Spot DC for invisible creatures

[andargor]

When you toss in the Hide skill it gets worse. Find a level 20 hiding invisible halfling rogue in bad lighting.

So the wizard with permanent Arcane Sight walks in, and immediately spots him.

Andargor

 

[jgsugden]

Many people, as a house rule, apply the hiding modifier for size to the spot check to notice an invisible creatures. So, noticing the presence of an invisible halfling is DC24 instead of DC20. OTOH, noticing a colossal invisible creature isn't really that hard at all.

According to custserv (and I agree): If a creature is hiding while invisible, the 'spotter' should first make a spot to check opposed by the hide skill to see if it is possible to not the presence of the creature with a spot check DC20. In other words, you need to make both spot checks to note the presence of the creature.

 

[GodPhoenix]

"According to custserv (and I agree):"

What? You...agree with custserv? Is it the end of times?

 

[DarkMaster]

Many people, as a house rule, apply the hiding modifier for size to the spot check to notice an invisible creatures. So, noticing the presence of an invisible halfling is DC24 instead of DC20. OTOH, noticing a colossal invisible creature isn't really that hard at all.

According to custserv (and I agree): If a creature is hiding while invisible, the 'spotter' should first make a spot to check opposed by the hide skill to see if it is possible to not the presence of the creature with a spot check DC20. In other words, you need to make both spot checks to note the presence of the creature.

Actually made sense the spot check against hide to see if you could see the creature if it was not invisible, if you fail you would not have notice it anyway and if you succed you establish that you can see it and a get chance to roll to notice the invisible creature. From now on I will use this strategy, it makes sense.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So the wizard with permanent Arcane Sight walks in, and immediately spots him.

Depending on your interpretation of "in your sight".

Detect Magic can detect an aura of something in a box; it penetrates certain thicknesses of solid objects.

Arcane Sight definitely can't detect an aura of something in an opaque box, since the aura isn't "in your sight".

But whether the aura of something that's invisible, but not behind a solid object, is "in your sight" or not is debatable.

-Hyp.

 

[andargor]

Depending on your interpretation of "in your sight".

Detect Magic can detect an aura of something in a box; it penetrates certain thicknesses of solid objects.

Right.

Arcane Sight definitely can't detect an aura of something in an opaque box, since the aura isn't "in your sight".

Well, the spell says:

The effect is similar to that of a detect magic spell, but arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly.
You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight.

So either there is a blatant contradiction here, or similar means that in every respect except the requirement to concentrate to detect auras (and range and such), the spell functions like Dispel Magic. Ergo, you can see through objects with the same limitations.

But I agree that similar may mean several things...

But whether the aura of something that's invisible, but not behind a solid object, is "in your sight" or not is debatable.

I don't quite get that. Do you mean if the Hide skill is used in plain sight? Or do you mean because invisible means "not in your sight" so you can't detect it's aura?

Well, that would be a bit silly, not to be able to spot an aura of Illusion, IMHO.

"In your sight" is spelled out a little later:

If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura; DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + one-half caster level for a nonspell effect.)

Line of sight still exists, even if the target is invisible.

Andargor

 

[Hypersmurf]

Or do you mean because invisible means "not in your sight" so you can't detect it's aura?

I'm suggesting that's a possible interpretation.

"In your sight" is spelled out a little later:

You're assuming that the two are identical.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

If the to aren't identical, then you could find yourself in the strange predicament of not being able to detect someone's magical auras because they are invisible (i.e. not in your sight), but you could still make spellcraft checks to recognize them because they are in your line of sight. Thus you would have identified the auras on spells that you canot actually detect.

Seems easier to me to just use the assumption that "in yur sight" and "line of sight" are synonymous in the description of the Arcane Sight spell.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If the to aren't identical, then you could find yourself in the strange predicament of not being able to detect someone's magical auras because they are invisible (i.e. not in your sight), but you could still make spellcraft checks to recognize them because they are in your line of sight. Thus you would have identified the auras on spells that you canot actually detect.

No, you can't. You can only identify the school "if the items bearing the auras are within line of sight".

"The auras" can only refer back to the auras whose power and location you know... which is all magical auras "within your sight".

If "within your sight" meant "within line of sight", then there would be no need to say "if the items bearing the auras are within line of sight"... because then you'd effectively be saying "if the auras within line of sight are within line of sight, then..."

So, presumably, the wording is catering for conditions where an aura can be within your sight, but not in line of sight. Arcane Eye, perhaps, yields a condition where something is within your sight, but not in line of sight.

But if something is not within your sight, then it cannot be one of "the items bearing the auras", since "the auras" are the ones within your sight... and thus even if you have line of sight to an aura that is not within your sight, you can't identify the School on it.

Right?

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

But then you end up with the opposite situation: being able to see an aura but not identify it (because of scrying). That situation is qually silly IMO. I'll stick with "those two phrases are sysnonyms." It just makes more sense to me.