Foresight VS Nondetection

[SaibenLocke]

So I maybe reading into this too much but Nondetection states that the target can't be targeted by divination magic, or scrying. So that means that foresight wouldn't work? Detect magic and the lot are self spells so it isn't targeting the creature, but that is what nondetection is used for correct? Perhaps it is the other spell Nystul's magic aura. If that is the case what is nondetection used for, besides scrying?

[Vogonjeltz]

So I maybe reading into this too much but Nondetection states that the target can't be targeted by divination magic, or scrying. So that means that foresight wouldn't work? Detect magic and the lot are self spells so it isn't targeting the creature, but that is what nondetection is used for correct? Perhaps it is the other spell Nystul's magic aura. If that is the case what is nondetection used for, besides scrying?

I'm away from book, but how about Truestrike, Locate Creature, etc?

[GiantOctopodes]

Locate Creature wouldn't work. Detect Magic per RAW would. However, the thing about that is it only works within 30 feet. If you're within 30 feet, you're using nondetection wrong. Also, what makes you think foresight wouldn't work? Sure, it can't be cast on someone who is under the effects of nondetection, but the benefits enjoyed (advantage on rolls, opponents have disadvantage, etc) would certainly apply even if his opponent had nondetection, as the spell is at that point not targeting him.

[SaibenLocke]

I asked about Foresight because in Nondetection it states that you hide the target from divination magic. Foresight is Divination. I may just be over thinking it but if it hides you from Divi magic than how could you benefit from Foresight. Foresight is a limited look into the future but if one creature had nondetection than he wouldn't show up in that future? I guess RAI was just for detect spells and stuff, because I can't see a 3rd level spell being able to negate a pth level. Just wanted to get some other opinions on the matter.

[Ghost Nappa]

AFB to read the spell descriptions, but I think Foresight wins. There is a section in DMG regarding "Epic Boons" and one of them mentions hiding from all divination magic like scrying and such.

Foresight is also a higher level spell, which...might count for something, I guess.


Non-detection might stop Foresight from knowing who or where the attacker is, but it definitely doesn't do anything about the other defensive buffs from Foresight like disadv. vs. target or adv. vs. others.

[GiantOctopodes]

AFB to read the spell descriptions, but I think Foresight wins. There is a section in DMG regarding "Epic Boons" and one of them mentions hiding from all divination magic like scrying and such.

Foresight is also a higher level spell, which...might count for something, I guess.


Non-detection might stop Foresight from knowing who or where the attacker is, but it definitely doesn't do anything about the other defensive buffs from Foresight like disadv. vs. target or adv. vs. others.

It's really not about that. It's about the word "target"- Nondetection specifies that "the target can't be targeted by divination magic", not that they can't be affected by divination magic or seen by divination magic (barring the specific exclusion for magical sensors). So, they could not have foresight cast on them, since then they would be the target of that spell. However, if foresight is cast on someone else, per RAW, nondetection does absolutely nothing to protect the person from the effects of divination magic, thus nondetection (as with detect magic, and detect alignment, and all other detect spells, as well as 90% of all other divination spells) provides no protection whatsoever.

[SaibenLocke]

It's really not about that. It's about the word "target"- Nondetection specifies that "the target can't be targeted by divination magic", not that they can't be affected by divination magic or seen by divination magic (barring the specific exclusion for magical sensors). So, they could not have foresight cast on them, since then they would be the target of that spell. However, if foresight is cast on someone else, per RAW, nondetection does absolutely nothing to protect the person from the effects of divination magic, thus nondetection (as with detect magic, and detect alignment, and all other detect spells, as well as 90% of all other divination spells) provides no protection whatsoever.

So you are saying that Nondetection doesn't work against detect magic, and things? I get the Foresight I was just reading into it too much. But I think that it does prevent detection from detect spells.

[GiantOctopodes]

So you are saying that Nondetection doesn't work against detect magic, and things? I get the Foresight I was just reading into it too much. But I think that it does prevent detection from detect spells.

Not as written. Detect Magic and the like say "for the duration, you ...". They do not have you specify a target at all, they just work. Note that the description of a target is "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)." Note that Detect Magic does not have you pick any such targets. Compare with foresight, which states "You touch a willing creature and bestow ... for the duration, the target can't be surprised and has ..." That spell clearly has a target, which is the person who gains the spell effects, and not anyone who might interact with those spell effects.

So there are two ways to interpret it. By strict RAW, Detect Magic does not have a specified target. As it does not target anyone or anything at all (just produces an effect), the person under the effects of Nondetection is not the target of that spell, so nondetection does not protect against it.

By loosely trying to interpret RAI, you could say that the point of origin for the area of effect for Detect Magic, or the creature affected by it, is the target. That would still mean that the person who cast Detect Magic is the target, not the person who is perceived with it, who is using nondetection. No matter how loosely you interpret it, the person who casts nondetection is not the target of the effects. It makes the spell 90% useless, and one could argue that is not what they intended to write, but as written, that's what it is. If they had written "cannot be affected by divination magic" that would be a different thing entirely, but that's not what it says.

[SaibenLocke]

Not as written. Detect Magic and the like say "for the duration, you ...". They do not have you specify a target at all, they just work. Note that the description of a target is "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)." Note that Detect Magic does not have you pick any such targets. Compare with foresight, which states "You touch a willing creature and bestow ... for the duration, the target can't be surprised and has ..." That spell clearly has a target, which is the person who gains the spell effects, and not anyone who might interact with those spell effects.

So there are two ways to interpret it. By strict RAW, Detect Magic does not have a specified target. As it does not target anyone or anything at all (just produces an effect), the person under the effects of Nondetection is not the target of that spell, so nondetection does not protect against it.

By loosely trying to interpret RAI, you could say that the point of origin for the area of effect for Detect Magic, or the creature affected by it, is the target. That would still mean that the person who cast Detect Magic is the target, not the person who is perceived with it, who is using nondetection. No matter how loosely you interpret it, the person who casts nondetection is not the target of the effects. It makes the spell 90% useless, and one could argue that is not what they intended to write, but as written, that's what it is. If they had written "cannot be affected by divination magic" that would be a different thing entirely, but that's not what it says.

Thanks that clears it up a bit. Yeah the spell as written isn't as good as I thought. Maybe they worded it wrong. In any case thanks again.