Darkstalker and Detect Magic/Arcane Sight

[alex1g]

When you hide, creatures with blindsense, blindsight, scent, or tremorsense must make a Listen check or a Spot check (whichever DC is higher) to notice you, just as sighted creatures would make Spot checks to detect you.

Sorry if this has been asked before about couldn't find a direct answer. I run a campaign that is run strictly by RAW. So got a darkstalker pc in the game and was wondering if detect magic or arcane sight would be easily spot a darkstalker pc. Nevermind the blindsense, blindsight, scent, or tremorsense. This question is just about detect magic and arcane sight.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Arcane Sight reveals magical auras that are in line of sight within 120 ft., and RAW you wouldn't have line of sight to a hidden creature.


line of sight: Two creatures can see each other if they have line
of sight to each other. To determine line of sight, draw an imaginary
line between your space and the target’s space. If any such line is
clear (not blocked), then you have line of sight to the creature (and it
has line of sight to you). The line is clear if it doesn’t intersect or
even touch squares that block line of sight. If you can’t see the target
(for instance, if you’re blind or the target is invisible), you can’t have
line of sight to it even if you could draw an unblocked line between
your space and the target’s.


If you can’t see the target, such as due to being blinded or
the target’s invisibility, you can’t have line of sight to it even
if you could draw an unblocked line between your space and
the target’s.
If line of sight to a target is completely blocked, you can’t
cast spells or use other abilities that require line of sight to
the target.

If you don't have line of sight, you flat-out can't cast spells on that creature. You would still be able to hit the creature with effects such as a fireball, or a ray spell with a 50% miss chance assuming you can pinpoint them.

[bean illus]

I think that, unless otherwise noted, feats are Extraordinary Abilities. As such, neither detect magic nor arcane sight would detect it.

I'll look around for a minute ...

[sleepyphoenixx]

They would detect the character (or more accurately his gear and buffs). You can use Nondetection to at least make it an opposed check though.

Edit: you can hide the auras of magical gear with the Magic Aura spell to outright block being found by someone detecting those, Nondetection is only necessary to avoid being found by Detect Evil/Undead/etc.
Note though that by RAW Nondetection does not hide magical effects active on you (buffs), so those could still be detected unless the caster has the Insidious Magic feat (PGtF).


Arcane Sight reveals magical auras that are in line of sight within 120 ft., and RAW you wouldn't have line of sight to a hidden creature.

If you don't have line of sight, you flat-out can't cast spells on that creature. You would still be able to hit the creature with effects such as a fireball, or a ray spell with a 50% miss chance assuming you can pinpoint them.

There's an exception to that in the description of the Invisibility special ability:

Invisibility does not thwart detect spells.

The same applies to the hide skill since a creature you're hidden from treats you as invisible (RC p.92):

If you’re successfully hidden with respect to another creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you. That creature treats you as if you were invisible (see page 76).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Detect Magic "works" but isn't really practical. Arcane Sight's wording could be better but I'm pretty sure it works.

Detect Magic's effect is a cone-shaped emanation, not a specific target; the only language about LoS or sight at all relates to identifying the magical auras in round 3 (so yeah, you definitely couldn't do that part with either spell). You simply "detect" auras to varying degrees within the cone. So in round 1 the caster would know there is at least one aura somewhere in the cone, and if the sneak was just sitting there twiddling her thumbs the caster could then pinpoint the location her auras... in round 3. So, it "works," I guess, but good luck pinpointing a creature who can move around.

Arcane Sight is supposed to be as Detect Magic but better in various ways. Some lines create confusion; I'll include the key parts of the description here:
This spell [...] allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you. The effect is similar to that of a detect magic spell, but arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly.

You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight. [more specifics...]The bolded line in a vacuum makes it seem like you already need LoS to the aura to detect the aura at all. But in full context this is not the case. The spell reads out as follows:
1. You see magic auras within 120', period.
2. The effect is like detect magic except as follows: No concentration, and you simply know the location and power of the auras you see via point 1 without having to wait several rounds. (Also other details.)
Thus, Arcane Sight does not require pre-existing LoS to the aura. In fact if it did, it would defeat the purpose of the spell, since normally one cannot see magic auras (and thus one normally lacks LoS to them).

Do note that, if item auras are the issue (as they commonly are with mundane sneaks), a friendly caster can help the sneak with repeated castings of Magic Aura (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicAura.htm). The sneak could repay the caster with one or two first level pearls of power, since the casting lasts days/level.

[Doctor Despair]

The only practical ways to foil Detect Magic/Arcane Sight (while maintaining magical protection against other detection methods) are:

* Slayer 6's Cerebral Blind ability
* Arguably Spymaster or Zhentarim Spy's Deep Cover ability
* Fiend of Possession 1's Hide Presence ability
* Blocking Line of Effect using a mundane tower shield for total cover (or using some sort of incorporeality to remain underground/inside objects or walls)

God Blooded of Vecna would protect YOU from pinging, but wouldn't protect your gear

[alex1g]

"If you can’t see the target (for instance, if you’re blind or the target is invisible), you can’t have line of sight to it even if you could draw an unblocked line between your space and the target’s."

Arcane Sight NPC has line of sight and player is not blocked/behind anything nor is he invisible. He is hiding as per darkstalker feat. The player is decked out with magic items from head to toe. Therefore I see his aura.

"Note though that by RAW Nondetection does not hide magical effects active on you (buffs), so those could still be detected unless the caster has the Insidious Magic feat (PGtF)."
"Invisibility does not thwart detect spells."

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Again, RAW a hidden creature can't be seen, thus is not in line of sight relative to the caster.

Arcane Sight is a personal-range spell that upgrades your own vision. It relies on being able to see the thing you're trying to detect magic on. If you can't see the item/creature, you don't learn what magic auras it has.

Detect Magic and other detect spells have a cone or similar area of effect. Invisibility can't thwart these spells as long as the invisible creature is within the area of effect. This does not extend to Arcane Sight, because it has no area of effect.

[alex1g]

Thanks for the info...Last question... So Detect spells would work on Dark Stalker? Detect Good/Evil, Alignment, Magic? I wouldn't see the pc, just sense that there was something there?

[Doctor Despair]

Thanks for the info...Last question... So Detect spells would work on Dark Stalker? Detect Good/Evil, Alignment, Magic? I wouldn't see the pc, just sense that there was something there?

Yes, they would.

[Clementx]

The best test, rather than arguing exact words in a book that was not rigorously edited, would be to question the existence of other spells. Why would faerie fire and glitterdust have all that text about revealing hidden creatures if a detect magic spell would do the same thing?

[Doctor Despair]

The best test, rather than arguing exact words in a book that was not rigorously edited, would be to question the existence of other spells. Why would faerie fire and glitterdust have all that text about revealing hidden creatures if a detect magic spell would do the same thing?

Because Detect Magic and Arcane Sight are functionally different effects than Faerie Fire and Glitterdust. They do distinctly different things. The existence of worse spells does not logically dictate that all other spells must also be worse than they are written.

[Doctor Awkward]

Arcane Sight specifically requires line of sight in order to discern information about magical auras. Being invisible specifically breaks line of sight. Arcane Sight cannot be used to locate an invisible creature. As invisibility explicitly affects all gear that a creature is wearing, it cannot detect any auras their gear might have either.

Detect Magic is a wholly impractical method of locating an invisible creature. On round one, assuming that you aimed the cone correctly, you are made aware only of the presence of the magical auras somewhere within that 60 foot cone. You do not get the location until the 3rd round. Maintaining detect magic requires that you concentrate on it every round to maintain it, which consumes your standard action. Per the rules in the PHB, detect magic points in the direction that you cast it unless you spend a move action to redirect it, which per the spell description starts the process of study over from the beginning: round 1 detect, round 2 number and power, round 3 location. A 60-foot cone would have a total volume of about 32,000 cubic feet.

But as to the original post, Darkstalker and Arcane Sight do not interact in any meaningful way. Darkstalker prevents a hidden creature from being detected via a specific list of special senses. Arcane Sight modifies a creatures existing eyesight to have an accelerated version of the effects of detect magic.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Again, RAW a hidden creature can't be seen, thus is not in line of sight relative to the caster.

Arcane Sight is a personal-range spell that upgrades your own vision. It relies on being able to see the thing you're trying to detect magic on. If you can't see the item/creature, you don't learn what magic auras it has.

Detect Magic and other detect spells have a cone or similar area of effect. Invisibility can't thwart these spells as long as the invisible creature is within the area of effect. This does not extend to Arcane Sight, because it has no area of effect.As noted above (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24860675&postcount=5), this is incorrect (or at least disputed). Arcane Sight's first line grants the ability to see magic auras within 120', period. The other text does not restrict this to line of sight, but rather restricts the ability to discern location, power, and so on to the range of the spell. There is also indirect evidence to this effect, since the clause requiring LoS to the item/creature creating the aura for spellcraft checks only makes sense if the rest wouldn't require LoS to the item/creature.

A different question is whether the caster could target a hidden creature because the caster sees the auras, and the answer is of course no. At best, detecting the auras would allow the caster to pinpoint the creature's square. Useful, but not all-powerful.


The best test, rather than arguing exact words in a book that was not rigorously edited, would be to question the existence of other spells. Why would faerie fire and glitterdust have all that text about revealing hidden creatures if a detect magic spell would do the same thing?(Permanent) Arcane Sight actually complements AoE revealers like Glitterdust, rather than competing with them. If I had to have one or the other I'd massively prefer Glitterdust since it (a) blinds, (b) is lower level, (c) allows me and my teammates to see (not just pinpoint!) the friggin' thing. It really just murders that hide check with no save. But the issue with it is that you need to know what squares to 'dust. That's where pinpointing comes in, and hence why the spells complement each other.

[Crake]

Arcane Sight specifically requires line of sight in order to discern information about magical auras.

Note the distinction in the arcane sight spell:


You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight. An aura’s power depends on a spell’s functioning level or an item’s caster level, as noted in the description of the detect magic spell. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura; DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + one-half caster level for a nonspell effect.)

It says you can discern the location of all auras within your sight. Not within your line of sight. This to me tells me that arcane sight works for wherever you're looking (functionally meaning it can cover a full 360 degree arc in any given round), as opposed to detect magic's limit of a single 90 degrees cone per round. It then goes on to add that, while you can discern the location of all auras within your sight, you must have line of sight to gain information about the auras. Why make this distinction between within your sight, and having line of sight, if they were the same thing? Remember that Detect Magic can penetrate barriers. So even if there's an invisible creature, or if a creature is behind a wall of sufficiently small thickness, or a creature hiding in some fog, you can discern their location with arcane sight, but you cannot gain any information about their auras.

[Doctor Awkward]

It says you can discern the location of all auras within your sight.

Right. So we agree then that if you do not have a way to perceive invisible targets (such as see invisibility) then such things are most certainly not, quote, "within your sight."

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Let's say you have Arcane Sight on, but it's pitch dark and you don't have darkvision. You can't see any magic auras, because you can't see anything at all.

Let's say you have Arcane Sight on, but someone has Obscuring Snow cast, or there's a heavy fog effect, or similar, limiting the visibility of one or more creatures relative to you. You can't see any of their magic auras, because you can't see them, they have total concealment.

Let's say you have Arcane Sight on, but there's a hidden creature. If you can't see that creature, you don't have sight of it and Arcane Sight tells you nothing about it.

Arcane Sight allows you to know if what you're looking at is magical or not, it doesn't allow you to see anything you wouldn't have otherwise been able to see normally. Detect Magic and similar tells you if something in its area of effect is magical or not, regardless of line of sight. If a creature is standing on the other side of a Wall of Force and you can see them, Detect Magic can't go through the wall, but Arcane Sight works since you can see them.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Since Arcane Sight explicitly references Detect Magic i treat it as Detect Magic+.
It's what makes the most sense to me instead of making it a sidegrade at +3 spell levels just because it doesn't have "detect" in the name.

Meaning it pierces invisibility (after a fashion, it allows you to detect the aura of the spell and any other spells/magic items but does not negate the total concealment), darkness, fog and even thin walls but is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt.

Invisibility and hide are already powerful enough.
If you want to avoid being found by your magical auras there's ways to hide those, so i see no need to not have my players use those options (like Nondetection and Magic Aura).

[Crake]

Right. So we agree then that if you do not have a way to perceive invisible targets (such as see invisibility) then such things are most certainly not, quote, "within your sight."

An invisible creature is still within your sight even if you cannot see them. Within your sight =/= line of sight. The same applies for a creature behind a door, if you're looking in their direction, they are within your sight, but not in line of sight. Basically it's saying you can percieve the auras in any direction you look in, not just a single 90 degree arc like with detect magic, as long as they are not behind a sufficiently thick barrier as described in the detect magic spell.

The only time you need line of sight is when you want to gain information via a spellcraft check on the auras.


Since Arcane Sight explicitly references Detect Magic i treat it as Detect Magic+.
It's what makes the most sense to me instead of making it a sidegrade at +3 spell levels just because it doesn't have "detect" in the name.

Meaning it pierces invisibility (after a fashion, it allows you to detect the aura of the spell and any other spells/magic items but does not negate the total concealment), darkness, fog and even thin walls but is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt.

Invisibility and hide are already powerful enough.
If you want to avoid being found by your magical auras there's ways to hide those, so i see no need to not have my players use those options (like Nondetection and Magic Aura).

Yah, like this. Anything that obscures line of sight only prevents you from learning about the details of the aura, not it's location. If you want to obscure the location, you need the aforementioned barriers as described in detect magic.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Arcane Sight isn't a sidegrade, it's an extremely significant action economy upgrade.

If you want an even better RAW/RAI argument, look at Greater Arcane Sight:
"This spell functions like arcane sight, except that you automatically know which spells or magical effects are active upon any individual or object you see."

Again, it only allows you to learn about things you can already see, but nothing about something you can't see. So it doesn't overcome invisibility or similar.

[ShurikVch]

If successful Hide check would allow to negate Arcane Sight, then it should likewise beat Lifesense and Mindsight

I, personally, treat magic auras in the range of Arcane Sight as a light source: you may not see a light source which is hidden in some grass(/bush/debris/.../etc) - but you still able to see the light, and even see which color is the light

[Darg]

Detect Magic/Arcane Sight gives you the ability to see magical auras. What it does not do is give you the ability to see the creature. Arcane Sight's spellcraft check's needed line of sight is for the auras upon the creature, not the creature itself. It does not bypass invisibility's concealment, meaning you still have a 50% chance to miss when targeting the location.

To answer the OP, they would still have to use the spot/listen check to target the player, but they would be able to discern the location the player is at so that they could target the location itself.

[Doctor Awkward]

If successful Hide check would allow to negate Arcane Sight, then it should likewise beat Lifesense and Mindsight

I, personally, treat magic auras in the range of Arcane Sight as a light source: you may not see a light source which is hidden in some grass(/bush/debris/.../etc) - but you still able to see the light, and even see which color is the light

Lifesense explicitly states that the light produced by creatures functions to your eyes exactly as normal light. Thus you would see no light from a creature with total concealment relative to you.

Mindsight explicitly does not require line of sight in order to function. You automatically know which square any creature is in provided it is within range of your telepathy and is not mindless.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

If you want an even better RAW/RAI argument, look at Greater Arcane Sight:
"This spell functions like arcane sight, except that you automatically know which spells or magical effects are active upon any individual or object you see."

Again, it only allows you to learn about things you can already see, but nothing about something you can't see. So it doesn't overcome invisibility or similar.GAS upgrades the one part of DM/AS that actually does require the caster to see the aura generator, the identification part that normally requires spellcraft checks. Nothing else about the spell requires LoS to the creature/item.

Edit: responding to this as well:

Let's say you have Arcane Sight on, but it's pitch dark and you don't have darkvision. You can't see any magic auras, because you can't see anything at all.You can see magic auras and nothing else. Specific beats general.

Obscuring SnowThis one's arguable because OS specifically "obscures all sight." That arguably includes Arcane Sight, and OS is more specific. No ironclad RAW one way or the other for this one. But in any event it's not analogous.

[Arcane Sight] doesn't allow you to see anything you wouldn't have otherwise been able to see normallyExcept the very first line of the spell says it "allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you." You wouldn't normally be able to see magical auras, and now you can. And again, you're not seeing the creature or the item; just the aura.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Except the very first line of the spell says it "allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you." You wouldn't normally be able to see magical auras, and now you can. And again, you're not seeing the creature or the item; just the aura.

This right here is the problem, magical auras are not independent entities. Seeing the magic aura is like seeing what color the object or creature or spell effect is, you can't see that without seeing the thing it's on. You can't tell if an apple is red or green if it's invisible, and you can't tell if it has a magic aura with Arcane Sight if it's invisible either. Detect Magic works differently in that it tells you if there's any magic in its area of effect, regardless of whether it can be seen, but Arcane Sight relies on sight of the magic thing to work.

[Warmjenkins]

This right here is the problem, magical auras are not independent entities. Seeing the magic aura is like seeing what color the object or creature or spell effect is, you can't see that without seeing the thing it's on. You can't tell if an apple is red or green if it's invisible, and you can't tell if it has a magic aura with Arcane Sight if it's invisible either. Detect Magic works differently in that it tells you if there's any magic in its area of effect, regardless of whether it can be seen, but Arcane Sight relies on sight of the magic thing to work.

I'm gonna have to agree with this argument I think. Say you had a spell that let you see the chemical or atomic makeup of anything within 120ft. Or perhaps a spell that lets you see the temperature of all objects in the form of an aura of color ranging from blue to red based on heat. I don't think it would let you see things you couldn't see with your regular sight. Color, atomic makeup, magical auras and properties, flavor ect; in the d&d universe these are all just psychical properties of an object. Arcane sight lets you see these otherwise invisible properties in the form of a visual indicator but doesn't locate them for you. It doesn't even actually produce any light, just gives you the illusion of an aura around the object.

[danielxcutter]

For argument's sake, let's assume you have magical items and/or have buffs on you(or otherwise show up on Detect Magic normally).

If you're hiding in a pile of blankets, Darkstalker probably wouldn't hide you from Detect Magic unless said pile was big enough to block it(though unless you're in a blanket shop they'd probably Fireball it instead).

If you're hiding in a shop of Mordenkainen's Lead-Lined Blankets or something and use a pile for cover, then it probably would(assuming of course the blankets have enough lead to block the spell, at which I'm pretty sure the "buried alive" rules apply).

If you're invisible but otherwise standing around in the open, the caster notices a magical aura in the middle of nowhere and throws either a Glitterdust or a bag of flour at you. Or maybe a blanket.


I'd guess that RAI the feat was only made to prevent Rogues being instantly hosed by dragons. Well not just dragons; it was printed in Lords of Madness for a reason after all. I honestly don't know about Arcane Sight, but Detect Magic looks like it'd work in a pinch.

[Darg]

It doesn't even actually produce any light, just gives you the illusion of an aura around the object.

What? They are divination spells, not illusion spells. Sources of magic have magical auras as a property of being magic. Detect Magic/Arcane Sight simply lets you see this already invisible property yourself. If, as you and biff believe, that the properties are part and parcel with the creature then the creature would inherit the invisible nature of magical aura without needing to be invisible.

I can't agree with that. Magical auras are a separate concept from the creature yourself. In fact, it mirrors radiation in a lot of ways. Our eyes can only detect certain wavelengths of radiation that we perceive as color. Even then we still need to process the information in our minds. Illusion magic warps these processes.

Invisibility does not make invisible it's own aura even if it makes invisible all the other auras. It doesn't say it does and therefore doesn't. Detect magic does not require line of sight for its aura detection because it doesn't target anything. It simply gives you that information.

As for the spellcraft check, I can see an argument for not being able to perform that and only that as it is the only part of the spell that requires a line of sight.

[Warmjenkins]

What? They are divination spells, not illusion spells. Sources of magic have magical auras as a property of being magic. Detect Magic/Arcane Sight simply lets you see this already invisible property yourself. If, as you and biff believe, that the properties are part and parcel with the creature then the creature would inherit the invisible nature of magical aura without needing to be invisible.

I can't agree with that. Magical auras are a separate concept from the creature yourself. In fact, it mirrors radiation in a lot of ways. Our eyes can only detect certain wavelengths of radiation that we perceive as color. Even then we still need to process the information in our minds. Illusion magic warps these processes.

Invisibility does not make invisible it's own aura even if it makes invisible all the other auras. It doesn't say it does and therefore doesn't. Detect magic does not require line of sight for its aura detection because it doesn't target anything. It simply gives you that information.

As for the spellcraft check, I can see an argument for not being able to perform that and only that as it is the only part of the spell that requires a line of sight.

I don't mean it creates an illusion in the sense of a figment or something. I just meant in its natural definition of the word, as in the light isn't real and doesn't provide illumination or react with mirrors and such. It's an illusion in the sense that you see it as light but it isn't really light. I can see where people may think it functions as detect magic and if thats how it's run at your table its fine, but personally I don't see where the rules really back that up and the wording of the spell does make it sound vision based.

The detect magic spell is like a metal detector but for magic, telling you if there is magic in the cone you aim it at. Arcane sight is more like a heads up display overlay, telling you information about things you see that is otherwise hidden.

[danielxcutter]

So do we at least agree that Detect Magic should work against invisibility spells then? Maybe not Superior Invisibility though, I don’t remember how comprehensive that one was.

[Warmjenkins]

So do we at least agree that Detect Magic should work against invisibility spells then? Maybe not Superior Invisibility though, I don’t remember how comprehensive that one was.

I can only speak for myself and I'm also unsure about greater invisibility. Personally I don't see how detect magic itself would have any real argument for not detecting all unmasked magic auras. In fact I have even seen it used by naturally blind characters to discern approximate locations. The only part of detect magic that relies on sight or line of sight is the 3rd round abilities. I can also see how someone would interpret the RAI of arcane sight to be "as detect magic except where noted here" like many other spells are and just worded poorly. It certainly wouldn't be a deal breaker at any table I played at one way or another.

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that each school of magic had a different color tied to its aura and such but can't remember where now. The description of the spell doesn't even actually mention that the auras have any visual representation at all and i suppose its possible i just assumed as much due to a combination of popular media often representing it that way and/or reading about it in another game or edition. When I get the chance I might look around a bit and see if I can find it again.

[sleepyphoenixx]

So do we at least agree that Detect Magic should work against invisibility spells then? Maybe not Superior Invisibility though, I don’t remember how comprehensive that one was.

There's not really an argument against that seeing how it's mentioned to do it right in the invisibility abilities description.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Detect Magic doesn't qualify as a detect spell.
It'd work against Superior Invisibility too since it's not on the list of things that protects you from.

Though if you want to get any appreciable use out of it you'll probably want to get it by binding the Disenchanter Mask to your brow chakra to avoid the 3 round warmup time.
It could be a helpful option in a pinch (in the sense that it's better than nothing) but basic Detect Magic isn't going to replace True Seeing or even See Invis any time soon even under the most favorable ruling. :smalltongue:

As for Arcane Sight my interpretation is pretty much based solely on the fact that it explicitly mentions Detect Magic.
The wording itself is vague enough to allow for either ruling imo, so as far as i'm concerned there is no clear RAW to point to, making it a "it's up to your DM" question like so many things in 3.5 are.

[danielxcutter]

There's not really an argument against that seeing how it's mentioned to do it right in the invisibility abilities description.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Detect Magic doesn't qualify as a detect spell.
It'd work against Superior Invisibility too since it's not on the list of things that protects you from.

Though if you want to get any appreciable use out of it you'll probably want to get it by binding the Disenchanter Mask to your brow chakra to avoid the 3 round warmup time.
It could be a helpful option in a pinch (in the sense that it's better than nothing) but basic Detect Magic isn't going to replace True Seeing or even See Invis any time soon even under the most favorable ruling. :smalltongue:

That's what the bags of flour are for. :smalltongue:

[ShurikVch]

Lifesense explicitly states that the light produced by creatures functions to your eyes exactly as normal light. Thus you would see no light from a creature with total concealment relative to you.1. Not all forms of concealment give total concealment
2. With distraction and Hide in Plain Sight character may use Hide even without any concealment

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

This right here is the problem, magical auras are not independent entities. Seeing the magic aura is like seeing what color the object or creature or spell effect is, you can't see that without seeing the thing it's on. You can't tell if an apple is red or green if it's invisible, and you can't tell if it has a magic aura with Arcane Sight if it's invisible either. Detect Magic works differently in that it tells you if there's any magic in its area of effect, regardless of whether it can be seen, but Arcane Sight relies on sight of the magic thing to work.Auras are not merely akin to colors off the human-visible spectrum. They are effects that surround/emanate from something. This reading is consistent with (1) the plain English definitions of aura, (2) other aura effects found in the book such as Holy Aura (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holyAura.htm), and most importantly (3) the fact that magic auras linger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm). They are pretty clearly separable from the aura-generator if they can exist without the aura generator, at least for a time.

[Crake]

Lifesense explicitly states that the light produced by creatures functions to your eyes exactly as normal light. Thus you would see no light from a creature with total concealment relative to you.

Total concealment doesn't stop you from producing light. To quote Jeremy crawford's ruling on it "The invisibility spell doesn't prevent you or your gear from emitting light, yet that light makes you no less invisible. The light appears to be coming from the air. Spooky!" Admittedly the ruling is for 5e, but really the interaction would be exactly the same regardless of what system you use.

Light also can bounce around corners despite total concealment from that, or it can disperse through a fog cloud, despite being more than 5 feet away from someone. So no, total concealment doesn't mean you can't see light from a light source.

[sleepyphoenixx]

1. Not all forms of concealment give total concealment
2. With distraction and Hide in Plain Sight character may use Hide even without any concealment
Being invisible or hidden gives you total concealment though.
Not that it matters since it doesn't hide light, as Crake said.


Total concealment doesn't stop you from producing light. To quote Jeremy crawford's ruling on it "The invisibility spell doesn't prevent you or your gear from emitting light, yet that light makes you no less invisible. The light appears to be coming from the air. Spooky!" Admittedly the ruling is for 5e, but really the interaction would be exactly the same regardless of what system you use.

Light also can bounce around corners despite total concealment from that, or it can disperse through a fog cloud, despite being more than 5 feet away from someone. So no, total concealment doesn't mean you can't see light from a light source.

It's in 3.5 too, right in the description of the Invisibility special ability which all forms of hide/invis are based on. No ruling necessary.