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="ken-ichi" data-source="post: 2449043" data-attributes="member: 20061">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.</blockquote>

Verification