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: 2457587" data-attributes="member: 17296">But the spell description does clearly state that you know the location... and the spell states that you know it by seeing it. I would argue that even with a three foot thick aura you'd be able to negate the miss chance. And that an aura that would prevent you from being able to *see* the location would also prevent you from *knowing* the location, other than very generally.But once again, I'm not arguing FOR this. I'm simply stating my take on the text, how I read the RAW.Good morning! And I hope you all had a nice weekend. And on this subject, it sort of came up this weekend for me (my group). Not with Arcane Sight, but with a creature, who had the supernatural continuous ability: Discern Location.A small excerpt (see below for full text)"Nothing short of a mind blank spell or the direct intervention of a deity keeps you from learning the exact location of a single individual or object."And the creature had this focused on a PC who was invisible. It *knows* the location, but does not *see* the location. And there is the kicker for me. If you've pinpointed the exact location you still have the 50% miss chance from invisibility. If, on the other hand, you see the location, you do not. The GM did rule that it could always attack the square the PC was in, but would get the miss chance. Still... it does illustrate a point. This is an eight level spell here, and one that does something very similiar to what I'm saying the text of arcane sight allows you to do (with respect to invisibility). So I do see the point attempting to be made. But that's still my reading, how I say the spell works according to RAW.</blockquote>

Verification