Ways to detect protection from evil.

[SangoProduction]

So, I'm using Magic Jar as a primary way of Save or Lose'ing the enemy. Choosing the correct target to hit with it is therefore crucial. Detecting Protection from Evil is a huge step, considering me expecting it to be somewhat prevalent. Can anyone help me with obtaining means to detect it? Preferably in a semi-permanent way.

[Deophaun]

Arcane sight with a +20 Spellcraft modifier would do it. Increase your modifier to equal 19+N, where N is the level of the spell you want to always be able to detect (assuming you cannot take 10, otherwise 10+N).

[SangoProduction]

Arcane sight with a +20 Spellcraft modifier would do it. Increase your modifier to equal 19+N, where N is the level of the spell you want to always be able to detect (assuming you cannot take 10, otherwise 10+N).

OK. Cool. I could get that permanenced for ~1/2 my WBL by level 6 or 7. It's a fairly expensive option that would suck to get dispelled. Are there any better ways?

[Deophaun]

OK. Cool. I could get that permanenced for ~1/2 my WBL by level 6 or 7. It's a fairly expensive option that would suck to get dispelled. Are there any better ways?
Anything that gives you detect magic works as well. Arcane sight's just nice because there's no time delay.

[SangoProduction]

Anything that gives you detect magic works as well. Arcane sight's just nice because there's no time delay.

OK permanent detect magic is much more reasonably priced, and achievable by level 4.

It would appear as though crafting a magic item that allows you to use it as command word is only 900 gp, and is non-dispel-able. That's great.

[Segev]

A continuous or command-activated item of arcane sight would probably be cheaper than the permanent spell, and would recover from dispelling much better.

[Calthropstu]

Neither detect magic nor arcane sight work here. It will allow you to identify spell schools but that's as close as it will get.

[Anxe]

Neither detect magic nor arcane sight work here. It will allow you to identify spell schools but that's as close as it will get.

It gives you enough info on the spells to use Spellcraft to identify them. The relevant text is in the Spellcraft skill description instead of the descriptions of the spells.

[Psyren]

Neither detect magic nor arcane sight work here. It will allow you to identify spell schools but that's as close as it will get.

They trigger the Spellcraft check that will tell you the exact spell.

The bigger problem here is that those spells depend on sight - you can't use them while you're in the Jar, so you'll have to scan your targets before leaving your body.

[SangoProduction]

They trigger the Spellcraft check that will tell you the exact spell.

The bigger problem here is that those spells depend on sight - you can't use them while you're in the Jar, so you'll have to scan your targets before leaving your body.

mmm. I see 60 ft emanation on Detect Magic. Nothing stating sight to be a factor. (Indeed, if sight were a factor it would penetrate nothing you can't see through.) But, you would have to use the item before entering the jar, and maintain concentration throughout, to detect it in soul form.

[Calthropstu]

It gives you enough info on the spells to use Spellcraft to identify them. The relevant text is in the Spellcraft skill description instead of the descriptions of the spells.


They trigger the Spellcraft check that will tell you the exact spell.

The bigger problem here is that those spells depend on sight - you can't use them while you're in the Jar, so you'll have to scan your targets before leaving your body.
Nope. I have gone over every inch of spellcraft and the spell many times. There is NOTHING in either that allows you to identify spells in effect, just schools. Most do houserule it to be possible but raw is a big "nope."

[Misery Esquire]

Nope. I have gone over every inch of spellcraft and the spell many times. There is NOTHING in either that allows you to identify spells in effect, just schools. Most do houserule it to be possible but raw is a big "nope."



DC 20 + Spell level : Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.


Once you have the ability to see that a person is effected by a spell (via Detect Magic, etc) you can then attempt to identify what spell it is (e.g. Protection From Evil). They could be running Nystul's Magic Aura to trick you, but otherwise you have a DC20 to find out what the spell is.

edit:: Ahem, I'm crazy. Nystul's applies to items, not creatures/people.

[Calthropstu]

Once you have the ability to see that a person is effected by a spell (via Detect Magic, etc) you can then attempt to identify what spell it is (e.g. Protection From Evil). They could be running Nystul's Magic Aura to trick you, but otherwise you have a DC20 to find out what the spell is.

edit:: Ahem, I'm crazy. Nystul's applies to items, not creatures/people.
That's not in pfsrd OR the core rulebook. So where is that from?

[Misery Esquire]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm


...Oh, hell. I didn't notice that Pathfinder was specified. I'll see myself out, haha.

[Forrestfire]

That's not in pfsrd OR the core rulebook. So where is that from?

It's a Knowledge (arcana) use, on page 101 of my fifth-printing Core Rulebook.


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm


...Oh, hell. I didn't notice that Pathfinder was specified. I'll see myself out, haha.

Nah, you were partly right; it's just that Paizo moved spell identification to Knowledge (arcana) and left Spellcraft for written spells and magic items.

[Calthropstu]

It's a Knowledge (arcana) use, on page 101 of my fifth-printing Core Rulebook.



Nah, you were partly right; it's just that Paizo moved spell identification to Knowledge (arcana) and left Spellcraft for written spells and magic items.

Knowlege arcana. I have had this argument multiple times at my table, players insisting that spellcraft allowed you to identify spells in play. I open the book to spellcraft and ask where and they respond "uhhhhhh..."
So I was right, it is NOT under spellcraft. Yet another 3.5 - pathfinder translation error.
Interesting that the book doesn't tell when that comes into play though. Being able to see the spell and identify the school seems like a good prerequisite, but raw you can just look at an area and say "that area is under guards and wards. That man has a protection from evil, a fly and a detect magic active and that guy over there has a polymorph spell on."
Silly.

[Douglas]

In 3.5, the requirement is "You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell." That's "the effects of the spell", not "the spell". Detect Magic or Arcane Sight is not enough because those don't tell you anything about the effects of the spells you detect.

In Pathfinder, it appears they dropped any explicit mention of such a requirement, but the wording is that you identify a "spell effect" rather than a "spell". Detect Magic and Arcane Sight again tell you about the spell, not its effect, so they don't help here. You could try arguing that the knowledge check lets you identify spell effects without first perceiving them in some way because it doesn't say you need to, but I doubt many DMs would accept that argument.

[Psyren]

Yeah my bad, I forgot they did that switch.

Back in PF's beginning, JJ talked a little bit about why they made they change. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k2he?Spellcraft-check-to-identify-spells-in-effect#6)

He also points out that the intent is for you to need detect magic if the spell's own effects are not visible. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k2he?Spellcraft-check-to-identify-spells-in-effect#9)

Anyway, point stands, once you have a means of detection up you can see who's warded or not. The only question remaining is whether or not you need to do that prior to entering the Jar.

[Rynjin]

Have you considered sidestepping the issue entirely by being True Neutral?

[Misery Esquire]

Have you considered sidestepping the issue entirely by being True Neutral?

Protection From Good/Evil/Law/Chaos provides blanket Mind Control/Compulsion immunity when cast, not just of the type specified.

[Psyren]

Protection From Good/Evil/Law/Chaos provides blanket Mind Control/Compulsion immunity when cast, not just of the type specified.

Not in Pathfinder - In PF, the mental protection is tied to alignment just like the AC bonus is.

The new clause added is:

"...This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion."

[SangoProduction]

Not in Pathfinder - In PF, the mental protection is tied to alignment just like the AC bonus is.

The new clause added is:

"...This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion."

Magic Jar has a specific call out to state that it is blocked by protection from evil.

[Psyren]

Magic Jar has a specific call out to state that it is blocked by protection from evil.

Hmm, it's unclear whether that would still be subject to the alignment provision in Pro: Evil or not. Because "Pro: Evil works according to the methods described in that spell" would still satisfy "Pro: Evil works."

It's also worth pointing out that PF has encouraged Magic Jar being replaced entirely with the Possession spell - which still gets blocked by Pro: Evil, but not in the blanket/alignment-agnostic way that could be applied to Magic Jar.

[Misery Esquire]

Not in Pathfinder - In PF, the mental protection is tied to alignment just like the AC bonus is.

The new clause added is:

"...This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion."

Argh. I thought I was being clever when I went to read and ensure that the different versions still existed in Pathfinder, but not well enough apparently.

[Zanos]

In 3.5, the requirement is "You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell." That's "the effects of the spell", not "the spell". Detect Magic or Arcane Sight is not enough because those don't tell you anything about the effects of the spells you detect.

In Pathfinder, it appears they dropped any explicit mention of such a requirement, but the wording is that you identify a "spell effect" rather than a "spell". Detect Magic and Arcane Sight again tell you about the spell, not its effect, so they don't help here. You could try arguing that the knowledge check lets you identify spell effects without first perceiving them in some way because it doesn't say you need to, but I doubt many DMs would accept that argument.
This is a ridiculous level of hair splitting. Creating a magic aura is definitely part of the "effects" of a spell.

[Anxe]

This is a ridiculous level of hair splitting. Creating a magic aura is definitely part of the "effects" of a spell.

It's not the interpretation I've used, but I feel that it is a valid alternative.

[Douglas]

This is a ridiculous level of hair splitting. Creating a magic aura is definitely part of the "effects" of a spell.
Is the color of a computer's casing part of what the computer does? That seems about equivalent to your statement to me.

The magic aura of a spell is akin to the appearance of an object. It is a trait of the spell, but it is not what the spell is for. The effect of a Bull's Strength spell is the increase in the target's strength score. The transmutation aura that Detect Magic would report is just how the spell appears to senses that perceive magic rather than light or sound, and the senses granted by Detect Magic and Arcane Sight aren't clear enough to make out more than what the school is.

The Magic Aura (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/magic-aura/) spell is arguably an exception to this, since creating a magic aura actually is what that spell is for, but personally I'd rule otherwise since that would negate the point of the spell.

[Deophaun]

Is the color of a computer's casing part of what the computer does? That seems about equivalent to your statement to me.
It's more like "is the waste heat from the processor part of what the computer does?" And the answer is "yes, yes it is."

The magic aura of a spell is akin to the appearance of an object. It is a trait of the spell, but it is not what the spell is for.
It doesn't matter what the spell is for. It matters what the spell does. And the spell does create an aura.

[Douglas]

It's more like "is the waste heat from the processor part of what the computer does?" And the answer is "yes, yes it is."
1) I disagree that this is the correct comparison.
2) Your answer assumes a very broad interpretation of "what the computer does" that I think most people would find surprising and unusual. When asked "what is the computer doing," I expect very few people would mention the waste heat even as a minor side note.
3) How much can you tell about a computer (and its activities) by examining its waste heat?


It doesn't matter what the spell is for. It matters what the spell does. And the spell does create an aura.
I would say that a spell does not create an aura, but that it has an aura. Just like a box has a color.

[Anxe]

1) I disagree that this is the correct comparison.
2) Your answer assumes a very broad interpretation of "what the computer does" that I think most people would find surprising and unusual. When asked "what is the computer doing," I expect very few people would mention the waste heat even as a minor side note.
3) How much can you tell about a computer (and its activities) by examining its waste heat?


I would say that a spell does not create an aura, but that it has an aura. Just like a box has a color.

A heat signature of a computer tells you almost nothing about it. The heat signature of a star tells you a lot about it.

Which allegory are magic spells most like? Up to the DM.

[Zanos]

Is the color of a computer's casing part of what the computer does? That seems about equivalent to your statement to me.
Sure. Red flames on the case make the CPU run faster, blue cases have better cooling, and green cases have better energy efficiency. These things are known.

Seriously though, terrible analogy. The PF designers said that determining the exact spell with the skill check was their intention, and the 3.5 rules seem pretty clear to me, especially with the explicit reference to "detect".


The transmutation aura that Detect Magic would report is just how the spell appears to senses that perceive magic rather than light or sound, and the senses granted by Detect Magic and Arcane Sight aren't clear enough to make out more than what the school is.
They are if you make the skill check. You actually don't even need magical senses if the spell is cast on you. Spellcraft DC 25+Spell Level will determine the exact nature of any targeted spell you roll a save against explicitly.

[Deophaun]

1) I disagree that this is the correct comparison.
Obviously. But if we take your "what is the color of the case" comparison, we can apply that to others. Can you use Spellcraft/Knowledge (arcana) to identify mage armor? The spell is for improving AC, but how do you see AC? What does AC look like? Sure, mage armor looks like a set of chain mail, but that's just the box.

2) Your answer assumes a very broad interpretation of "what the computer does" that I think most people would find surprising and unusual.
All that means is most people would make terrible engineers.

3) How much can you tell about a computer (and its activities) by examining its waste heat?
Quite a lot. Is this an i5 or i7 or Ryzen or Snapdragon? Is it overclocked? Is it running a single-threaded program or multi-threaded? If it's multithreaded is the load balanced? If so, we're likely looking at a productivity application. Are different cores being stressed, in which case we're probably playing a game. If you have really, really, really good resolution you could even find faults (don't need good resolution to find faults on a motherboard; a cheap IR camera will do it).

I would say that a spell does not create an aura, but that it has an aura. Just like a box has a color.
You do you. But that's hair splitting.

[Psyren]

A heat signature of a computer tells you almost nothing about it. The heat signature of a star tells you a lot about it.

Which allegory are magic spells most like? Up to the DM.

This.

All spells have a "heat signature" (school.) Detect magic is the thermometer that lets you translate that data into information (specific spell.)

[Douglas]

Quite a lot. Is this an i5 or i7 or Ryzen or Snapdragon? Is it overclocked? Is it running a single-threaded program or multi-threaded? If it's multithreaded is the load balanced? If so, we're likely looking at a productivity application. Are different cores being stressed, in which case we're probably playing a game. If you have really, really, really good resolution you could even find faults (don't need good resolution to find faults on a motherboard; a cheap IR camera will do it).
Would you be able to tell that it's running Civilization V, specifically?


This.

All spells have a "heat signature" (school.) Detect magic is the thermometer that lets you translate that data into information (specific spell.)
Unless I'm missing something, without Detect Magic there's nothing to even tell you that the heat exists.

Detect Magic is the crude unmarked thermometer that tells you the heat exists. A Knowledge (arcana) check lets you apply your expertise to figure out approximately where the markings would be if they were there, giving you an imprecise estimate of the temperature.

Back in the realm of rules:
Knowledge (arcana) has a general rule that you can use it to precisely identify spell effects.
Detect Magic has a specific rule that overrides that general rule, stating exactly what a Knowledge (arcana) check gives you - the school and only the school.

Also, if Detect Magic or regular Arcane Sight were enough to identify specific spells, that would make Greater Arcane Sight one hell of a sad overpriced spell. 4 extra spell levels just to do one small part of a skill that nearly everyone who can cast it is going to have anyway?

[Deophaun]

Would you be able to tell that it's running Civilization V, specifically?
Why do I need to know that? The fact that I can tell the exact make of the computer (Greater Magic Weapon) is what's important. That it's currently providing a +3 bonus instead of a +2 (whether it's running Civilization V) is immaterial.

Unless I'm missing something, without Detect Magic there's nothing to even tell you that the heat exists.
Ah, so the aura now cannot be the color of the box, as without detect magic there's nothing to even tell you the box exists.

Detect Magic is the crude unmarked thermometer that tells you the heat exists.
You're flat out wrong here. Detect magic is explicitly more sensitive than just providing an idiot light.

A Knowledge (arcana) check lets you apply your expertise to figure out approximately where the markings would be if they were there, giving you an imprecise estimate of the temperature.
As I said, you be you. But we have word of god on this, and god says otherwise.

Also, if Detect Magic or regular Arcane Sight were enough to identify specific spells, that would make Greater Arcane Sight one hell of a sad overpriced spell. 4 extra spell levels just to do one small part of a skill that nearly everyone who can cast it is going to have anyway?
Yeah. That's never happened before. All spells are keepers at all levels.

[Psyren]

Unless I'm missing something, without Detect Magic there's nothing to even tell you that the heat exists.

Well it depends really - abjurations are noticeable without it for instance, and many spells have obvious visible effects (like a Wall of Fire or Blade Barrier.) I suppose in this analogy, many (most?) spell effects are infrared or ultraviolet, and others fall in the visible range.



Detect Magic is the crude unmarked thermometer that tells you the heat exists. A Knowledge (arcana) check lets you apply your expertise to figure out approximately where the markings would be if they were there, giving you an imprecise estimate of the temperature.

Back in the realm of rules:
Knowledge (arcana) has a general rule that you can use it to precisely identify spell effects.
Detect Magic has a specific rule that overrides that general rule, stating exactly what a Knowledge (arcana) check gives you - the school and only the school.

Nowhere in Detect Magic does it say "the school and only the school." That "only" is language you're adding to it. Specific trumps general only applies when there is a conflict, but there isn't one here because identifying a spell and identifying its school are not mutually exclusive. In fact, you'll notice that the DC to identify the school is 5 points easier than the one to identify the spell itself, so one does not supersede the other - you could even rule that, rather than make separate checks, you give them the school if they make the lower one and the greater info if they beat the DC by 5.



Also, if Detect Magic or regular Arcane Sight were enough to identify specific spells, that would make Greater Arcane Sight one hell of a sad overpriced spell. 4 extra spell levels just to do one small part of a skill that nearly everyone who can cast it is going to have anyway?

The benefits to GAS are twofold - one, it's automatic (no check required, regardless of CL and DC-boosting/obscuring effects like Stylized Spell) and two, it perfectly identifies nonspell effects too (which neither Detect Magic nor Arcane Sight can do.) It's true that most of the time you won't need it, but that makes it niche, not useless.

[Zanos]

Specific only overrides general when there's a rules conflict. If the rules don't conflict, they all apply. If you can make a DC 15+1/2 CL check you get the school, if you make a DC 20+Spell Level check you identify the spell.

Protip: You can also identify magic items with detect magic/arcane sight if you beat the DC by 10. It's in the magic item compendium.

[Calthropstu]

Literally nowhere does it say when that knowledge arcana can be rolled. Obviously you must see/sense something to trigger that roll. Detect magic shows you an aura, but whether that is good enough to initiate the knowledge roll? Gm discretion.
Personally, I could go either way. Given the fact that greater arcane sight exists, I am leaning towards no.

[Psyren]

Literally nowhere does it say when that knowledge arcana can be rolled. Obviously you must see/sense something to trigger that roll. Detect magic shows you an aura, but whether that is good enough to initiate the knowledge roll? Gm discretion.
Personally, I could go either way. Given the fact that greater arcane sight exists, I am leaning towards no.

But you don't have to roll for Greater Arcane Sight, so it sounds like you just don't want people rolling to identify spells at all. In which case, why bother having a DC for it?

[Calthropstu]

But you don't have to roll for Greater Arcane Sight, so it sounds like you just don't want people rolling to identify spells at all. In which case, why bother having a DC for it?

Oh, there are plenty of times where the roll comes into play.
DM: "As you go through the door, you feel something quite off. Your fly spell has been deactivated."
Player: "What could have caused this?"
DM: "Make a knowledge Arcana check."
Player: "25"
DM: "With that roll you go through several possibilities in your head, but you come up with two that make sense. The exact effect was obviously a dispel magic, obviously triggered by either a guards and wards spell or a consecrate/desecrate spell. Since this is the home of an arcane spell caster, you deduce it was likely guards and wards."

[Douglas]

All that means is most people would make terrible engineers.
And that specific set of "most people" probably includes the people who wrote these rules, so their definition is the relevant one.


Specific only overrides general when there's a rules conflict. If the rules don't conflict, they all apply. If you can make a DC 15+1/2 CL check you get the school, if you make a DC 20+Spell Level check you identify the spell.

Protip: You can also identify magic items with detect magic/arcane sight if you beat the DC by 10. It's in the magic item compendium.
I think the conflict is implied, there, but I concede that it's not stated so your argument is valid. That just refutes my attempt to approach the subject from another direction, though, not my core contention that a spell's aura is not part of the spell's effect.

The Knowledge (arcana) rule is for identifying spell effects, not spells. The effects of a spell are the things the spell's description, possibly including fluff text, says it does. No more. The only spell with a description that mentions creating an aura that I know of is Magic Aura, therefore for spells in general an aura is not part of the effect, therefore Detect Magic and Arcane Sight don't give enough information to make the spell identification check.

To me this seems patently obvious, completely unambiguous, and not at all hairsplitting, and I'm really not sure what points I could bring up that I haven't already.


But you don't have to roll for Greater Arcane Sight, so it sounds like you just don't want people rolling to identify spells at all. In which case, why bother having a DC for it?
The DC is for identifying spells when you can see or otherwise perceive the effect of the spell. If you see a dire bear, a Knowledge (arcana) check might tell you it's someone using a Beast Shape spell. If you see some fog, a knowledge check might tell you whether it's Fog Cloud, Stinking Cloud, Cloudkill, or not produced by a spell at all. If you hear a loud noise, a knowledge check might tell you it's a Shout spell, or Greater Shout. And so on.

[Psyren]

To me this seems patently obvious, completely unambiguous, and not at all hairsplitting, and I'm really not sure what points I could bring up that I haven't already.

Not only is the opposite patently and unambiguously obvious to me, it's apparently what the designers themselves had in mind as per the links I provided. So I'll be going with that.

[Douglas]

Not only is the opposite patently and unambiguously obvious to me, it's apparently what the designers themselves had in mind as per the links I provided. So I'll be going with that.
Except the links you provided don't say that. The designer posts you linked to address:
Why identification of spell effects already in place was moved from Spellcraft to Knowledge Arcana.
That Detect Magic is not necessary to be able to make the check, if an effect is readily apparent.

Nowhere in those posts does he state that Detect Magic is sufficient to enable the check.

[Psyren]

Except the links you provided don't say that. The designer posts you linked to address:
Why identification of spell effects already in place was moved from Spellcraft to Knowledge Arcana.
That Detect Magic is not necessary to be able to make the check, if an effect is readily apparent.

Nowhere in those posts does he state that Detect Magic is sufficient to enable the check.

That's precisely the context of the question he was answering:

"Must Knowledge (arcana) be used in conjunction with detect magic, i.e., the 3-round situation I posited above, or can a PC use it "on the fly" if he has reason to believe someone might be ensorcelled without taking the time to cast the spell?"

JJ's answer was, if you can see the effects of the spell, you don't need detect magic - and therefore that if you can't, you do. Detect Magic therefore does enable the check, since without it, a spell effect you can't observe can't be identified.