PDA

View Full Version : Detect Magic CANNOT Detect Invisibility!!!!!!!



BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 05:50 AM
Edit: DO not complain if you haven't read the whole thread, I already said you guys can have your 3.5 version. I have my interpretation.





Gaaaah!!!! I see this all over and people seem to think that a cantrip can do what the second level spell: detect invisibility does! Why would they make that spell?
Obviously invisibility is a little more powerful than something a mere cantrip can detect. Invisibility is a mask!!!!

So DMs and other people out there stop letting this simple spell get abused like this.

Who's with me? Please!

Edit:
Invisibility is a mask. An illusion, that should fool you just like mirror image... or do you believe detect magic should find the mirror image of the real wizard holding his real magical staff! Mirror Image is also a mask!

Edit 2: My final argument from page 2:

Illusion

Spells that alter perception or create false images.

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-19, 05:52 AM
I agree with you as far as balance goes. I guess it should technically pick up a faint Invisibility aura around the invisible person, but I'd be inclined to say it wouldn't.

Heliomance
2009-03-19, 05:54 AM
After three rounds of concentration (highly impractical in combat), yes, it will pinpoint an invisible person's location with an aura of illusion magic. They will still have full concealment, and the balancing factor is that you need to concentrate for three rounds before getting that benefit.

kamikasei
2009-03-19, 06:01 AM
Gaaaah!!!! I see this all over and people seem to think that a cantrip can do what the second level spell: detect invisibility does! Why would they make that spell?
Obviously invisibility is a little more powerful than something a mere cantrip can detect. Invisibility is a mask!!!!

That's not much of an argument.

Invisibility is an ongoing spell effect which produces a magical aura which can be detected by detect magic. Detecting this aura a) takes time to do properly and b) isn't very precise anyway. This is far inferior to the second-level spell see invisibility (which I assume you mean when you say "detect invisibility").

If you have seen someone actually claim that detect magic is as good as and obsoletes see invisibility, you can tell them from me that they're wrong and being silly. If on the other hand you just disagree with the reasoning above (or in Heliomance's post), please explain why. Just saying "it doesn't!" or "it shouldn't!" doesn't count; explain why an invisible object has no magical aura.

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 06:01 AM
After three rounds of concentration (highly impractical in combat), yes, it will pinpoint an invisible person's location with an aura of illusion magic. They will still have full concealment, and the balancing factor is that you need to concentrate for three rounds before getting that benefit.

No, it wouldn't because Invisibility would mask ANY attempt to detect the person!

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 06:06 AM
That's not much of an argument.

Invisibility is an ongoing spell effect which produces a magical aura which can be detected by detect magic. Detecting this aura a) takes time to do properly and b) isn't very precise anyway. This is far inferior to the second-level spell see invisibility (which I assume you mean when you say "detect invisibility").

If you have seen someone actually claim that detect magic is as good as and obsoletes see invisibility, you can tell them from me that they're wrong and being silly. If on the other hand you just disagree with the reasoning above (or in Heliomance's post), please explain why. Just saying "it doesn't!" or "it shouldn't!" doesn't count; explain why an invisible object has no magical aura.

Old school version of the spell was detect invisibility.
Same thing different name.

Frog Dragon
2009-03-19, 06:06 AM
Any attempt to detect? Scrying too?
As said Detect magic is near impossible to use in combat and the invisible guy can very easily get out of the cone in 3 rounds.

kamikasei
2009-03-19, 06:19 AM
No, it wouldn't because Invisibility would mask ANY attempt to detect the person!

Not at all. The spell is quite clear that it vanishes from sight, including enhanced sight such as from darkvision, but does not become undetectable. It explicitly states that a light source will still emit light, although the source remains invisible. This would seem to me to naturally extend to magical auras.


Old school version of the spell was detect invisibility.
Same thing different name.

I assume we're talking about 3.5 here? Bringing in other editions is just going to confuse the issue, because they are not the same thing, they're different spells with different rules in different rule sets.


Unbelievable.:smallmad:

Gygax is rolling in his grave.

If the spells worked differently in an old edition and you prefer that way, by all means houserule it. Decry Wizards for an error in how they wrote them in 3.X.

Don't try to tell the rest of us that we're badwrong for noting the interaction of the rules as they're written - for what isn't even an exploit or cheat, just a consequence that you find undesireable.

Douglas
2009-03-19, 06:21 AM
Obviously invisibility is a little more powerful than something a mere cantrip can detect. Invisibility is a mask!!!!


No, it wouldn't because Invisibility would mask ANY attempt to detect the person!
Where, exactly, in the Invisibility spell description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm) does it say any such thing?

Also how, exactly, is spending 3 standard actions and getting a lucky guess and having the enemy stay in a small area for three straight rounds just to get a 5' square that still has total concealment enough to make instantly locating the enemy with no guessing and no action obsolete?

See Invisibility: "I see him, he's over there!" *Casts Glitterdust*
Detect Magic: "Yep, magic. Concentrating... Several auras, concentrating... Aha, faint illusion aura right there! Whoops, no, he moved. Crap, let me start concentrating again..."


Edit:
Invisibility is a mask. An illusion, that should fool you just like mirror image... or do you believe detect magic should find the mirror image of the real wizard holding his real magical staff! Mirror Image is also a mask!
After three rounds of concentration, Detect Magic would tell you that the real wizard and all the images had faint illusion auras. In the absence of anything else, that is useless. If the wizard had any magic items or other buffs, however, it would detect those on the real wizard only. And again, you just spent three whole rounds of combat to do this and the wizard could have easily negated it just by moving a short distance - get out of the 60' cone you picked and you have to start over at round 1.

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 06:22 AM
I edited this in my 1st post to make a point:



Invisibility is a mask. An illusion, that should fool you just like mirror image... or do you believe detect magic should find the mirror image of the real wizard holding his real magical staff!


Mirror Image is also a mask!

Fan
2009-03-19, 06:23 AM
Also invisiblity does NOT hide you from any means of detection.
You can still be heard, scried, glitterdusted, detect magicked, see invisibility'd, and lastly followed by scent.
Theres also, Mind sight, Life sight, Blind sense, Blind sight, and Tremor Sense all of which function as see invisibilite's albiet with either lesser or greater accuracy then the see invisibility.

Kaiyanwang
2009-03-19, 06:25 AM
After three rounds of concentration (highly impractical in combat), yes, it will pinpoint an invisible person's location with an aura of illusion magic. They will still have full concealment, and the balancing factor is that you need to concentrate for three rounds before getting that benefit.

What he said. Three rounds could be an eviscerated mage.

Heliomance
2009-03-19, 06:26 AM
No, it wouldn't because Invisibility would mask ANY attempt to detect the person!

What Kamikasei said. It really doesn't. You can still hear an invisible person. If you have scent, you can still smell them. Tremorsense and blindsight pick them up, as does blindsense. Undead with lifesense can see you just fine, and there's no way you're stopping someone with mindsight knowing where you are.

If you want a spell that really does make you undetectable to everything short of true seeing (though I suspect that detect magic still detects the aura), you want Superior Invisibility from the Spell Compendium, which is a 7th level spell.

And, you know, the easy way to defeat detection by Detect magic, other than simply moving? Nystul's Magic Aura.

kamikasei
2009-03-19, 06:27 AM
Invisibility is a mask. An illusion, that should fool you just like mirror image... or do you believe detect magic should find the mirror image of the real wizard holding his real magical staff!

So it sounds like you just don't like the way the invisibility spell is written, then.

And that's a good question, actually. Could you use detect magic to distinguish the real image from the illusions, because he is the one with the magic items with their own auras? Or does the illusion duplicate the auras on the images, as well as their mundane appearances?

Douglas
2009-03-19, 06:28 AM
I edited this in my 1st post to make a point:



Invisibility is a mask. An illusion, that should fool you just like mirror image... or do you believe detect magic should find the mirror image of the real wizard holding his real magical staff!


Mirror Image is also a mask!
And I edited in my response to that.

Yes, Detect Magic does find such things... after three rounds of concentration during which the target makes no attempt to move out of a particular small area. This is not at all broken.

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 06:29 AM
Gygax is still rolling in his grave!

Heliomance
2009-03-19, 06:30 AM
Yes, indeed he is, at the cncept that anyone would believe that finding a five foot square after three rounds of concentration which is utterly foiled if the subject moves broken.

Douglas
2009-03-19, 06:32 AM
I'd agree with almost all above...

One common thread I see with the gamers now, is how they can get away with abusing rule systems.

Power-gaming is for the uncreative.
Where's a laughing smiley when you need one...

You call that powergaming? Detect Magic as a means of detecting invisibility is the last refuge of a desperate and incompetent or out of resources mage, and will almost certainly still fail to do anything useful.

Why have you not commented on any of the numerous mentions of the amount of time, effort, luck, and stupidity on the enemy's part required to get it to work at all?

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 06:32 AM
Yes, indeed he is, at the cncept that anyone would believe that finding a five foot square after three rounds of concentration which is utterly foiled if the subject moves broken.

No according to what you are saying above in the 1st round, you can tell SOME magical aura is there.

kamikasei
2009-03-19, 06:35 AM
I'd agree with almost all above...

One common thread I see with the gamers now, is how they can get away with abusing rule systems.

Power-gaming is for the uncreative.

I take that as an insult, and would ask you to retract it. It is not "powergaming" or "abuse" to note that a creative use of a low-level spell can have a marginal use in partially overcoming a higher-level one. Terms more appropriate would be "reading" and "reasoning".

Are you open to the possibility that you are, in fact, incorrect? That while you may think the rules should work a particular way, the rules as they're written do not work like that? That while you may consider this an error in how they were written (not a typo or editing error, but a "the designers disagreed with me or didn't think this through, and I disagree with their choice"), it is not an error or an "abuse" in our reading?

If not, then what's the point of this thread? "I'm right, and I won't hear a word said against me"?

Khanderas
2009-03-19, 06:36 AM
I'm with you Bluewizard, for whatever good it does you.

Douglas
2009-03-19, 06:37 AM
No according to what you are saying above in the 1st round, you can tell SOME magical aura is there.
Round 1 tells you that, somewhere within a 60' cone, there is at least one magic aura. Not exactly useful unless you're going to use something that hits a full 60' cone and you know there are no other sources of magic auras there. If, say, a fellow party member is in that cone, his magic items would give you a "yes" result in round 1 and the presence or absence of the invisible enemy would make no difference at all to that result. In round 2, you still haven't narrowed down the location any further at all, and you only gain confirmation that he's in the cone at all if the invisibility spell is the most powerful aura in the entire cone.

Heliomance
2009-03-19, 06:38 AM
No according to what you are saying above in the 1st round, you can tell SOME magical aura is there.

You can tell that some magical aura is present somewhere in the 60 foot cone. You have no cue wherabouts in it, however, and is therefore utterly useless for targetting purposes.

Douglas
2009-03-19, 06:40 AM
...And you still haven't explained why the three rounds of effort and astounding ease of negating the attempt have no bearing on this.:smallsigh:

kamikasei
2009-03-19, 06:40 AM
No according to what you are saying above in the 1st round, you can tell SOME magical aura is there.

Detect magic is a 60' cone. On the first round of concentrating on an area, all you know is that there is at least one magical aura somewhere within that cone.

On the second round, you know how many there are, and how strong the strongest one is.

Only on the third round do you get to a) locate the auras and b) make spellcraft checks to discern their schools. Before this, the aura could be of any school of magic and associated with anything in the area. It could be a pebble with Nystul's magic aura cast on it. It could be a minor magic item. It could be a lingering aura from something no longer in the area.

edit: This is a genuine question and not snark: did you read the descriptions of detect magic and invisibility before starting this thread, or did you just see someone mention this tactic (such as it is) elsewhere and become enraged?

Fixer
2009-03-19, 06:42 AM
No, it wouldn't because Invisibility would mask ANY attempt to detect the person!
Do stop making things up. Invisibility does exactly what it does: prevent anyone from visually identifying the target of the Invisibility.

The person in question can still be found by water displacement, cloud displacement, covering with a sticky / powdery substance, scent, blindsense, blindsight, see invisibility, and (with a LOT of patience, provided the target doesn't move) detect magic.

Here is how detect magic CAN find an invisible object/person.

Round 1) Detect magic is activated. The caster is told there is a source of magic within a given area. Other than that, the detect magic does nothing.
Round 2) Caster of detect magic concentrates further. Is told the number and most powerful strength of the auras in the area. (For invisibility, it would be a single faint aura if by itself.)
Round 3) Caster concentrates further. Is told the location and strengths of ALL auras in its area. (This would give the caster of detect magic the correct 5' square but would not otherwise grant the ability to 'see' the invisible object or person.) If the target was within line-of-sight, they could make a Spellcraft check to know it's illusion magic, but the fact you cannot see a source of magic that is present means something is being invisible as a matter of common sense.

Now, all of this assumes that the invisible person isn't moving. I am thinking that, if I was invisible and trying to avoid being detected, I would move to a place far away from people, or at least move around to foil these sorts of attempts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's a good question, actually. Could you use detect magic to distinguish the real image from the illusions, because he is the one with the magic items with their own auras? Or does the illusion duplicate the auras on the images, as well as their mundane appearances?You could, after spending several rounds of concentration. Mirror Image is a figment, and therefore creates a false sensation. It cannot hide something already there, or make something appear that isn't present (which would be the case for the magical auras).

That said, if the caster had no other magical auras on them, simply casting detect magic wouldn't help to identify which image was the real caster. The original caster, and all the images, would have an identical faint illusion magic aura. There would be no differentiation between the images and the real caster without some other magic going on.
--------------------------------------------------

Gygax is still rolling in his grave!I am guessing you never spoke to the man at all. As someone who has, I would ask that you respect his peace and stop trying to invoke him in some sort of vain attempt to assume he would side with you on this decision. You are disrespecting the man and that needs to stop.

Farlion
2009-03-19, 06:44 AM
I'd have to disagree with your topic statement. Detect magic allows you to detect magical auras coming from spells and/or magical items (which essentially are also spells, simply cast on an item).

Does this make Detect Magic useful against Invisble people? No. All the reasons have been mentioned before.

a) It takes too long
b) You can only detect the 5' square where the aura comes from (still giving the invisible creature/object full concealment)
c) It takes too long
d) Moving invisible creatures/objects can not be located because of fact a and c
e) Did I mention it takes too long?

Since you don't actually seem to consider any of our arguments, this is meant for all the people interested in a discussion.

Conclusion: Detect Magic allows you to locate immobile invisible creatures/objects (which will mostly only be objects due to the immobile part) but it takes 3 rounds and then you know the approximate location (5' square).

Cheers,
Farlion

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 06:44 AM
My final argument from SRD:



Illusion

Spells that alter perception or create false images.

Farlion
2009-03-19, 06:48 AM
May I just pick out one word of your statement:




Spells

There you go, Detect magic allows the detection of spells.


On a totally unrelated topic. Just writing things bigger, doesn't make the argument stronger.

Cheers,
Farlion

Heliomance
2009-03-19, 06:49 AM
My rebuttal:

Divination

Divination spells enable you to learn secrets long forgotten, to predict the future, to find hidden things, and to foil deceptive spells.

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 06:51 AM
More from SRD:

Illusion

Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others.

kamikasei
2009-03-19, 06:53 AM
My final argument from SRD:

{Scrubbed}

Can you offer any justification for your claim that an invisibility spell conceals its own aura, other than your groundless assertion that it simply must!!!?

Are you willing to state that it is possible you are incorrect?

Could you answer my question from the first page - had you read/checked the actual rules text before starting this thread?

...

And all of that aside, to actually respond to your "final argument": yeah, invisbility is an illusion; it alters perception, by removing the target from sight. This is irrelevant to the claim you're making.


Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others.

Such as by making a normal object invisible, so that you cannot see it?

Do you claim that you cannot smell, hear or touch an invisible object or creature? Why then can't you sense its aura? So far as I understand it the detect spells aren't even tied to sight - a blind person could use them.

Farlion
2009-03-19, 06:54 AM
It seems I am repeating myself:



Illusion spells

No matter what it does, it still is a spell which can be detected using detect magic.

More interesting would be, can you detect the following spell using detect magic:

Nystul’s Magic Aura(PH p257)
<Ill(glamer), VSF(silk cloth), 1StdAct, Touch,
1day/lvl(D), no SR>
– Touched object of up to 5 pounds per level
gains one of the following magical auras:
a) not magical;
b) under the effect of a spell specified by the
caster;
c) having a magical property specified by the
caster.


Using a) for example. How would you handle this?

Cheers,
Farlion

Fixer
2009-03-19, 06:55 AM
More from SRD:

Illusion

Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others.
Try being more specific:
Invisibility
Illusion (Glamer)

Glamer
A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

Now, where in the spell description, or in the definition for Glamer, or even in the Illusion spell school description, does it say that Invisibility is what you say it is?

Do not get your hierarchies mixed up. Illusion includes lots of spells that do things. Invisibility does one thing: makes something no longer visible. That is why it is a Glamer.

Heliomance
2009-03-19, 07:00 AM
Look, if you want to stop Detect Magic getting you, either move, or use Nystul's Freaking Magic Aura, which, strangely enough, can conceal your magic aura. Stop trying to make a round peg fit a square hole, use the spell that's designed for the purpose you want to use it for.

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 07:01 AM
Well, I guess I'd just all make you mad if I was your DM I see the rules in a totally different way.

But, at least I know Gygax was with me before he died... at least in my conversation I had with him.

Douglas
2009-03-19, 07:01 AM
So, BlueWizard, are you ever going to actually respond to any of the counterarguments presented rather than just reiterating your own thoroughly refuted point over and over again?

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 07:03 AM
So, BlueWizard, are you ever going to actually respond to any of the counterarguments presented rather than just reiterating your own thoroughly refuted point over and over again?

What should I say?

I disagree. I've used all my arguments, and I feel that this use of detect magic even with this 3 round study crap, is wrong.

Fan
2009-03-19, 07:06 AM
I'd agree with almost all above...

One common thread I see with the gamers now, is how they can get away with abusing rule systems.

Power-gaming is for the uncreative.

Oh yes, because you TOTALLY can't power game, and have a creative concept at the same time. :smallannoyed:

Douglas
2009-03-19, 07:09 AM
On what basis? Invisibility is quite specific that it blocks sight and only sight. Detect Magic is not sight, does not depend on sight, and would in fact work for a blind character. Yes, this might technically be viewed as it "beating" a spell two levels higher than it, but See Invisibility vs Greater Invisibility does that too and I don't see you objecting about that.

And, well, that "3 round study crap" makes it near useless anyway even if it is technically possible.

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 07:12 AM
Clearly, I am losing this argument by the sheer number of modern player interpretations. Still, I would never let this happen in any manner of my game, and I know at least a few people {not posting} would side with me.

afroakuma
2009-03-19, 07:16 AM
Let me see if I can clarify this:

Illusion spells do deceive the senses, but they deceive only those senses that they are crafted to deceive. Invisibility specifically deceives vision. You still produce sounds, tremors etc. and you still emit alignment, magical and psionic auras.

Your argument would essentially be that because illusions deceive the senses, striking a mirror image should feel like striking the real wizard. This is simply not the case - it is beyond the parameters of the spell to simulate tactile effects. Similarly, it is beyond the parameters of invisibility to obscure nonvisual detection, which is really what detect evil, detect good, detect magic et. al are doing - finding an aura nonvisually.

It is telling that there is a spell explicitly geared to conceal magical auras. This is one of the reasons for that spell's existence - to block supernatural sensing. That is Nystul's magic aura's niche - it doesn't obscure any other auras, only magical ones.

Would you argue that undetectable alignment, a second-level cleric spell that conceals aligned auras - should be replicated automatically by invisibility, because it should obscure detectable auras?

Lastly: glitterdust's detection ability is nothing fancy - it's a cloud of powder. Without the blindness effect, a similar spell could certainly be made at level 1 - or level nil, since a fighter can throw a bag of flour for the same effect. Should invisibility automatically cover flour, because it's not magical enough?

I'm sorry if it seems we are ganging up on you, but you seem to have an unusual fixation on this particular interaction. Regardless of rules, I know of no player who would try this in combat, nor consider it an exploit in the way you seem to. Could you perhaps explain why you consider a spell that, even after three rounds of combat, remains inferior to see invisibility in every way... is "broken" or "powergaming" or an exploit?

Fan
2009-03-19, 07:18 AM
Clearly, I am losing this argument by the sheer number of modern player interpretations. Still, I would never let this happen in any manner of my game, and I know at least a few people {not posting} would side with me.

Well, you have your right as a DM to interpret the rules anyway you please. And if you feel thats the way you think Illusions should work then you have every right to rule it that way.
We're just trying to give a RAW interprentation rather than something biased on accounts of fromer play, and our own preferences.

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 07:18 AM
Let's see what does this particular detect spell enhance? Vision?

Hmm? What do illusion spells in this instance specifically cloud?
Vision!

MoelVermillion
2009-03-19, 07:21 AM
I'd agree with almost all above...

One common thread I see with the gamers now, is how they can get away with abusing rule systems.

Power-gaming is for the uncreative.

I'm sorry but I fail to see how finding a way to apply a lower level spell to achieve a similar effect to a higher level spell is uncreative. Using detect magic in the place of detect invisibility is creative because it means the player has found a new solution to the puzzle.

On the other hand I'd say your initial statement:

Gaaaah!!!! I see this all over and people seem to think that a cantrip can do what the second level spell: detect invisibility does! Why would they make that spell?
Stifles creativity. Basically you're saying that a lower level spell applied properly should not be able to equal a higher level spell? I believe that this approach stifles creativity as instead of finding a creative way to use a cantrip, I must use the level two spell or do nothing.

How does applying a lower level spell creatively to emulate a higher level spell make you uncreative?

Narmoth
2009-03-19, 07:22 AM
In 2nd ed., detect magic (then a lvl 1 spell) detected that there were someone invisible in a certain direction (spell was a cone), but not where the person were standing exactly, which basically meant that you still needed detect invisibility or blind fighting to fight the person, but could target the invisible person with a fireball

Dublock
2009-03-19, 07:22 AM
Clearly, I am losing this argument by the sheer number of modern player interpretations. Still, I would never let this happen in any manner of my game, and I know at least a few people {not posting} would side with me.

I don't normally post but I decided to post. You keep on saying the same thing and do not counter any, any arguments. If you want people to actually agree with you (people not posting is hard to judge so I look past them) you must actually counter what people are saying.

You say "modern player interpretations" Where does it say invisibility is a mask and not hiding from sight? Sight I might add does support all your arguments that it is deception.

Now in older editions of the game you might be right, but you said this was version 3.5, which in 3.5 invisibility does not say it hides from everything as it does not say so in the description in either the PHB or the SRD.

afroakuma
2009-03-19, 07:22 AM
BlueWizard, please see my above post.

Detect magic cannot see the invisible creature. At best, detect magic sees a pulsating blue glow at a relative location, says how strong it is, and offers a spellcraft check to say, "this is an illusion."

At best.

This is another sense entirely, one that invisibility doesn't mask from. Mindsight presents visually as a glowing shape - do you argue that the visual manifestation from that be masked?

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 07:23 AM
Fine, the power-gaming comment is retracted and has nothing to do with current argument.

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 07:25 AM
Detect magic if for detecting magic items and traps, maybe magical auras on walls and perhaps a million other uses. But, not overcoming illusions. Something that is made to FOOL you and the one detecting or trying to detect you.

revolver kobold
2009-03-19, 07:27 AM
Let's see what does this particular detect spell enhance? Vision?

Hmm? What do illusion spells in this instance specifically cloud?
Vision!

Where does it say in the Detect Magic description that it enhances vision?!

It simply says "you detect a magic aura". Arguing that it enhances your vision would be like claiming a metal detector enhances your ability to see metal.

MickJay
2009-03-19, 07:30 AM
The way I always pictured how Invisibility worked: light either bends around, or goes through the invisible object/person, and that's it. If the effect is magical in nature, tough luck, but you'd need something else than just having light go around you to prevent the methods of detection that do not rely on sight from working.

Invisible = cannot be seen.

Undetectable = cannot be detected.

Invisible =/= undetectable.

There are spells/effects other than invisibility that do grant "cannot be detected" and they are all more advanced/of higher level than mere Invisibility. Making a second level spell mimic much more powerful effects would be just breaking the rules. You could as well remove the limit of missiles from Magic Missile spell or use Create Water to make water appear in somebody's lungs to drown them, but the limitations are there for a reason. Invisibility is a very limited spell, when it comes to countering it you can achieve better effect by throwing a handful of sand in a general direction you wish to "check" than by Detecting Magic.

Edit: yes, invisibility has the purpose of fooling people who are trying to detect you, but it also is very specific and, again, limited, in the way it works. It fools the sight, eyes, only; used wisely, it can be far more powerful than its second level would suggest, but it is still only a second level spell and thus limited in what it can do.

Dublock
2009-03-19, 07:31 AM
Detect magic if for detecting magic items and traps, maybe magical auras on walls and perhaps a million other uses. But, not overcoming illusions. Something that is made to FOOL you and the one detecting or trying to detect you.

invisibility is design to fool sight, not the magical auras. If detect magic needed sight to work properly then I would agree with you. But it doesn't.

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 07:32 AM
Where does it say in the Detect Magic description that it enhances vision?!

It simply says "you detect a magic aura". Arguing that it enhances your vision would be like claiming a metal detector enhances your ability to see metal.

Aura is a visible thing, that you are allowed to see by the detect spell.

Invisibility would mask this.

Quincunx
2009-03-19, 07:32 AM
{Scrubbed}

afroakuma
2009-03-19, 07:32 AM
I'm sorry, but now in your sig as well?

Why has this become so important to you?

Consider:

Detect magic vs. invisibility: After one round concentrating, I know there is some magic somewhere in a 60' cone. I have no reason to think that it's an invisible creature. After two rounds, I know the number of magical auras. I still have no reason to think that it's an invisible creature. After three rounds, I know that there is a magical aura of faint strength emanating from a particular 5' square. I have only the slightest reason to think it's an invisible creature. Now I can make a Spellcraft check vs. DC 15 to determine the school of magic. If I succeed, I learn it's an illusion. I still have slight reason to think it's an invisible creature, instead of a pit trap or some other horrible thing. If I do think it's an invisible creature, good for me: I don't know what it looks like, how big it is or what it's doing. The duration for this effect? Concentration, up to 1 minute per level. Oh yes, and lingering auras and barrier penetration can make this method even more useless.

See invisibility vs. invisibility: I see you, I know what you are, I know what you're doing. The duration? 10 minutes per level.

It's evidently superior in every way. I would always keep see invisibility on hand for this task, because detect magic is simply inadequate.

I can't see why you're concerned.

EDIT: Regarding auras - as emissions, they are in fact entirely visible through invisibility, as are emissions of conventional or other magical light. They are not physical, are not inherently visible, and are not masked by invisibility.

Kaiser Omnik
2009-03-19, 07:34 AM
BlueWizard: Yes, all the youth are aiming to destroy the wonderful legacy of our ancestors! Poor Gygax!

Seriously, you are being ridiculously reactionary.

Anyway...you may houserule it as you see fit, but it is obvious that detect magic can detect the presence of an invisible creature. As others pointed out, you have to concentrate at least two rounds only to be able to pinpoint where the aura is. That doesn't let you actually see the creature, so he still has total concealment. I don't see how different this is from using other senses to detect the presence of an invisible creature (listen check if the creature is moving, for example).

averagejoe
2009-03-19, 07:35 AM
{Scrubbed}

I tend to concur; I would have said something much earlier if it wasn't for similar reservations.

Dublock
2009-03-19, 07:36 AM
Aura is a visible thing, that you are allowed to see by the detect spell.

Invisibility would mask this.

Aura is not a visible thing though....most creatures can not see an Aura (I would say all but then someone will post correcting me by some obscure source and I don't know D&D that well :P)

Where does it say that an Aura is a visible thing?

Heliomance
2009-03-19, 07:37 AM
On an unrelated not, one would assume there'd be a cap to how high the listen checks to detect someone would get, no matter how good their move silently check. What's the Listen DC to hear someone's heartbeat?

revolver kobold
2009-03-19, 07:37 AM
Aura is a visible thing, that you are allowed to see by the detect spell.

Invisibility would mask this.

Where does it even list auras as being visible? Nowhere in the PHB (that I can find anyway), even under the Detect Magic spell does it list auras as being visible, or even describe them in any way. See Invisibility, on the other hand, describes exactly what you see.

But lets say that yes, auras are visible with the spell Detect Magic. Congratulations, you spent 3 turns, and all you can see is, I don't know, a blue puff that indicates a Glamer. Which could turn out to be anything, from a glamered barrel, to a confused Wizard wondering why you are wasting 3 rounds casting Detect Magic in his general direction.

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 07:38 AM
BlueWizard casts:
Invisibility


and runs around the room crying, avoiding the multiple cones of detection.


I've lost...

I've lost....


Goshdangit! I guess I lost!!!!!



It still won't change my ruling.:smallbiggrin:

Tsotha-lanti
2009-03-19, 07:42 AM
{Scrubbed}

kamikasei
2009-03-19, 07:47 AM
Well, I guess I'd just all make you mad if I was your DM I see the rules in a totally different way.

If you declared on the spot that I couldn't use detect magic in this way "because it can't do that!", I'd be annoyed. If you said as a snap judgement that you were going to houserule that it didn't work that way in your game, I'd be less annoyed. If you said this up front at the start of the game, I'd have no problem with it.


Clearly, I am losing this argument by the sheer number of modern player interpretations.

No, you are losing because your argument is flawed and the counterarguments put forward are valid and correct. We're not having an argument on whether this is the best way for the spells to work or whether you would be justified in ruling differently in your game, only on how they actually do work according to RAW.

Numbers have nothing to do with it, and that claim is kind of a cheap out from admitting error.


Let's see what does this particular detect spell enhance? Vision?

Aura is a visible thing, that you are allowed to see by the detect spell.

In fact, no. As pointed out, the detect spells could be used equally well by a blind person, who would perceive the auras from everything in the way a sighted person would perceive them from an invisible object. And as I and afroakuma have pointed out, even were this not the case you would expect something to still shed an aura just as it would still shed light.

BlueWizard:

By the way, you seem to have a serious confusion between "am I or these others correct in what the rules actually say and how the spells actually work?", and "is the way the spells work according to RAW the 'proper' way or should they be ruled to work differently?". It's your claim that the 3.5 rules as they're written say something that they don't that people are taking issue with, not your view that they should work a particular way. It is possible to concede error in your interpretation of the rules, and then say "but since I prefer it to work this other way, that's how I'm ruling it in my games". No one will tell you you're wrong to do so. It's so minor an issue I can't imagine anyone even considering it when deciding if they want you as DM.


BlueWizard casts:
Invisibility
and runs around the room crying, avoiding the multiple cones of detection.

You don't even have to do that. Just don't stay still in any one of them for more than eighteen seconds.

RebelRogue
2009-03-19, 07:52 AM
BlueWizard, from what I've read of your posts this far (outside of this thread), I think I very much see eye to eye with you when it comes to "D&D aesthetics". However, here, I've got to disagree:


Clearly, I am losing this argument by the sheer number of modern player interpretations.
As I see this there is no "interpretation", only a simple rules reading.

Thane of Fife
2009-03-19, 07:58 AM
Lastly: glitterdust's detection ability is nothing fancy - it's a cloud of powder. Without the blindness effect, a similar spell could certainly be made at level 1 - or level nil, since a fighter can throw a bag of flour for the same effect. Should invisibility automatically cover flour, because it's not magical enough?

Ummm, yes? If it makes clothes invisible, why not flour? On top of which, it seems silly to render an entire magic item (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#dustofAppearance) useless compared to ordinary flour.

Now, throwing flour on the floor would work perfectly reasonably, but once it's on the invisible person, it's invisible.

Drascin
2009-03-19, 08:02 AM
I have tried to read through this thread.

I couldn't finish it.

BlueWizard, {Scrubbed}

Now, to the point. Invisibility is an illusion designed to fool visual senses. People can't see you. But you'd still pop in a radar, anybody can hear or touch you, etcetera. You are FAR from undetectable, and in fact a good Hide check beats invisibility a good deal of times.

Detect magic works mainly in a very radar-y fashion - it pings when there's something in its area, and then you can focus to get a bit more detail. Sight does not necessarily intervene. I completely fail to see why Detecting Magic in an area shouldn't ping you "there is something magic here".

Now, if you want to say "Detect Magic is fooled by invisibility in my game", okay. I don't really understand why you'd bother with a whole houserule for this, given it'd only be really useful for finding invisible objects anyway (as moving even slightly completely breaks down the detection), but as long as you tell your players, you're perfectly within your rights and won't hear a single complaint from anybody. But don't try to tell us we're "powergaming" and "going completely against the intent" and such other things - because that's, put simply, wrong. Hell, this couldn't be further from powergaming - and I should know, I'm a bit of a powergamer myself :smallamused:.

Gah, and now I'm acting as cranky, myself. :smallannoyed:. I should apply the calm down thing to myself as well. I just get easily annoyed by people who try to tell other they're playing the game wrong. Sorry, everyone.

revolver kobold
2009-03-19, 08:02 AM
Ummm, yes? If it makes clothes invisible, why not flour? On top of which, it seems silly to render an entire magic item (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#dustofAppearance) useless compared to ordinary flour.

Now, throwing flour on the floor would work perfectly reasonably, but once it's on the invisible person, it's invisible.

Which would be handy enough even if the DM rules it that way (which is a pretty reasonable calling). A keen enough eye could probably spot the flour vanishing, not to mention as it fell to the floor on and around the invisible persons feet, it would leave some exposed footprints.

Bayar
2009-03-19, 08:06 AM
Ummm, yes? If it makes clothes invisible, why not flour? On top of which, it seems silly to render an entire magic item (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#dustofAppearance) useless compared to ordinary flour.
Now, throwing flour on the floor would work perfectly reasonably, but once it's on the invisible person, it's invisible.

Have you ever seen cartoons ? I mean, they did that in Tom & Jerry at least 5 times. And no one said that it wouldnt work.

Plus, the spell says that anything you take in your possesion becomes invisible. If you can take every spec of flour from yourself as an immediate action, then the flour becomes invisible. If not, then it is on you but not in your possesion, so it doesnt go invisible.


Edit: THAT can be considered rules-lawyering :amused:

Douglas
2009-03-19, 08:07 AM
As a side note, I have never ever seen this actually used in all the years I have been aware of this and playing D&D 3.5. Actual campaigns, arenas, demonstration matches, tabletop games, play-by-chat, play-by-post, play-by-post that I just read rather than playing in, it doesn't matter. The number of times I have seen Detect Magic used in this way in the seven or so years I've been playing the game is exactly 0 simply because it is so vastly inferior to every single one of the myriad other ways to deal with invisibility.

Yes, it technically works. Get over it, it is extremely unlikely to ever matter outside of deliberately contrived circumstances.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-03-19, 08:18 AM
Ummm, yes? If it makes clothes invisible, why not flour? On top of which, it seems silly to render an entire magic item (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#dustofAppearance) useless compared to ordinary flour.

Now, throwing flour on the floor would work perfectly reasonably, but once it's on the invisible person, it's invisible.

Hmm. Let's see what the spell description has to say...

"Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature."

Flour thrown on you is not "tucked into the clothing or pouches". The spell description indicates items picked up must be concealed under clothes you were wearing when the spell was cast. If you've got a ring of invisibility, you can de- and re-activate it to get the flour covered by the effect, too, but I'd say that throwing flour is generally a valid tactic.

Dragonsdoom
2009-03-19, 08:21 AM
I am not sure how you managed to come up with an argument this incoherent on such a trivial subject, you have been here for much longer than myself; with over six thousand posts and many of them much more coherent than this argument, I would assume you would be more aware of the forum rules. If this was one of the other forums I frequent, you probably already would have been under heavy suspicion of trolling.
My warning to you is that if you don't explain your arguments with more coherence, and counter other posters arguments with more direction, you might find unwanted moderator attention, and no one wants that.


Also, Detect magic was in First Edition, and was still able to find invisible creatures. Page 66 of the 1st Edition Player's Handbook. 1st level spell. It actually was somewhat more powerful in that it could determine invisible creatures and their locations at the beginning of the effect.

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 08:26 AM
Though this refers not to 3.5, and doesn't make me right for 3.5, it makes me happy.

I copied this from an old Gygax conversation I found online.
I guess it just makes me an old school DM on my view of detect magic.


FROM Dragonsfoot dot org Conversations with Gygax:
DM Question
Gary, does the presence of the detect illusion and dispel illusion spells imply that detect magic and dispel magic are ineffectual where illusions are concerned?

Gygax's Answer:

The magic used for illusions is considered to be of a different sort that the other kinds. That is why there is a separate sub-class for Illusionists.

Cheers,
Gary

Thane of Fife
2009-03-19, 08:37 AM
Hmm. Let's see what the spell description has to say...

"Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature."

Flour thrown on you is not "tucked into the clothing or pouches". The spell description indicates items picked up must be concealed under clothes you were wearing when the spell was cast. If you've got a ring of invisibility, you can de- and re-activate it to get the flour covered by the effect, too, but I'd say that throwing flour is generally a valid tactic.

Hmmm, perhaps.

I think that that would make the spell fairly useless, though, as I imagine that dungeons and caves and crypts (oh my!) are pretty dusty places.

On top of which, there's still the existence of Dust of Appearance to consider.

Kaiyanwang
2009-03-19, 08:40 AM
Blue Wizard, consider that, at least in my experience, spells and situation that reveal partially something, or conceal it partially, make the game more insteresting.

Invisibility does not mean you cannot leave steps on sand. As well, detect invisibility does not mean you know what's invisible. When I describe a similar scene to my players, reaction are:

"there's.. there's SOMETHING there"
"What's there?
"I don't know, something.. moving. Fast"
"Stay in circle! IN CIRCLE! Around the mage! Druid, faerie fire!"

Or other scenes less crappy than this. My point is that a partial information in a lot of istances is far better for the game than a full information, or total mystery.

Kaiser Omnik
2009-03-19, 08:51 AM
Though this refers not to 3.5, and doesn't make me right for 3.5, it makes me happy.

I copied this from an old Gygax conversation I found online.
I guess it just makes me an old school DM on my view of detect magic.


FROM Dragonsfoot dot org Conversations with Gygax:
DM Question
Gary, does the presence of the detect illusion and dispel illusion spells imply that detect magic and dispel magic are ineffectual where illusions are concerned?

Gygax's Answer:

The magic used for illusions is considered to be of a different sort that the other kinds. That is why there is a separate sub-class for Illusionists.

Cheers,
Gary

I am happy that this has changed in later editions of the game. Also, I fail to see how the fact that there is a separate sub-class for Illusionists has anything to do with the way magic works in the game world.

Let's not dwell on the matter, though. People who are old-school can continue to play Gary's game, while those who enjoy D&D 3.0 and its evolutions can continue to play with that system.

Starbuck_II
2009-03-19, 08:54 AM
Though this refers not to 3.5, and doesn't make me right for 3.5, it makes me happy.


Sheesh, and best yet with a high ernough Spot Check you can detect can invisible target.

Invisibility only grants a +20 hide bonus for purposes of detecting what square they are in. +40 if standing still. (I'm not joking read the DMG)

So, a level 10 or higher Rogue can in theory detect your invisibile dude at least 5% of the time if you aren't standing still (no chance unless really have lots of +X spot items if you are).

Kaiser Omnik
2009-03-19, 08:59 AM
Sheesh, and best yet with a high ernough Spot Check you can detect can invisible target.

Invisibility only grants a +20 hide bonus for purposes of detecting what square they are in. +40 if standing still. (I'm not joking read the DMG)

So, a level 10 or higher Rogue can in theory detect your invisibile dude at least 5% of the time if you aren't standing still (no chance unless really have lots of +X spot items if you are).

That looks fine to me. Either the rogue is extremely lucky (5% being a rather small chance) or he is simply really focused on finding something invisible (if he suspects that he is being spied on, for example). Anyway, IIRC, Listen is much more useful to detect invisible creatures.

revolver kobold
2009-03-19, 09:01 AM
As a side note, I have never ever seen this actually used in all the years I have been aware of this and playing D&D 3.5. Actual campaigns, arenas, demonstration matches, tabletop games, play-by-chat, play-by-post, play-by-post that I just read rather than playing in, it doesn't matter. The number of times I have seen Detect Magic used in this way in the seven or so years I've been playing the game is exactly 0 simply because it is so vastly inferior to every single one of the myriad other ways to deal with invisibility.

Yes, it technically works. Get over it, it is extremely unlikely to ever matter outside of deliberately contrived circumstances.

In a campaign I'm currently in, my Warlocks Detect Magic located an invisible creature. While slowly exploring a dungeon, I was using Detect Magic to sweep the area ahead of myself, so nothing could take us by surprise.

I detected a magic aura, but when I went to concentrate on it to gather more information, it had vanished (I assume it had moved). So the Psion started to lay down some Dispel Magics, and managed to catch the invisible enemy in the radius.

Not the most effective way, but our party didn't have any See Invisibility items/spells/whatevers at that stage, so we made the most of what we had.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-03-19, 09:09 AM
{Scrubbed}

Um where in second edition or first edition does it support your theory. I've been playing both for a long time and Detect magic has always worked. Also even though Gary was one of the people to create the game, if you played in any of his games at game days or conferences you would know that he broke a lot of his own rules.

Either way please show where in 1st and 2nd edition rulings that detect magic works that way...

Shpadoinkle
2009-03-19, 09:47 AM
BluWizard reminds so much of Miko that it's un-****ing-canny.

Fax Celestis
2009-03-19, 09:49 AM
BluWizard reminds so much of Miko that it's un-****ing-canny.

Worth the entire damn thread!

krossbow
2009-03-19, 10:28 AM
My final argument from SRD:



Illusion

Spells that alter perception or create false images.



Spells










HEADON

APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD





Moving on, personally, i do think that you'd detect there was magic in the area, but to pinpoint WHERE it is would require far too long to really be viable.

For example, if the invisible object stays stationary for upwards of a minute, and you concentrate the entire time, you should tell "there's something over there!"

Hell, you shouldn't even know its an invisible being; it'd be registering the same as if there were a magical brick on the wall.

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 10:29 AM
BluWizard reminds so much of Miko that it's un-****ing-canny.

We both like blue.... :smallcool:

Lapak
2009-03-19, 10:47 AM
Completely aside from the fact that the RAW seems to support 'yes, if you're willing to waste the time, you can locate a magically-invisible person with Detect Magic', I find your calling on 'Gygax would agree with me' incredibly distasteful.

More than anything else, every Gygax-written version of the rules emphasized the need for the GM to feel free to adjust the rules as he or she felt was appropriate for their campaign. If there's anything about this argument he would have disagreed with, it's the idea that RAW was something to be concerned about to begin with. I can't imagine he would have wandered into a conversation unprovoked and announced that those DMs who were allowing a wizard to find someone with Detect Magic were playing the game wrong.

So, you're trying to appropriate someone else's authority, misrepresenting their likely feelings on the matter, AND using the 'other people agree with me. No one here, but they are legion, I assure you' defense.

Honestly, if you want to rule that it doesn't work, I support you in that. Good! Enjoy! But don't tell other people that they're doing it wrong.

BlueWizard
2009-03-19, 10:53 AM
If you read my surrender....

Muz
2009-03-19, 11:09 AM
If I may add some additional questions within this vein...

1) If Invisibility is an illusion, does that mean it can be disbelieved? (And if yes, would it only work if you were looking at the exact spot the invisible person/object was AND knew exactly what it was already?)

2) Can Detect Magic detect someone who's had a Charm spell cast on them?

3) Is that looking glass that detects magic instantly that I allowed one of my players to find an utter game-breaker? :smallbiggrin::smalleek:

Edit: Oh, and for the record, I confess I'd always interpreted "aura" to be something that was visible. (I realize that's only one possible definition of aura, though, but in all the years I've been playing, that's never come up. So hey, I learned something today.) :smallsmile:

Roland St. Jude
2009-03-19, 11:17 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread seems to have degraded into namecalling and in light of the OPs surrender, I'm going to lock it.