Problems with arcane sight

[ARandomGod]

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?



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 I understand the "it's more diffuse than that" thought. But the spell states that it locates the object/person in question. It doesn't matter if it's white text on black or black text on white, either way you're specificallly seeing the words, and you're reading them without a miss chance.

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.

Actually, even if you defined the aura as a huge black field, with only the white of the creature invisible, well, you can still read the letters. It doesn't have to be skin-tight fitting.

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! )

Actually they do. At least if you are using the spell "lightning bolt" and not using the quicken feat. That's pretty clearly spelled out. If you're using some other ability, well... whatever it is is defined by what it says, not by what it doesn't say. As per definitions. You're the one here making up things that aren't said. In this case, you're making up a power that invisibility has that's not said, the ability to negate other forms of sight (other than the visible light spectrum).

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.

But the miss chance is from not seeing, it lets you see. Therefore invisibility itself says that Arcane Sight negates the miss chance. It doesn't meantion the spell specifically because it doesn't HAVE to. Anything that lets you see the supposedly invisible person or item 'negates' the 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).

Err... I assert that YOU seem to be thinking that by not meantioning the fact that it lets you see targets that it... well... no, you seem to be simply confusing your terms here. The miss chance from invisibility is because you can't be seen. The ability to see the 'invisible' thing will negate the miss chance from it not being seeable... the AS spell allows you to see things. It's really all pretty clear there in the rules.

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

Sure. The darkness spell allows you to sleep better at night by not having people with bullseye lanterns disturb your sleep by shining them on you. Fabricate allows you to breath underwater, in appropriate circumstances... Feather fall gives you more time to shoot at targets on the ground as you fall if you're falling from a height that would (under normal circumstances) have you hit the ground in one turn. Find the path also allows you to locate objects (if your desired location is to, say, the statue you're looking for). The disguise spell could allow you to be more successful 'with the ladies'. Fire seeds could burn down an entire town (under the right circumstances). Fog cloud can help dampen fires and moisturize skin, and yet it makes no meantion of this. Forcecage can stop an avalance. Freezing Sphere can be used to cool an area down (in conjunction with water). Gentle repose can also be used to preserve food. The Ghost Sound cantrip can kill. Glitterdust can be use to make excellent confetti. Globes of Invulnerability can not only be used to stop spells, but also to just plain "look cool". Grease can be used in all sorts of ways, not all of which are meantioned in the spell...

And that's just a few minutes and looking at one spell page.

 

[IcyCool]

Err... I assert that YOU seem to be thinking that by not meantioning the fact that it lets you see targets that it... well... no, you seem to be simply confusing your terms here.

The Spell text:

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

You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight. An aura's power depends on a spell's functioning level or an item's caster level, as noted in the description of the detect magic spell (page 219). 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 + one-half caster level for a nonspell effect.)

If you concentrate on a specific creature within 120 feet of you as a standard action, you can determine whether it has any spellcasting or spell-like abilities, whether these are arcane or divine (spell-like abilities register as arcane), and the strength of the most powerful spell or spell-like ability the creature currently has available for use. In some cases, arcane sight may give a deceptively low reading -- for example, when you use it on a spellcaster who has used up most of his or her daily spell allotment.

Arcane sight can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

This spell let's you see and know the location of magical auras, would you agree? Now, could you please point out where it says you see and know the location of a creature?

Actually, even if you defined the aura as a huge black field, with only the white of the creature invisible, well, you can still read the letters. It doesn't have to be skin-tight fitting.

Let's try a different approach to this, as I think I've figured out where you're coming from.

How exactly are you seeing the creature? Does an emanation only extend out in 2 dimensions? Think of it this way, you are looking at Bob (with invisibility cast on him) and the aura of the invisibility extends out to 3 feet. Why do you think you see a flat circle with a Bob shaped hole in the middle rather than a sphere?

Actually they do.

This was intended to be tongue in cheek, but out of curiousity, could you point me to where in the Arcane sight spell it says you can't throw lightning bolts as a free action?

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

The player seems to be confused as to the difference between the useful and versatile arcane sight, and the nigh-unbeatable, awe-inspiring true seeing.

 

[tweety83]

The Spell text:
How exactly are you seeing the creature? Does an emanation only extend out in 2 dimensions? Think of it this way, you are looking at Bob (with invisibility cast on him) and the aura of the invisibility extends out to 3 feet. Why do you think you see a flat circle with a Bob shaped hole in the middle rather than a sphere?

There would be a break in the Aura. The Aura surrounds the magical effect. There for there would be a gap in the aura the shap of the creature. Hence you know exactly where the creature is.

 

[ARandomGod]

This spell let's you see and know the location of magical auras, would you agree? Now, could you please point out where it says you see and know the location of a creature?

Well, you don't. Unless, of course, the creature has a magical spell of effect on it. Or, of course, if the creature can cast arcane or divine spells... or spell like abilities?

There would be a break in the Aura. The Aura surrounds the magical effect. There for there would be a gap in the aura the shap of the creature. Hence you know exactly where the creature is.

Not necessarily. If you can't see something in the middle of an illumination, your eyes will fill in the gaps that it doesn't see. So it will look like it's solid. Sometimes, and depending. Of course. If the aura was indeed big enough, then you certainly could see the gap!

Think of it this way, you are looking at Bob (with invisibility cast on him) and the aura of the invisibility extends out to 3 feet.

Three feet? Easy. Aim for the middle. Of course, how far out the aura extends isn't shown, but face it, the larger the aura the easier it is going to be to aim for the middle.

This was intended to be tongue in cheek, but out of curiousity, could you point me to where in the Arcane sight spell it says you can't throw lightning bolts as a free action?

You're right, that's really simply being completely nothing, and a bit ashy. I didn't get that you were attempting that, and took you seriously. But, for the record, casting the arcane sight spell on yourself or on someone else will not prevent someone from throwing lightning bolts as free actions. Of course, it also doesn't grant that ability. So something else would have to. But... if something else DID, the arcane sight spell wouldn't stop it!

And also of course, it DOES grant the abilities that it states in Arcane Sight, one of which is apparently the ability to see the location of magical items, spells, creatures with casting ability.

 

[Someone]

There would be a break in the Aura. The Aura surrounds the magical effect. There for there would be a gap in the aura the shap of the creature. Hence you know exactly where the creature is.

Why? All the creature must be affected with the invisiility magic, or we could see the thing´s innards.

But again, I think everyone ignored me when I pointed to the actual invisibility rules in the DMG. They are pretty clear. Even when you are submerged in water, appearing like a empty blob outlined by water, you still have the benefit of the miss chance. It mentions coating the creature with flour, and again saying that it tracks it´s position (with a pretty clear wording that knowing the creature´s position still meets the 50% miss chance)

I think the only reasonable conclusion is that, unless clearly specified, auras, lights and such doesn´t negate the total concealment miss chance. And the only spell that specifies so is Faerie Fire: not even Glitterdust does that (Glitterdust only "outlines").

 

[green slime]

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.

Erroneous.

A PC can be surrounded by fog.... That PC would then gain a miss chance versus opponents trying to strike him. Likewise, a character with arcane sight can see the aura, but the aura is not neccessarily limited to a mere 1 millimeter coating on the PC. It maybe 3 feet thick green haze surrounding the character. An aura may pulsate, vibrate, swirl, or otherwise move. There is no clear definition of how auras behave, or look like. Given these issues, it could be argued that a creature with multiple magical auras may be even harder to pinpoint.

 

[ARandomGod]

Erroneous.

A PC can be surrounded by fog.... That PC would then gain a miss chance versus opponents trying to strike him. Likewise, a character with arcane sight can see the aura, but the aura is not neccessarily limited to a mere 1 millimeter coating on the PC. It maybe 3 feet thick green haze surrounding the character. An aura may pulsate, vibrate, swirl, or otherwise move. There is no clear definition of how auras behave, or look like. Given these issues, it could be argued that a creature with multiple magical auras may be even harder to pinpoint.

But the spell description does clearly state that you know the location... and the spell states that you know it by seeing it. I would argue that even with a three foot thick aura you'd be able to negate the miss chance. And that an aura that would prevent you from being able to *see* the location would also prevent you from *knowing* the location, other than very generally.

But once again, I'm not arguing FOR this. I'm simply stating my take on the text, how I read the RAW.

Good morning! And I hope you all had a nice weekend.

And on this subject, it sort of came up this weekend for me (my group). Not with Arcane Sight, but with a creature, who had the supernatural continuous ability: Discern Location.

A small excerpt (see below for full text)
"Nothing short of a mind blank spell or the direct intervention of a deity keeps you from learning the exact location of a single individual or object."

And the creature had this focused on a PC who was invisible. It *knows* the location, but does not *see* the location. And there is the kicker for me. If you've pinpointed the exact location you still have the 50% miss chance from invisibility. If, on the other hand, you see the location, you do not.

The GM did rule that it could always attack the square the PC was in, but would get the miss chance. Still... it does illustrate a point. This is an eight level spell here, and one that does something very similiar to what I'm saying the text of arcane sight allows you to do (with respect to invisibility). So I do see the point attempting to be made. But that's still my reading, how I say the spell works according to RAW.

Discern Location
Divination

Level: Clr 8, Knowledge 8, Sor/Wiz 8
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: Unlimited
Target: One creature or object
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

A discern location spell is among the most powerful means of locating creatures or objects. Nothing short of a mind blank spell or the direct intervention of a deity keeps you from learning the exact location of a single individual or object. Discern location circumvents normal means of protection from scrying or location. The spell reveals the name of the creature or object’s location (place, name, business name, building name, or the like), community, county (or similar political division), country, continent, and the plane of existence where the target lies.

To find a creature with the spell, you must have seen the creature or have some item that once belonged to it. To find an object, you must have touched it at least once.

 

[ARandomGod]

Why? All the creature must be affected with the invisiility magic, or we could see the thing´s innards.

Obviously true!

But again, I think everyone ignored me when I pointed to the actual invisibility rules in the DMG. They are pretty clear. Even when you are submerged in water, appearing like a empty blob outlined by water, you still have the benefit of the miss chance. It mentions coating the creature with flour, and again saying that it tracks it´s position (with a pretty clear wording that knowing the creature´s position still meets the 50% miss chance)

And here I was almost going to do so again... Personally I think submerged in water you would be pretty difficult to see. Water is pretty much just heavy air. The glitterdust statement you made is more persuasive, IMO. I see the Arcane Sight spell as more akin to Faerie Fire. In general dust, coatings, etcetera aren't completely contiguous. Completely coating it with dust? Miss chance. Completely coating it with a (1/2 inch?) layer of mud? Nullified. Submerged in water? Miss chance. Wrapped completely around with webbing? Nullified (but miss chance from the webs occasionally. IMO of course.

I think the only reasonable conclusion is that, unless clearly specified, auras, lights and such doesn´t negate the total concealment miss chance. And the only spell that specifies so is Faerie Fire: not even Glitterdust does that (Glitterdust only "outlines").

A not unreasonable conclusion. I don't necessarily agree with it. But hey, it fits the power level I think the spell should be at!

 

[Someone]

... Personally I think submerged in water you would be pretty difficult to see...

I think the whole point of the argument is that we just disagree on how we rule spells, so I se little point on continuing it.

However, just for the sake of it, an invisible creature in water should be seen as a bubble. Bubbles are quite visible: if I was writing the rules, I would have said that it negates the miss chance, so maybe I´m not quite reading well what Monte wanted to say.