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: 2451684" data-attributes="member: 17296">But that's detect magic, which is clearly different than Arcane Sight. The AS spell points back to detect magic, certainly, but detect magic simply detects things, so it's easy to say that you don't know where it is. AS SEE's things, and locates them.Due to the way vision works.It *should* say, certainly. Either way, simply because a good reading of this is having people give different opinions it should be clarified. But it doesn't say. Why are you reading into the spell something that's not there? (My answer: Because you wish it were there). Now, back to your question... why am I trying to make the spell do something? I'm not. Read over my responses again. I'm simply offering up my read on the spell. Indeed, if you do look at my responses again, I don't think that the spell *should* function in the way I'm saying it reads as functioning.Good questions. And taken straight from the faerie fire spell I notice. First I'm going to go slightly off topic and state that, from the description of faerie fire, while it negates darkness concealment lower than second level, second level or higher darkness masks it. Power levels of spells are important.Now. They don't meantion any of those spells either... The darkness spell would provide a glow all withing the area of AS. Invisibility is a seperate spell... I'd have to adjudicate it based on the relative aura strengths. If there was a particularly strong spell permeating the area I can easily see it masking the aura's withing it. Blur... well, the spell would be blurred all over the place. However the magic items themselves... Let's look at the spell blur for a second... It specifically notes a second level divination spell that will not negate it (see invisibility) and a fifth level one that will (true seeing). ... Indicating that divination can overcome the spell, depending on power level and function of the divination. This could go either way, depending on how the blur spell works. However, unlike the spell invisibility and how it interacts with Arcane Sight, I can easily justify why blur trumphs AS. Blur sends an entire image, including the image of magical aura's. Admittely I'm reading that in, but see... here I can (withouth hypocracy or wishful thinking). Displacement I'd rule the same as blur. Having made the decision on blur I don't even need to relook up the test on displacement to double check. However if I were specifically asked to by someone who'd heard my blur decision and thought this needed a second look, I would.But neither does it say that it does not, and it DOES say that it allows you to locate and SEE magic. I still have to say that IMO the RAW does indeed have AS trumphing Invisibility. My acknowledgement that I'd house-rule this was that I'd house-rule what I stated above... AS does not negate the miss chance and that Greater AS does. What I'm saying is that ruling that AS does not negate the miss chance is a house rule, when basing things strictly on RAW.I understand that you disagree with what's written, and that you disagree with my take on the word aura (which is really the only possible RAW justification for not having AS trumph Invisibility). I'm also just explaining what's written in the spell description, and pointing out that the fact that an exception is NOT noted in the spell simply means that there is no exception, not that the one some people wish was there is the case.  Aura's are pretty well defined, I can see you wanting to make it a less tangible aura. That would work well. And you can see that in my house-rule stating that AS does not negate the miss chance from invisibility I made just such a statement. That AS grants an unclear aura, not a clean well-defined one.</blockquote>

Verification