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: 2447965" data-attributes="member: 17296">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification