Problems with arcane sight

[tweety83]

If this how Wizards is saying Detect magic and Arcane sight work, they should not have used the word aura. They should have changed it to illumination or something else. The pure definition of aura is a "A distinctive but intangible quality that seems to surround a person or thing". If a creature is invisable he would have an aura that outlines him. If something outlines him you know where it is. There should be no question about that. Now if that is not the way they intended they should have never used the word auara. Also if a creature has multipule magical items or spells cast on him then the character should be able to pinpoint the character even better.

 

[ken-ichi]

I think the definition of aura is too broad (as it is describing something that cannot be seen) and people are interpreting it differently.
One possible interpretation of a magic aura is the outline of the person with invisibility on. As such it is easy to pinpoint which square the creature is in. If the outline is precise enough, then there would be no miss chance. This logical interpretation of an aura would logically state that the target does not benefit from a miss chance.
This has the result of giving the arcane sight a benefit that is logical, but not spelled out in the spell description.
Another interpretation of a magic aura (and the one I use) is the aura extends around the creature in a sort of halo (like you get on a camera lens with the sun shining on it). This halo forms around 2-3 feet from the actual skin of the target and would pulsate, change thinckness, and undulate. A weak aura flickers and is faint, getting more solid looking the more powerful the aura is. Seeing this aura enables you to locate the creature enough to target it with target spells and pick the correct 5 foot square to attack, but is inprecise enough to still cause the attack to have a 50% miss chance. After all the spell says you can see the aura, not that you can see the creature the aura extends around and it does not define what the aura looks like or how you perceive it.
This has the result of not adding to or removing from the arcane sight spell, but still follows a logical thought path. I chose this interpretation for my games.

 

[IcyCool]

The pure definition of aura is a "A distinctive but intangible quality that seems to surround a person or thing". If a creature is invisable he would have an aura that outlines him.

Incorrect. If I am standing in a field, in the center of a 100 ft circle ringed by people, I am "surrounded" by them. I am NOT outlined.

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

I could see where you might think this is an outline. And even if it were an outline, you'd still suffer your miss chance. Why? That big blob of colored aura over there isn't all person, some of it is aura. How do you know where to strike to hit person and not aura? That aura surrounds the person (in all three dimensions), and extends out from it. How far does the aura extend?

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.

You SEE their Aura, and KNOW where that Aura is. How does this negate the miss chance for invisibility?

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.

No, it doesn't seem odd. If Arcane Sight negated the miss chance for Invisibility, it would state that in the spell, like Faerie Fire does. Why are you trying to make a spell do something that it doesn't do?

Let me ask you this, do you think the Arcane Sight spells negate the concelment granted by the Darkness spell? How about Blur, or the Displacement spell?

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

Correct. However, nothing in Arcane Sight states that it elminates the miss chance from Invisibility. So you know where the invisible creature is, you can see the aura of the invisibility spell, and you suffer a 50% miss chance for attacking the creature.

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.

Fair enough, you house rule the Arcane Sight spells to negate the miss chance from invisibility. The spell doesn't state that it negates the miss chance from invisibility. That is what is written there (i.e. the RAW = Rules as Written). I'm not saying I don't think Greater Arcane Sight shouldn't negate the miss chance from invisibility, I'm just explaining what is written in the spell description. I understand your reasoning that "aura" = "outline", I just disagree with it.

 

[tweety83]

I understand your reasoning that "aura" = "outline", I just disagree with it.

How can you disagree with the definition of a word? That makes no sense at all.

 

[Arnwyn]

The spell doesn't state that it negates the miss chance from invisibility. That is what is written there (i.e. the RAW = Rules as Written).

This doesn't make any sense.

(While I agree with your conclusion, I don't agree at all with your definition of RAW. There seems to be a couple people in the Rules Forum who try to insist that omission/what isn't written is somehow equivalent to RAW. It's not... otherwise you fall into the trap that ARandomGod pointed out.)

 

[IcyCool]

How can you disagree with the definition of a word? That makes no sense at all.

Outline isn't the definition of aura. Where in the definition does it state that aura = outline? Go ahead, show it to me.

 

[ARandomGod]

From the 3.5 FAQ on this issue:

But that's detect magic, which is clearly different than Arcane Sight. The AS spell points back to detect magic, certainly, but detect magic simply detects things, so it's easy to say that you don't know where it is. AS SEE's things, and locates them.

You SEE their Aura, and KNOW where that Aura is. How does this negate the miss chance for invisibility?

Due to the way vision works.

No, it doesn't seem odd. If Arcane Sight negated the miss chance for Invisibility, it would state that in the spell, like Faerie Fire does. Why are you trying to make a spell do something that it doesn't do?

It *should* say, certainly. Either way, simply because a good reading of this is having people give different opinions it should be clarified. But it doesn't say. Why are you reading into the spell something that's not there? (My answer: Because you wish it were there).

Now, back to your question... why am I trying to make the spell do something? I'm not. Read over my responses again. I'm simply offering up my read on the spell. Indeed, if you do look at my responses again, I don't think that the spell *should* function in the way I'm saying it reads as functioning.

Let me ask you this, do you think the Arcane Sight spells negate the concelment granted by the Darkness spell? How about Blur, or the Displacement spell?

Good questions. And taken straight from the faerie fire spell I notice. First I'm going to go slightly off topic and state that, from the description of faerie fire, while it negates darkness concealment lower than second level, second level or higher darkness masks it. Power levels of spells are important.

Now. They don't meantion any of those spells either... The darkness spell would provide a glow all withing the area of AS. Invisibility is a seperate spell... I'd have to adjudicate it based on the relative aura strengths. If there was a particularly strong spell permeating the area I can easily see it masking the aura's withing it.

Blur... well, the spell would be blurred all over the place. However the magic items themselves... Let's look at the spell blur for a second... It specifically notes a second level divination spell that will not negate it (see invisibility) and a fifth level one that will (true seeing). ... Indicating that divination can overcome the spell, depending on power level and function of the divination. This could go either way, depending on how the blur spell works. However, unlike the spell invisibility and how it interacts with Arcane Sight, I can easily justify why blur trumphs AS. Blur sends an entire image, including the image of magical aura's. Admittely I'm reading that in, but see... here I can (withouth hypocracy or wishful thinking).

Displacement I'd rule the same as blur. Having made the decision on blur I don't even need to relook up the test on displacement to double check. However if I were specifically asked to by someone who'd heard my blur decision and thought this needed a second look, I would.

Fair enough, you house rule the Arcane Sight spells to negate the miss chance from invisibility. The spell doesn't state that it negates the miss chance from invisibility. That is what is written there (i.e. the RAW = Rules as Written).

But neither does it say that it does not, and it DOES say that it allows you to locate and SEE magic. I still have to say that IMO the RAW does indeed have AS trumphing Invisibility.

My acknowledgement that I'd house-rule this was that I'd house-rule what I stated above... AS does not negate the miss chance and that Greater AS does. What I'm saying is that ruling that AS does not negate the miss chance is a house rule, when basing things strictly on RAW.

I'm not saying I don't think Greater Arcane Sight shouldn't negate the miss chance from invisibility, I'm just explaining what is written in the spell description. I understand your reasoning that "aura" = "outline", I just disagree with it.

I understand that you disagree with what's written, and that you disagree with my take on the word aura (which is really the only possible RAW justification for not having AS trumph Invisibility). I'm also just explaining what's written in the spell description, and pointing out that the fact that an exception is NOT noted in the spell simply means that there is no exception, not that the one some people wish was there is the case. Aura's are pretty well defined, I can see you wanting to make it a less tangible aura. That would work well. And you can see that in my house-rule stating that AS does not negate the miss chance from invisibility I made just such a statement. That AS grants an unclear aura, not a clean well-defined one.

 

[ARandomGod]

Outline isn't the definition of aura. Where in the definition does it state that aura = outline? Go ahead, show it to me.

Wait! I already did this, based on your own looking up the word (at dictionary . com you stated).

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

Now, to be complete, you have to take this definition as if you could (perhaps magically?) see auras. That removes the word intangible (as it's now tangible) and seems (which was put there because it's not tangible).

That makes this read:

2. A distinctive quality that surrounds a person or thing;

Since that quality is a seen one, really what this says is an outline. A visual effect that surrounds a person or thing is pretty much the definition of outline. Wait, to me more certain I'll look that up, for EAW (English As Written. I mean, if we're putting so much stock in actual text, it's important that we do these sorts of things).

out·line ( P ) Pronunciation Key (outln)
n.

a) A line marking the outer contours or boundaries of an object or figure.
b) The shape of an object or figure.

And there you have it. Those two definitions together pretty clearly show that an aura IS an outline. The only sticking point to be had is how clear an outline... the RAW of both AS and Greater AS seem to indicate a pretty clear one (Detect magic doesn't even say you see anything, just that you sense it, so really isn't a part of this at all).

 

[ARandomGod]

Now, my favorite house rule would strengthen illusion, and would generally have illusion spells be less detectible. There should be a built in defense around illusion spells such that they aren't so easy to detect. They should give off aura's *other than* illusion. And, in the case of invisibility, they should have a defensve special aura that's extremely diffuse (just for this type of occasion). Detect magic type spells too easily trumph illusions. ALL illusions. Detect magic itself is better in it's limited function. But arcane sight... someone with AS on all the time just *knows*.

 

[IcyCool]

That makes this read:

2. A distinctive quality that surrounds a person or thing;

And I've already done this one too. "Surrounding" does not equal "Outlining".

For example. Let's say the aura extends 100 feet from the target (in all directions, it is an emanation after all, not a cross section). You "see" a roughly 100 foot by 100 foot magical blob. Why does this allow you to see the creature inside of that blob? Perhaps you are deciding that the aura simply extends only millimeters from the individual being cloaked?

Since that quality is a seen one, really what this says is an outline. A visual effect that surrounds a person or thing is pretty much the definition of outline. Wait, to me more certain I'll look that up, for EAW (English As Written. I mean, if we're putting so much stock in actual text, it's important that we do these sorts of things).

So now an aura is a simple line marking the outer boundaries of a thing? Really? Where does it state that in the definition of aura?

And there you have it. Those two definitions together pretty clearly show that an aura IS an outline. The only sticking point to be had is how clear an outline... the RAW of both AS and Greater AS seem to indicate a pretty clear one (Detect magic doesn't even say you see anything, just that you sense it, so really isn't a part of this at all).

Ah, I see the problem now. You are calling my argument a "sticking point", based off what you want an aura to be. Hmm. I will agree that the outer edge of the aura is an outline of the aura, which also contains the creature, but I still don't see where you are getting that this is an outline of a creature. I suppose if you decided that the aura of an invisibility spell is like a skin-tight fitting you could certainly claim it negated invisibility. Then again, the AS spells don't say that they negate the miss chance from invisibility. They don't say you can't hurl lightning bolts as a free action either, FWIW. (I know you didn't say this, but making up rules based off of what the RAW doesn't say is FUN! )

As the size of an aura isn't listed in the RAW, you'll need to look at what the spell lets you do. It lets you see magical auras. It doesn't say that it negates the miss chance from invisibility. You seem to think that not mentioning negating the miss chance is the same thing as saying that it negates the miss chance. That is incorrect. (I think this is a logical fallacy called "Error of Omission", or something like that).

Out of curiousity, can you show me an example of another game rule that you think lets you do something it doesn't state?