Problems with arcane sight

[Venport]

This seems to brake down to how the DM calls it (as is everything in DnD) Me as a DM will allow the player to see auras in a 5' sq however not be able to see clear enought to negate Misschance... Remeber that all the use for spells that are not specific are up to the DM. the Grease Spell can't be use as WD40 on a gear or weel unless the Dm thinks that it will work that way...


thanks everyone for your ideas and help


and tweety83 nice try but i'm not convinced 50% miss chance

 

[IcyCool]

*shrug* I see now that there is little point in continuing, we seem to be pretty firmly stuck in our camps.

I do want to address this comment however:

In general dust, coatings, etcetera aren't completely contiguous.

Is this in the RAW anywhere? If not, why doesn't it fit with your "RAW" reading of the Arcane Sight spell? You want the Arcane Sight spell to "outline" a target, thereby enabling you to "see" the person (the spell allows you to see auras, not people). However, you blatantly state that Glitterdust (which states that it "outlines" the target), doesn't really "outline" them, and therefore still suffers the miss chance. This is inconsistent and confusing, can you explain?

 

[ARandomGod]

Is this in the RAW anywhere? If not, why doesn't it fit with your "RAW" reading of the Arcane Sight spell? You want the Arcane Sight spell to "outline" a target, thereby enabling you to "see" the person (the spell allows you to see auras, not people). However, you blatantly state that Glitterdust (which states that it "outlines" the target), doesn't really "outline" them, and therefore still suffers the miss chance. This is inconsistent and confusing, can you explain?

Dust coatings not being contiguous? Not in RAW, but in IRL. I work in an environmental enforcement job, and now and then I go enforce dust nuisance issues. I've seen a lot of dust coatings.

Glitterdust ... Faerie Fire. Both of them outline the target. They have a different effect. I was attempting to state that the outline of Glitterdust, being dust, is likely not contiguous.

Are you stating that you think the wording of the spell Glitterdust negates the miss chance?

 

[IcyCool]

Are you stating that you think the wording of the spell Glitterdust negates the miss chance?

Not at all, just trying to figure out why you don't think Glitterdust negates the miss chance from invisibility, but you do think the very ambiguosly defined "aura" from Arcane Sight does?

Interestingly, you are also inconsistent with your ruling on Darkness and Arcane Sight. You see the aura of the Darkness spell. According to your ruling on Arcane Sight (where you stated that it didn't matter how far out the aura extended from the creature, you just need to aim at the middle and you'll negate the miss chance), and assuming an individual standing in the middle of the darkness, aiming for the middle of the darkness should negate the miss chance. Doubly so since you can actually SEE the creature. How do you explain these inconsistencies?

The only conclusion I am coming to is that you WANT Arcane Sight to negate the miss chance for invisibility, and are reading that in. What am I missing?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I believe a spell does only what it says and nothing more.

I don't think a person leaves a "hole" in what you see as an aura. I envision an aura (of invisibility at any rate) more of an amorphous blob about twice the size of the person that vaguely (if you stretch your imagination) looks like a humanoid shape. If you make your roll, you know that it is an aura of illusion. Let's assume the aura is blue for a moment.

So, you cast the spell and see a blue blob that takes up between 5 and 10 feet. Keep in mind that with invisibility, anything that extends beyond 10 feet away from you becomes invisible. So, this aura of invisibility has to extend out that far to be able to cover things that you are holding that are almost 10 feet long.

The spell doesn't say "you see an aura with a hole in the middle where the person is" it doesn't say "you can see invisible people". So, you can't do either of those things.

As for glitterdust, we had always assumed that it did negate the miss chance. Although, since I always thought it was broken, this new interpretation might be worth using.

 

[werk]

As someone said, you can't read missing text into a description. The argument is whether the aura from det magic or arcane sight outline the target. As example, let's look at some text from spells that definitely outline and negate invis.

Faerie Fire
A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subjects. Outlined subjects shed light as candles. Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects.

Glitterdust
...causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades.

True Seeing
...sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions...

So it is reasonable to assume that if det magic or arcane sight were supposed to negate invisibility, the designers would have called that out in the description...as they did in the spells that are supposed to negate invis.

.02

 

[ARandomGod]

Interestingly, you are also inconsistent with your ruling on Darkness and Arcane Sight. You see the aura of the Darkness spell. According to your ruling on Arcane Sight (where you stated that it didn't matter how far out the aura extended from the creature, you just need to aim at the middle and you'll negate the miss chance), and assuming an individual standing in the middle of the darkness, aiming for the middle of the darkness should negate the miss chance. Doubly so since you can actually SEE the creature. How do you explain these inconsistencies?

Well, if it were darkness 5' perhaps. But no, I'd still grant a miss chance.

I don't bother. I was trying to accept your completely made up idea that an aura was not an aura, and rule from there.

The only conclusion I am coming to is that you WANT Arcane Sight to negate the miss chance for invisibility, and are reading that in. What am I missing?

You're missing me trying to work *with* you. In reality I rule that you can SEE the creature using Arcane Sight. If you can SEE them, no miss chance. No matter how blurry your sight is. For they don't have rules written for nearsightedness either (which would produce that blur).

It's to work with the people who arbitrarily decided that you "see" a blob, and try to make it so that the blob can both locate the creature (as it says it does in the spell) and have a miss chance. I believe the spell does what it says and nothing more. It allows you to see magical aura's. What you can see you can target with no miss chance (according to RAW) unless there is some other special circumstance to prevent that. This spell allows seeing, it doesn't introduce special circumstances, therefore you can see it well enough to target it!

I think glitterdust doesn't negate the miss chance because it says specifically how it interacts with invisibility. Therefore there is a special note stating how it works, making it not negate the miss chance. There is no special text in either invisibility or arcane sight, and so I have to rule that, by an actual Rules AS Written, you can see it (as per the spell) and seeing negates a miss chance gained by not being able to see, and therefore there is no miss chance.

You simply can't read missing text into the description. Since the spell allows you to see the target, you have to assume, unless it's otherwise written, that you indeed can see the target.

 

[ARandomGod]

As for glitterdust, we had always assumed that it did negate the miss chance. Although, since I always thought it was broken, this new interpretation might be worth using.

I always assumed it did too! Until a recent use of the spell (and rereading) lead me to see that the effect of the spell is a -40 to hide...

well...

I'll re-read it again

A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades.
Any creature covered by the dust takes a –40 penalty on Hide checks.

Hrmm... actually it does say it outlines the creature. Doesn't say you can SEE the creature... OK, I can see how that could go either way. One reading (the outline negating the miss chance) makes the spell more powerful against the invisibility spell than against the hide skill. Which I suppose it should be, actually...

OK, I take that back, Glitterdust almost certainly does negate the miss chance granted from invisibility, and also grants a -40 to hide, which cancells out the hide bonus invisibility grants if standing still, and more than negates it when mobile.

Edit: It's odd that Faerie Fire doesn't grant a similiar penalty to hide.

 

[IcyCool]

You're missing me trying to work *with* you. In reality I rule that you can SEE the creature using Arcane Sight. If you can SEE them, no miss chance.

I guess herein lies the problem. You seem to think that aura = creature, because you keep repeating that the spell lets you see a creature, when it clearly states that it lets you see auras.

For the record, I don't "arbitrarily rule that you see a blob". I let the spell do exaclty what it says, without making up new things that aren't in the spell text. As such, it doesn't allow you to see an invisible creature, and you have failed to point out where it does (aside from your "common sense" arguements, which you dismiss when they aren't convenient). Therefore, there is no reason that it would negate the 50% miss chance. Since it doesn't specifically say that it allows you to SEE a creature, it doesn't allow you to see a creature. Knowing where a creature is and seeing it are two very different things.

 

[Venport]

from now on

From now on i'm going to add extra illusion compoents to the room like ghost sound (i think that is illusion) centered on points in the room to create a way so that he can't "see" a creature because he will not konw witch aura is the one he wants to attack.... Also as far as the miss chance i would agree that glitter dust negates it for invisablity.

with arcane site the arguement comes down to what an aura is dose it show the creature? as a DM i would think that an aura would be around the figure however it would be blurry and hard to tell exactly where it is.... that;s how i feel