mach1.9pants
Hero
But he can't cast that spell or make that item himself, has to have the Wiz first....
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Rogue vs Detect Magic - The Same Old Story Spun a Different Way
- Thread starter severed_ronin
- Start date
coyote6
Adventurer
Yes, there is the lead sheet solution.
MortalPlague
Adventurer
My group always ran it so that detect magic doesn't see through invisibility. The whole higher level spell beats lower level spell seems like it applies here. Furthermore, we've always run it so that people's gear doesn't give them away when hiding. It just seems cheesy.
Detect magic is useful enough without trumping a spot check.
Detect magic is useful enough without trumping a spot check.
amnuxoll
First Post
How about a wand of Magic Aura?
Magic Aura :: d20srd.org
750gp makes you undetectable for at least a few days.
Magic Aura :: d20srd.org
750gp makes you undetectable for at least a few days.
And you can only hide, if you are behind cover. You are in a dungeon, so 1 foot walls should be readily available. But I guess full cover must be necessary, otherwise the warlock can see your upper half. But again: The warlock is using a standard action each round, just to get your location in THREE rounds. So he can't do an attack and the rest of the party can beat him to unconsciousness during that time. I guess, you are pretty save. He can even only take a single move each round, so even while sneaking you do match his speed (if you take a penalty which should be -10 or something, you can make standard double moves), so he can't catch you.
And I don't know whether Detect Magic really resets completely on every turn or move of the caster. I guess the spell description is not stating that in detail, is it? I would houserule that by saying that once you have pinpointed the location of an aura, you may follow it, as long as it stays in your cone, even if you move or turn. This counts also for any other auras that stay in the cone. But every aura that has left the cone once must be detected all over again, thus resetting the spells effect for that aura.
So, maybe that can be read from my post, but I don't think Detect Magic is overpowered for this use, it's either the opposite. How Arcane Sight works in detail is now known to me, so I won't state anything regarding it. But if we are talking about high level spells, get a True Sight!
A few thoughts in regards to arcane sight/detect magic vs. invisibility:
Invisibility affects the person and the items they are carrying. This would include the magical emanations (aura) of their items and/or their person. Thus detect magic spells would fail. I can't remember if it specifically says it in the spell description but if an invisible person were to pick up an item then that item would appear as if floating in mid-air. It would require a reapplication of invisibility (via spell, ring, etc.) to make the item disappear (usually a standard action). Likewise, if the item were magical and invisibility were reapplied it too would become invisible, as will it's aura.
Now Glitterdust vs. a PC with a ring of invisibility would work in the following manner. The person would be covered in the dust and hence visible. A reapplication of invisibility would make the Glitterdust also invisible.
Vs. Faerie Fire the target is 'outlined' (an affect that is not part of the target's person) so a reapplication of invisibility would have no affect and the person would be outlined.
In regards to the question about moving invisible while someone is detecting magic: If the person moving does not move out of the range of the spell (or the area of the cone) then no, it would not reset the DM. If they did move out of the cone then, yes, the DM would have to be reset.
What I'm still struggling with is ArcS/DM vs. hiding. Quite frankly, with the ease of obtaining/using DM, I hate the idea that you can't hide against it. Also this means the other detect spells would have the same affect. It would kind of suck if the evil rogue with a HUGE hide couldn't effectively hide from the paladin.
That said, I don't see anything in the RAW or RAI which says the spells don't work against a hide check (except when trying to determine school of magic on 3rd round). Right now, I'm thinking of proposing a house rule that says you take a -20 on hide vs. detect magic. Can anyone point me to the correct answer on whether or not detect spells work vs. hide?
Invisibility affects the person and the items they are carrying. This would include the magical emanations (aura) of their items and/or their person. Thus detect magic spells would fail. I can't remember if it specifically says it in the spell description but if an invisible person were to pick up an item then that item would appear as if floating in mid-air. It would require a reapplication of invisibility (via spell, ring, etc.) to make the item disappear (usually a standard action). Likewise, if the item were magical and invisibility were reapplied it too would become invisible, as will it's aura.
Now Glitterdust vs. a PC with a ring of invisibility would work in the following manner. The person would be covered in the dust and hence visible. A reapplication of invisibility would make the Glitterdust also invisible.
Vs. Faerie Fire the target is 'outlined' (an affect that is not part of the target's person) so a reapplication of invisibility would have no affect and the person would be outlined.
In regards to the question about moving invisible while someone is detecting magic: If the person moving does not move out of the range of the spell (or the area of the cone) then no, it would not reset the DM. If they did move out of the cone then, yes, the DM would have to be reset.
What I'm still struggling with is ArcS/DM vs. hiding. Quite frankly, with the ease of obtaining/using DM, I hate the idea that you can't hide against it. Also this means the other detect spells would have the same affect. It would kind of suck if the evil rogue with a HUGE hide couldn't effectively hide from the paladin.
That said, I don't see anything in the RAW or RAI which says the spells don't work against a hide check (except when trying to determine school of magic on 3rd round). Right now, I'm thinking of proposing a house rule that says you take a -20 on hide vs. detect magic. Can anyone point me to the correct answer on whether or not detect spells work vs. hide?
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
What about making the Hide skill check without the magical enhancements?
The Hide skill is a quantification of your knowledge and skill about hiding. I would assume that a thief in a magical world, would know enough to take into account the fact that he is carrying detectable magic items (and what can prevent their detection). Make the skill check using only your abilities (rather than magical enhancements), and you're modelling your skill and knowledge to hide yourself from detection...even someone who can see magical emanations.
Of course though, if your own skill in Hide isn't very good without all of the magic, then it won't help. And, it requires subtracting the points from enhancements from your total points in Hide. But as a DM, I'd allow the player to make his check based on his own skill alone (and not consider it suppressing his magical auras).
The Hide skill is a quantification of your knowledge and skill about hiding. I would assume that a thief in a magical world, would know enough to take into account the fact that he is carrying detectable magic items (and what can prevent their detection). Make the skill check using only your abilities (rather than magical enhancements), and you're modelling your skill and knowledge to hide yourself from detection...even someone who can see magical emanations.
Of course though, if your own skill in Hide isn't very good without all of the magic, then it won't help. And, it requires subtracting the points from enhancements from your total points in Hide. But as a DM, I'd allow the player to make his check based on his own skill alone (and not consider it suppressing his magical auras).
hmm, El Mahdi gives me another idea. What if the hide check vs. Detect were based on the amount and power of said magic items? For example, you take a -1 to your hide check for each power level of a magic item. A 20th level thief with a +2 dagger should be easily able to hide it, but a 3rd level with +4 of this, that and the other would shine like a beacon. The problem with that is the math involved which no-one likes. (Well, I've got a +2 cloak, +3 flaming long sword, +1 ring of protection, and, oh, my wand of absorption, so that's ...?)
BTW, in the question about DM and moving out of it's area of effect. I thought about it and I would have to say that, if using standard initiative, the spellcaster should be allowed to 'follow' your aura to where you moved and continue the DM progression (from 2nd to 3rd round) rather than reset it. If using simultaneous initiative (a house rule) he could just follow you anyway.
Really, a definition of 'aura' would help.
BTW, in the question about DM and moving out of it's area of effect. I thought about it and I would have to say that, if using standard initiative, the spellcaster should be allowed to 'follow' your aura to where you moved and continue the DM progression (from 2nd to 3rd round) rather than reset it. If using simultaneous initiative (a house rule) he could just follow you anyway.
Really, a definition of 'aura' would help.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
I don't think that works. The spell says that "the amount of information you gain depends on how long you've studied an area or subject" and later says "each round you may turn to detect magic in a new area". Now, you might say that when he turns and succeeds in catching the rogue in his new area (by chance), then he's still studying the same subject... but the descriptions of what you can perceive are all written in terms of the area, as is the whole rest of the spell (subject is never mentioned again).
