the five foot square and nothing more. Indeed, it seems to me to say quite the contrary. On the third round of concentration it detects

The strength and location of each aura.

Sure, it doesn't say: "The strength and exact location. But it doesn't really need to. Of course, due to the way the spell is written it's easy to infer that it doesn't detect well enough to point directly at a magically invisible target. But that would be inference, and based on the fact that things are slowly coming into focus. It could be stated that you're not so much seeing them as detecting them, as it were. Whereas with arcane sight you simply SEE them. If you're seeing something it's not really so invisible... at least not to you.

Full text of the Detect magic:

Detect Magic
Divination

Level: Brd 0, Clr 0, Drd 0, Sor/Wiz 0

Components: V, S

Casting Time: 1 standard action

Range: 60 ft.

Area: Cone-shaped emanation

Duration: Concentration, up to 1 min./level (D)

Saving Throw: None

Spell Resistance: No

You detect magical auras. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.

1st Round: Presence or absence of magical auras.

2nd Round: Number of different magical auras and the power of the most potent aura.

3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. 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. (Make one check per aura; DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + half caster level for a nonspell effect.)

Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras.

Aura Strength: An aura’s power depends on a spell’s functioning spell level or an item’s caster level. If an aura falls into more than one category, detect magic indicates the stronger of the two.


————————— Aura Power —————————
Spell or Object Faint Moderate Strong Overwhelming
Functioning spell (spell level) 3rd or lower 4th–6th 7th–9th 10th+ (deity-level)
Magic item (caster level) 5th or lower 6th–11th 12th–20th 21st+ (artifact)

Lingering Aura: A magical aura lingers after its original source dissipates (in the case of a spell) or is destroyed (in the case of a magic item). If detect magic is cast and directed at such a location, the spell indicates an aura strength of dim (even weaker than a faint aura). How long the aura lingers at this dim level depends on its original power:

Original Strength Duration of Lingering Aura
Faint 1d6 rounds
Moderate 1d6 minutes
Strong 1d6x10 minutes
Overwhelming 1d6 days

Outsiders and elementals are not magical in themselves, but if they are summoned, the conjuration spell registers.

Each round, you can turn to detect magic in a new area. The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.

Detect magic can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

 

[IcyCool]

Well, they point towards a detect magic, but a stronger and more clear detect magic. Plus the "why" is that I think you could argue within RAW that you could indeed 'see' exactly where a magic aura is even with the detect magic cantrip ... assuming it stayed still for three rounds. Although that would indeed take some arguement.

What makes you think seeing an aura negates the miss chance for invisibility? Aura isn't a game term (to my knowledge), and unless you bend it to mean what you want it to mean, it isn't an outline either.

au·ra Audio pronunciation of "aura" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôr)
n. pl. au·ras or au·rae (ôr)

1. An invisible breath, emanation, or radiation.
2. A distinctive but intangible quality that seems to surround a person or thing; atmosphere: An aura of defeat pervaded the candidate's headquarters.
3. Pathology. A sensation, as of a cold breeze or a bright light, that precedes the onset of certain disorders, such as an epileptic seizure or an attack of migraine.

If you know the location of the amulet, cloak, and two rings... well, you can fire at the being wearing those rings. It doesn't locate the five foot square that the items are in, it locates the items. It even locates spellcasters and creatures with arcane or divine spell-like abilities. Once again, it doesn't locate the five foot square that they're in, it locates them. Each, separately, individually. And someone with the sight up wouldn't be attempting to hit blind, they'd simply SEE the things. Really if I were to go strictly by RAW, I'd have to say that arcane sight alone pretty much negates invisibility, for those reasons. The rules do seem pretty clear to me, and they seem to pretty clearly state that you can indeed see exactly where that 'invisible' thing is. Common sense also states that it would be easy to hit something 'invisible' that you can also see.

Except you can't see them. You see their auras. You KNOW where those auras are, and can SEE then AURAS. It certainly seems odd that it doesn't mention negating the miss chance from concealment, don't you think?

Of course nothing in arcane sight says it negates invisibility... it just lets you SEE the invisibility's invisible-ness... And know where it is... and even target it.

Nothing in the Arcane sight spells say that they negate the miss chance from concealment. There is your RAW answer.

So, my 'why' is simple. A seventh level spell designed to see the location and type of magics should easily be able to detect someone using a second level spell to remain undetected... a third level spell being able to do so is a little iffy... and while I can reasonably see that it does see the exact location of the invisibility spell, and therefore the target, I can also see an arguement for making a house-rule to the effect that the aura can't be located beyond it's five foot square. Which would be a house-rule, obviously, but a reasonable one.

You can quite easily detect someone with Invisibility on them, you just can't SEE THEM. You see the magical aura, which is enough to target them (I think).

 

[Someone]

I think you're wrong there. I'm looking at the text of the detect magic spell, and I don't see anywhere that it says it locates only the five foot square the aura is in, no indication that it detects the five foot square and nothing more. Indeed, it seems to me to say quite the contrary. On the third round of concentration it detects



Sure, it doesn't say: "The strength and exact location. But it doesn't really need to. Of course, due to the way the spell is written it's easy to infer that it doesn't detect well enough to point directly at a magically invisible target. But that would be inference, and based on the fact that things are slowly coming into focus. It could be stated that you're not so much seeing them as detecting them, as it were. Whereas with arcane sight you simply SEE them. If you're seeing something it's not really so invisible... at least not to you.

The spell itself is vague, but it´s because you don´t have to look at there for the rules of attacking invisible creatures, they are better explained in the DMG. There mention that attacking an invisible creature you have located has the protection of full concealment. Even invisible creatures displacing water still have the benefit of concealment. I jumped to the 5 foot square thing because it´s the way I normally play; consider that as not said.

 

[ARandomGod]

The spell itself is vague, but it´s because you don´t have to look at there for the rules of attacking invisible creatures, they are better explained in the DMG. There mention that attacking an invisible creature you have located has the protection of full concealment. Even invisible creatures displacing water still have the benefit of concealment.

Completely true. Which is something I figured into my interpretation of the spell there, why I said the cantrip completely only locates the square (it clearly only detects, not sees). But really the spells while not meantioning each other... well, you're doing more than locating the square, you're seeing the thing itself.

Since it's so unclear that means it's house-rules time. And, based on the power level of the spells in question, I'd say that the third level sight spell is "less clear" and allows you to see the location but unclearly. Really I suppose another alternative ruling that would be better would be to treat the invisible creature as if it had Faerie Fire cast on it (only for someone looking at the target with Arcane Sight). That would grant a flat - 40 to his hide roll... but he'd still get the miss chance.

I jumped to the 5 foot square thing because it´s the way I normally play; consider that as not said.

Understood. I just felt it important to point out that was a house-rule, and not actually something spelled out in the spell (and I felt I had to go back and look at the spell to see that it's not something I missed).

In fact, thinking about it I like the Faerie Fire interpretation much better than simply a 50% miss chance. It's more realistic. Still I'd let the 7th level spell just negate invisibility altogether. You're already house-ruling in a 'nerf' to the spell (according to the RAW way it's written) based solely on how YOU have seen aura's in the past (note: generic useage of the word 'you' in that sentance). And since you haven't seen any (likely) you're probably wrong.

 

[ARandomGod]

What makes you think seeing an aura negates the miss chance for invisibility? Aura isn't a game term (to my knowledge), and unless you bend it to mean what you want it to mean, it isn't an outline either.

Well, let's look at your dictionary definitions here for my answer

"1. An invisible breath, emanation, or radiation."

Except, of course, it's not invisible if you use the AS spell...

"2. A distinctive but intangible quality that seems to surround a person or thing"

And it's not intangible with the AS spell. So a tangible quality surrounding a thing. That sounds like an outline to me. Shoot man, if you go to a shooting gallery and use the target that 'looks' like a person all you're shooting at is an outline. A virtual aura, if you will.

Except you can't see them. You see their auras. You KNOW where those auras are, and can SEE then AURAS. It certainly seems odd that it doesn't mention negating the miss chance from concealment, don't you think?

Not at all. First of all, you see their outlines. Or, depending on your definition of aura, you might be seeing just a tangible glow from exactly where they are (most likely, really, an outline around an otherwise invisible creature would come across as a filled out glowing blob with the dimentions of the creature). If research the biology of the eye, you'll discover that (current) medical science has determined that the eye frequently only sees outlines, and fills in the rest.

Second it doesn't seem odd in that neither does the invisibility spell meantion it overcoming the AS spell (I agree that's something that really should have been covered). Since niether is covered, however, as a default RAW ruling you have to go with what's said, and the AS spell clearly states that it allows you to SEE the location of the magicked creature.

Nothing in the Arcane sight spells say that they negate the miss chance from concealment. There is your RAW answer.

Nothing in the Invisibility spell says it negates Arcane Sight's ability to locate the 'invisible' creature. There's YOUR RAW answer!

You can quite easily detect someone with Invisibility on them, you just can't SEE THEM. You see the magical aura, which is enough to target them (I think).

But you CAN see them. That's why it's Arcane Sight and not Arcane Detection.

Anyhow. I originally gave how I would rule. Someone asked "why". You asked "Where are people coming up with the "negates invisibility" talk?". I answered. My 'house-rule' was pretty much what yours is. I simply acknowledge that it's a house-rule. And I can see 'why' of things. There's the 'why' as I understand it.

 

[dcollins]

From the 3.5 FAQ on this issue:

Is it possible for detect magic to locate an invisible
creature?

Yes, although not very efficiently. Remember that detect
magic reveals the location of magical auras over the course of 3
rounds. A creature rendered invisible by a spell or magical
effect could be located via detect magic, but only after 3 rounds
of concentration. Furthermore, the invisible creature must
remain within the spell’s area for the entire 3 rounds of
concentration; if the creature moves out of the area, the process
must start again from the beginning. However, even if
everything works according to plan, you still don’t necessarily
know that you’ve found an invisible creature -- at best, the
caster of detect magic would know that she had located a faint
aura of illusion magic in a particular space.