Rogue vs Detect Magic - The Same Old Story Spun a Different Way

[Vegepygmy]

Invisibility affects the person and the items they are carrying. This would include the magical emanations (aura) of their items and/or their person.

It would? Why? Please cite to the text that supports your claim that normally-invisible magical auras are rendered extra-invisible by the application of invisibility spells.

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.

Well, that's certainly...arbitrary. I, for one, don't accept your "logic," but okay, whatever.

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.

Unless you're the paladin. Remind me again why it wouldn't suck if the paladin's supernatural ability to sense the presence of evil could be thwarted by someone who's really good at hiding behind a curtain?

Can anyone point me to the correct answer on whether or not detect spells work vs. hide?

I can point you to the 3.5 FAQ, which says that detect magic isn't thwarted by invisibility. And then I can ask you why in the world, if magical invisibility doesn't thwart a detect spell, mundane invisibility would?

 

[radmod]

I can point you to the 3.5 FAQ, which says that detect magic isn't thwarted by invisibility. And then I can ask you why in the world, if magical invisibility doesn't thwart a detect spell, mundane invisibility would?

That was exactly what I was looking for and clears up several questions. Unfortunately, I was led astray by a friend who told me the clarifications was the faq so at the time I did not have that.

So by the faq, DM does work against inviso, and, by default, I would think hide, etc. Likewise, by the faq, you do have to 'restart' your DM when an invis creature moves out of the cone.

The more things change the more they stay different.

 

[Uder]

That was exactly what I was looking for and clears up several questions. Unfortunately, I was led astray by a friend who told me the clarifications was the faq so at the time I did not have that.

So by the faq, DM does work against inviso, and, by default, I would think hide, etc. Likewise, by the faq, you do have to 'restart' your DM when an invis creature moves out of the cone.

The more things change the more they stay different.

I wish someone would go through the FAQ and highlight the Skip rulings in white.

 

[radmod]

Now that I've got the proper pleasantries out of the way, I will now comment on other things that I really probably shouldn't but will anyway.

Ah, yes, vegepygmy, I remember you from several years back when I used to post. It seems your attitude hasn't changed. Too bad.

First off, it should be clear, even to you, that these are ruminations and not hard and fast rules. Hence, the word "thoughts."

It would? Why? Please cite to the text that supports your claim that normally-invisible magical auras are rendered extra-invisible by the application of invisibility spells.

I already have. Invisibility makes YOU invisible. It's been pretty clear to the literally hundreds of people I've played with for over 30 years that your aura is part of YOU.

Well, that's certainly...arbitrary. I, for one, don't accept your "logic," but okay, whatever.

To quote (or mangle) the famous line, "I don't think that word means what you think it means." Cover an invisible creature with a sheet, you can see it. Cast invisibility on it and it disappears. Boy, that was tough thinking.
Special note: this was satisfactorily cleared up and inviso has been nerfed against glitterdust since 3e.

Unless you're the paladin. Remind me again why it wouldn't suck if the paladin's supernatural ability to sense the presence of evil could be thwarted by someone who's really good at hiding behind a curtain?

Is this what you really mean? I agree, it wouldn't suck. It would suck if "someone who's really good at hiding" could be thwarted so easily.
Of course, you've decided to minimize what I wrote but that's no surprise. If you can't see how automatically negating a high level character's skills (that he's spent years forging) with a first level spell equivalent ability sucks then I feel sorry for the people you play with. Even though I personally disdain the rogue type characters I'm not looking to nerf them but give them a chance.

And that's all I think needs to be said.

 

[Herobizkit]

This is fast becoming "game mechanics" versus "reality".

 

[Tewligan]

Ah, yes, vegepygmy, I remember you from several years back when I used to post. It seems your attitude hasn't changed. Too bad.

"And so, Mr. Bond, we meet again. But this time, the advantage is mine."

 

[foxfirefizz]

idk if it's been said yet, but detect magic doesn't necessarily have to be taken by the books. It can be sight based, but when i do that, i do strictly by line of site. if you cannot see the magic in question normally, then you can't detect the magic. only prob with this method is if you have someone sitting on a high up spot trying to get line of site on the surrounding area. at that point, there is the dm ruling "you don't see squat so climb down!". I've actually had a player in the past take advantage of every single way to have detect magic work in-game. he doesn't play in my group any more.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Now that I've got the proper pleasantries out of the way, I will now comment on other things that I really probably shouldn't but will anyway.

Your first instincts were correct.

Ah, yes, vegepygmy, I remember you from several years back when I used to post. It seems your attitude hasn't changed. Too bad.

Spare us the ad hominem, please, and support your arguments with something worthwhile instead.

First off, it should be clear, even to you, that these are ruminations and not hard and fast rules. Hence, the word "thoughts."

Fair enough. I have nothing against brainstorming.

It would? Why? Please cite to the text that supports your claim that normally-invisible magical auras are rendered extra-invisible by the application of invisibility spells.

I already have. Invisibility makes YOU invisible. It's been pretty clear to the literally hundreds of people I've played with for over 30 years that your aura is part of YOU.

Then you should have no trouble citing some text that supports such an obvious conclusion. Go ahead. I'll wait.

As for your appeal to numbers, I have no idea what the literally hundreds of people I've played with for over 30 years thought about auras being or not being part of oneself, and I don't believe you ever discussed it with your associates, either. And if you did, I'll bet 99% of them couldn't have cared less, and would have happily agreed with whatever you said just to get you to stop asking them about it.

Well, that's certainly...arbitrary. I, for one, don't accept your "logic," but okay, whatever.

To quote (or mangle) the famous line, "I don't think that word means what you think it means." Cover an invisible creature with a sheet, you can see it. Cast invisibility on it and it disappears. Boy, that was tough thinking.
Special note: this was satisfactorily cleared up and inviso has been nerfed against glitterdust since 3e.

You are making assumptions about glitterdust and faerie fire that are not supported (or contradicted, as far as I know) by the actual rules. But as I said, okay, whatever. This is not an argument that can be won either way, so I'm not arguing against your interpretation. I'm just pointing out that you are (as in the case of auras obviously being part of oneself) assuming facts not in evidence.

Unless you're the paladin. Remind me again why it wouldn't suck if the paladin's supernatural ability to sense the presence of evil could be thwarted by someone who's really good at hiding behind a curtain?

Is this what you really mean? I agree, it wouldn't suck.

What I said is what I really meant, but you didn't understand it. I asked you to remind me why it wouldn't suck (because I've apparently forgotten). You agree that it wouldn't suck, so please tell me why. I think it would suck (for the paladin, at least) if a supernatural ability granted by divine powers could be neutralized by ordinary household furnishings.

But here, I'll make your argument for you. You don't think that magic should necessarily be more potent than extraordinary skill in a fantasy world. Which is a fair enough thing to say. But is there any reason why extraordinary skill should be more potent than magic? Just something to ruminate on.

It would suck if "someone who's really good at hiding" could be thwarted so easily.

It's only "so easily" for the tiny fraction of a percent of people in our fantasy world who have been chosen by a god to sniff out evil or have studied arcane secrets for the many years required to bend space and time to their will (and by the way, if we place such importance on the years of training our hypothetical rogue has spent honing his skills, why are we so quick to dismiss the wizard's training and/or the paladin's divine favor?). And even then, as has been fully explained previously in this thread, it's not very easy at all. In fact, it's so not-easy that it's hardly ever worth bothering to try.

Of course, you've decided to minimize what I wrote but that's no surprise.

If I've treated you or your arguments unfairly, I apologize. But I don't think I have.

If you can't see how automatically negating a high level character's skills (that he's spent years forging) with a first level spell equivalent ability sucks then I feel sorry for the people you play with.

I don't agree with you. I'm sure the people who play with me are okay with that, or they would have stopped asking me to play and DM games.

Even though I personally disdain the rogue type characters I'm not looking to nerf them but give them a chance.

Oh, please. Detect magic and detect evil are so potent that rogue types don't have a "chance" against them? Gimme a break!

And that's all I think needs to be said.

We agree on that much, at least.

 

[Dandu]

Glitterdust does not stop marking a target if the target refreshes his Invisibility.

 

[HoboGod]

For all those Detect <Something> spells, it notes that if something is outside your line of sight, you can tell it's direction, but not it's location. If you think about it, it makes sense, if something was behind a 1 inch wooden wall and you cast Detect Evil, you still don't have x-ray vision to see through the wall. You can tell the jerk is on point 15 of the X coordinate, point 0 of the Z coordinate, but the Y coordinate is kinda fuzzy cause that direction is being blocked by a wall.

Well, damn it, Detect Magic doesn't specify how to pinpoint exact location. It doesn't even say you CAN pinpoint exact location. Detect Evil says how to pinpoint exact location, Detect Animals says how to pinpoint exact location. The only mention of "location" in that entire entry is a broken sentence saying "The strength and location of each aura." It fails to mention anything after that. I'd say that it works like the other 60-foot-cone detect spells, if you don't have a line of sight, you can only detect direction. By its own standards, the wording of Detect Magic is too vague to pinpoint exact locations.

EDIT: Oh, and for all those who are going "WTF is HoboGod spoking? What does line of sight have to do with invisibility?" Sorry, my bad! The PHB glossary on line of sight explicitly says that you can't have a line of sight against invisible creatures.