Wand- Enervation+Improved Invis+Nondection=...

[Henrix]

In essence: there should have been subschools of divination, just as there are Illusion (figment) and Conjuration (calling).
Divination (scrying) comes to mind.

That would have made things much easier, on many counts.

For my purposes, and without checking to see if it is reasonable in all cases, detect spells are spells that start with Detect, just like cure spells are spells with the word Cure in them.

I think that there are good reasons for not allowing relativeley low-level spells that make you invisible and non-detectable by See Invisibility.
I believe in giving the PCs, and others, a fair chance.

 

[James McMurray]

Note: Personal vs. non-personal does not really make much sense since it is ambiguous and arbitrary. See Invisibility affects the caster. He sees invisible. Detect Undead affects the caster. He detects the undead aura. Clairvoyance allows you to see in a given local, etc.

Ummm, how is it ambiguous? If the spell lists "Personal" in its range category (such as See Invisible) then it is not affected. If it lists anything else (such as Detect Undead or Clairvoyance) then it is affected. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

As for being arbitrary, I don't see it that way. I have reasoned that, because none of the listed spells has a personal range, that may be the similarity they are trying to draw with their examples. Of course, why they didn't just say "all divinations" or "all divinations without a range of personal" is beyon me. I chalk it up to WotC's poor editing practices, which I became vastly familiar with during my days as a Magic: the Gathering player.

 

[Henrix]

I chalk it up to WotC's poor editing practices, which I became vastly familiar with during my days as a Magic: the Gathering player.

Oh, come on, I would say it is their rather good editing practices that have spoiled us to the point where problems with a single spell under certain circumstances upset us!

The D&D3 rules are wonders of unambiguity compared to all others I have seen. That is one of the reasons I like them.

 

[James McMurray]

Don't get me wrong, I am also a much bigger fan of 3E than any other edition. That doesn't mean their editing couldn't (or shouldn't) be improved though.

 

[KarinsDad]

Ummm, how is it ambiguous? If the spell lists "Personal" in its range category (such as See Invisible) then it is not affected. If it lists anything else (such as Detect Undead or Clairvoyance) then it is affected. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

Sorry, misunderstood what you meant by personal.

Fair enough. This is a reasonable line to draw.

I wouldn't draw it myself due to the reason they put personal into the game.

That put it there to make it difficult to allow other characters to have access to certain powerful spells.

For example, True Stike, Shield, or See Invisibility for the party fighters. The designers wanted PCs to go through hoops to get those types of spells into the hands of non-arcane spell casters.

So, although your line is ok, it really only drops out True Strike, Comprehend Languages and See Invisibility (possibly one or two more) out of the list of dozens and dozens of divination spells and you really are allowing most divination spells to be stopped by Nondetection.

So, although it is not ambiguous, it is still kind of arbitrary. What is so special about personal divination spells that they should not be stopped by Nondetection other than the fact that See Invisibility and True Strike falls over that line?

For example, your line does not drop out Tongues.

Oh well. To each their own.

 

[James McMurray]

Hadn't thought about Tongues. I'll have to change my interpretation to "spells with a range of touch or personal" are not affected.

The difference between those spells is that the personal and touch range spells enhance the caster or recipient. They all grant him better senses or more information. So you would disallow a person comprehending languages or speaking via tongues with someone who is under the effects of Nondetection? Can the non-detection person understand what the person with tongues is saying? If so, why doesn't non-detection block that. And if not, why not?

As for being arbitrary, it is no more arbitrary than your position. Indeed, the mere fact that we are reasoning means that our positions cannot be arbitrary. We are both reasoning based on the wording of the spell. You're right though, to each his own.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

uh oh -

See invisibility
Divination
Level:
Components
Casting time:
Range: Medium
Area: Cone
Duration: 10 min per level
Save: none
Sr: none


.... no "personal" in the spell... nondetection DOES stop see invisibility?

Go for it KD

 

[Gromm]

Nothing short of an anti-magic shield blocks true strike or see invisibility.

You can't be invisible in an antimagic field so who cares?
True strike would be stopped provided you were in the fields effect when it was up (ie not shooting a bow at a target).

Lets look at the ACTUAL wording of non-dectection.

"The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/claivoyance, locate object, and detection spells. Non detection also prevents location by such magic items as crystal balls..."

Such as means these are examples of spells blocked by not all the spells, unless you read the books to mean when it says "area effect spells such as fireball" to mean ONLY fireball. If thats the way you read it, maybe a refresher course in basic english might be in order.

See Invisibility is a divination spell. As per the first sentence of Nondetection it works against See Invisible. Theres not really an issue. As far as beating said tactic, you can still Listen, Spot, etc as with any invisible foe. Hell jsut ready an action to cast an area effect spell, such as fireball (or any other area spell you like... ahem) to target that area when it goes off.

Like was mentioned above, there is a caster level check, so its not a huge deal anyway.

 

[James McMurray]

Magus_Jerel: Oops. Oh well, just means I'll have to reword my distinction. Oh well. Stranger things have happened.

Gromm: Perhaps you should take a lesson from yourself? Or at least learn to read people's posts before you start sprouting inanities. I (nor anyone else here) have ever said that the spells listed are the only spells nondetection works against.

You interpret it as it works against all divination spells. I (and apparently Archer) see the "such as" wording to mean "spells which function as these do." Basically, nobody is either right or wrong here, because the vagueness of the description leaves room for wiggling. What works for you in your game is all fine and dandy, but you can leave your insults and matter of fact language at the door if you want to carry on a meaningful discussion with someone about issues which are not obviously black and white.

You'll find it leads to more people paying attention to what you have to say rather than the way you say it. A forceful personality does not make a winning argument.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I almost want to agree with James after Gromms' post. Rude poeple piss me off to no end.

But I'm in the camp that says see invis falls in line with the and detection spells. James and Karinsdad have hashed out both sides well enough I don't feel much need to add anything else.