Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 2446326" data-attributes="member: 17296">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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification