Nondetection vs...

[Feldar]

So, we have the lovely spell nondetection spell, which makes the recipient "difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells."

This spell is the prerequisite for creating a ring of mind shielding, which makes the wearer "continually immune to detect thoughts, discern lies, and any attempt to magically discern her alignment."

Not much mind shielding happens there except for detect thoughts. For example dominate person still works even though the mind is "shielded" (but that's another topic).

VS

1. True Seeing/See Invisibility -- if someone under a nondetection effect or wearing a ring of mind shielding is invisible, do these spells work against that person?
2. What if the person is instead wearing a hat of disguise with their ring of mind shielding? Does true seeing see through the illusion?

[Jack_Simth]

Nondetection: I am inclined to let the spell "win" because it's very in line with how D&D is supposed to work: A roll to succeed. So if Nondetection maybe applies, I have it do so - and thus, it can potentially foil see invisibility or True Seeing.

Ring of Mind Shielding: This is an absolute item, so I am inclined to be "stingy" in interpretation: it works against exactly what it says, no more. See invisibility and True Seeing aren't on the list.

[Crake]

Nondetection: I am inclined to let the spell "win" because it's very in line with how D&D is supposed to work: A roll to succeed. So if Nondetection maybe applies, I have it do so - and thus, it can potentially foil see invisibility or True Seeing.

Neither of those spells target the nondetected character, nor do they work like any of the spells mentioned in nondetection's description, so nondetection shouldn't apply to them at all.


Ring of Mind Shielding: This is an absolute item, so I am inclined to be "stingy" in interpretation: it works against exactly what it says, no more. See invisibility and True Seeing aren't on the list.

Correct, ring of mind shielding only functions as it is described, see invis and true seeing dont function like the spells indicated in the item's description at all.

[Feldar]

vs Zone of Truth

I'm inclined to say pass on this one as well, just like I wouldn't let nondetection beat invisibility purge.

Basically anything non-targetted or area-based, nondetection would not prevent. An area of effect version might stop those things though -- sphere of nondetection, for instance.

[Crake]

vs Zone of Truth

Verdict?

Nope, neither would help vs zone of truth.

[Kelb_Panthera]

vs Zone of Truth

I'm inclined to say pass on this one as well, just like I wouldn't let nondetection beat invisibility purge.

Basically anything non-targetted or area-based, nondetection would not prevent. An area of effect version might stop those things though -- sphere of nondetection, for instance.

That can't be the standard. Clairaudience/ Clairvoyance is a spell that targets a point in space and detect spells target areas. Neither targets the subject of non-detection.

I'm inclined to let non-detection apply wherever it might with the appropriate check. That's yes to potentially blocking ZoT, trueseening, see invisibility, etc and so on.

The ring of mind shielding doesn't reproduce nondetection. It just does exactly what it says it does which is a lesser effect in some ways and a greater one in others. It absolutely blocks the named effects but nothing more or less.

[nedz]

So, we have the lovely spell nondetection spell, which makes the recipient "difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells."

This spell is the prerequisite for creating a ring of mind shielding, which makes the wearer "continually immune to detect thoughts, discern lies, and any attempt to magically discern her alignment."


This is just a thematic spell used in the making of the ring. In terms of RAW this is little more than fluff.

[Jack_Simth]

Neither of those spells target the nondetected character, nor do they work like any of the spells mentioned in nondetection's description, so nondetection shouldn't apply to them at all.That is a reasonable interpretation of what's written.

That's not how I'd run it, however.

Nondetection as a functional counter for any divination that gathers info about the warded subject - even indirectly, such as when True Seeing enhances someone's sight - is more in keeping with most of the underlying mechanics of the game, because it's a roll to succeed. So I'm going to be very generous when ID'ing what Nondetection potentially thwarts, because there's very little like it. I'm going to be stingy with the stuff that's absolute, because it goes against the base mechanics of the game.

For me, the legalistic side of things is beside the point. Make sense?

[Psyren]

If it helps, Pathfinder has a greater form of Nondetection called Mask From Divination (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/mask-from-divination/) - this version specifically works against divinations whose magic doesn't act on the target or areas that might contain the target, like See Invisibility, which suggests that those designers at least intended Nondetection on its own to not foil that kind of spell and for the greater spell to be needed.

I agree the "such as" clause in nondetection is vague though, so YMMV, but I'm happy to require the more powerful spell for more comprehensive protection. (PF also adds the weaker Lesser Nondetection for those who are worried more about area divinations than more specific things like scrying.)

[Zanos]

Nondetection doesn't say anything about requiring the warded creature to be the target of the divination, and explicitly includes spells that do not target creatures as being blocked by it. As others have mentioned the "such as" clause is somewhat vague, but since detect spells are included I think spells that enhance your vision that are divination are fair game, and would allow nondetection to block them.

Pathfinder's wording on mask from divination is quite odd considering that. None of the example spells in nondetection actually target a creature.

[Jack_Simth]

Nondetection doesn't say anything about requiring the warded creature to be the target of the divination, and explicitly includes spells that do not target creatures as being blocked by it. As others have mentioned the "such as" clause is somewhat vague, but since detect spells are included I think spells that enhance your vision that are divination are fair game, and would allow nondetection to block them.

Pathfinder's wording on mask from divination is quite odd considering that. None of the example spells in nondetection actually target a creature.
Odd how? You just said it: "the 'such as' clause is somewhat vague" - Crake's reading of the spell would have Mask From Divination being a useful upgrade from Nondetection. Pathfinder has multiple authors, they won't all agree on the same interpretation of how things work, so one person with a Crake interpretation might want an upgraded version for an adventure path or whatever, and write one.

If it helps, Pathfinder has a greater form of Nondetection called Mask From Divination (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/mask-from-divination/) - this version specifically works against divinations whose magic doesn't act on the target or areas that might contain the target, like See Invisibility, which suggests that those designers at least intended Nondetection on its own to not foil that kind of spell and for the greater spell to be needed.
That assumes that all of the Pathfinder designers are in perfect agreement about how the base spell they copied from the D&D 3.5 SRD works. When you have more than a handful of individuals, that is not a given.

[Zanos]

Odd how? You just said it: "the 'such as' clause is somewhat vague" - Crake's reading of the spell would have Mask From Divination being a useful upgrade from Nondetection. Pathfinder has multiple authors, they won't all agree on the same interpretation of how things work, so one person with a Crake interpretation might want an upgraded version for an adventure path or whatever, and write one.
The such as clause is vague, but the example spells aren't, and none of them target the subject despite specifically being called out as spells it works against. So having an upgraded version of nondetection that functions as nondetection except it works on spells that nondetection doesn't exclude to begin with seems pretty illogical to me.

The rest of the spells is fine, but that specific sentence is goofy.


While in effect, this spell functions like nondetection, except it also foils divination spells that attempt to gather information about the creature, even if they don’t target it specifically.

Heavily implies that nondetection doesn't work on spells that gather information about a creature that do not target it specifically, which is just blatantly untrue.

[Jack_Simth]

The such as clause is vague, but the example spells aren't, and none of them target the subject despite specifically being called out as spells it works against. So having an upgraded version of nondetection that functions as nondetection except it works on spells that nondetection doesn't exclude to begin with seems pretty illogical to me.

The rest of the spells is fine, but that specific sentence is goofy.



Heavily implies that nondetection doesn't work on spells that gather information about a creature that do not target it specifically, which is just blatantly untrue.
See Crake's reading. There's a LOT of variation in what folks will read something as meaning.

[Crake]

Pathfinder's wording on mask from divination is quite odd considering that. None of the example spells in nondetection actually target a creature.

Aside from clairaudience/clairvoyance, all the other spells may not specifically target a creature, but they do require creatures to be within their area of effect to work. So I see Nondetection's effect as working against "Scrying sensors" (from the clairaudience/clairvoyance spell) and "Divinations that target an area".

Personally though, I just hate nondetection as a spell, I think any sort of protection spell that you have to pay for, but which is so unreliable, not to mention annoyingly vaguely written, is practically worth scrapping and/or re-writing in my book.

I also personally dislike the notion of spells preventing see invisibility and true seeing from working, as those spells are, in and of themselves, counters to other spells, so if you can counter the counter, but there's no counter counter counter, then you can achieve a state of absolute victory, which I don't think is healthy from either a balance perspective, nor a world-building perspective.

[Darg]

I let nondetection work on all divination spells. As nondetection is abjuration, true seeing doesn't allow you to simply bypass the spell. As it is the only real foil to spells like see invisibility and true seeing and it is not absolute, I see no reason to actually make it not affect these. The fact you make a caster level check means there is no need to have a foil for nondetection beyond a higher caster check. You still make spot/listen checks to know if something is there and they recieve penalties simply moving and/or attacking. As long as you know where they are you have a good chance of retaliation.

[Psyren]

Nondetection doesn't say anything about requiring the warded creature to be the target of the divination, and explicitly includes spells that do not target creatures as being blocked by it. As others have mentioned the "such as" clause is somewhat vague, but since detect spells are included I think spells that enhance your vision that are divination are fair game, and would allow nondetection to block them.

Pathfinder's wording on mask from divination is quite odd considering that. None of the example spells in nondetection actually target a creature.

My belief is that there are roughly three categories of divination when it comes to getting information about someone:

1) Those that target a creature or require a specific subject (e.g. Scrying)
2) Those that target the area a creature might be in (e.g. detect spell emanations, clairvoyance)
3) Those that enhance the caster's senses/faculties in some way that doesn't involve the first two (True Seeing, See Invisibility, boosting Perception or Knowledge checks etc.)

My reading/ruling would be that Nondetection interferes with the first two. Lesser Nondetection only stops the second one. Mask From Divination, the most powerful, interferes with all three.


Odd how? You just said it: "the 'such as' clause is somewhat vague" - Crake's reading of the spell would have Mask From Divination being a useful upgrade from Nondetection. Pathfinder has multiple authors, they won't all agree on the same interpretation of how things work, so one person with a Crake interpretation might want an upgraded version for an adventure path or whatever, and write one.

That assumes that all of the Pathfinder designers are in perfect agreement about how the base spell they copied from the D&D 3.5 SRD works. When you have more than a handful of individuals, that is not a given.

I'm not saying they're all in perfect agreement, or that this reading is absolute - but absent any dissenting dev statements, language like this is the closest we can reasonably get to RAI*. Pointing out said text in a thread where there is no hard consensus on the subject is thus valid. Ultimately, nobody's opinion matters except that of Feldar's DM.

*For PF anyway. For 3.5, good luck.

[Jack_Simth]

Aside from clairaudience/clairvoyance, all the other spells may not specifically target a creature, but they do require creatures to be within their area of effect to work. So I see Nondetection's effect as working against "Scrying sensors" (from the clairaudience/clairvoyance spell) and "Divinations that target an area".

Personally though, I just hate nondetection as a spell, I think any sort of protection spell that you have to pay for, but which is so unreliable, not to mention annoyingly vaguely written, is practically worth scrapping and/or re-writing in my book.

I also personally dislike the notion of spells preventing see invisibility and true seeing from working, as those spells are, in and of themselves, counters to other spells, so if you can counter the counter, but there's no counter counter counter, then you can achieve a state of absolute victory, which I don't think is healthy from either a balance perspective, nor a world-building perspective.
I'm confused.

You're concerned that it's unreliable, but you're also concerned that it's uncounterable? It turns the chess game back into a game of dice: It's a roll to succeed. That's where the game is supposed to be, isn't it?

Attack roll vs. AC,
Saving throw vs. Save DC,
Caster Level check vs. Spell Resistance,
Bluff check vs. Sense Motive check,
Spot/Listen vs. Hide/Move Silently (or Perception vs. Stealth, in Pathfinder)
... even initiative is a die check.

It's how the game is built. Spells like See Invisibility and True Seeing are the exception, not the rule, and casters having so many things that skip that paradigm is a big part of why casters break the game if they've a mind to.

See Invisibility and True Seeing are both absolute spells, normally: There's no way to sneak past that guy with the dead man switch (dead man switch is someone else in the place with Status on the guard - do anything to the guard, and the alarms go off) and See Invisibility in that brightly lit hallway (no cover, no concealment) without him tripping the switch. Letting Nondetection function vs. See Invisible and company puts it back to a game of dice: It's possible to get past with the Invisibility spell, but it's risky. That's where the game should be.

Sure, higher level spells have ways around the situation (Dimension Door, for one example), but such things have their own counters (Forbiddance, to continue the example). But most such things are "game of chess" - for a given competition, there's some line X where if both sides have resources up to line X, the side that has thing Y on their side wins (until X is moved to the point where thing Z is available - at which point, the side that makes use of thing Z wins until the next "tipping point" in moving the line).

Having Nondetection function vs. essentially all divination spells just pushes it back to the dice. That's where it's supposed to be, isn't it?



I'm not saying they're all in perfect agreement, or that this reading is absolute - but absent any dissenting dev statements, language like this is the closest we can reasonably get to RAI*. Pointing out said text in a thread where there is no hard consensus on the subject is thus valid. Ultimately, nobody's opinion matters except that of Feldar's DM.

*For PF anyway. For 3.5, good luck.
*shrug* the devs inherited Nondetection along with a rather lot of other things. It's subjective even in Pathfinder.

[Psyren]

*shrug* the devs inherited Nondetection along with a rather lot of other things. It's subjective even in Pathfinder.

Again, not saying it's an absolute or inviolate interpretation. I'm saying that here in PF at least we have a germ of an idea of what the devs might have been thinking regarding the limitations of Nondetection. In 3.5 we don't even have that. Maybe that will aid Feldar's GM in making a ruling, maybe it won't.

Regarding your earlier point that "Pathfinder has multiple authors" though - the Lead Designer credit on Adventurer's Guide is the same as the Core Rulebook, so I'm inclined to believe printing the more powerful spell was intentional on their part.

[Crake]

I'm confused.

You're concerned that it's unreliable, but you're also concerned that it's uncounterable? It turns the chess game back into a game of dice: It's a roll to succeed. That's where the game is supposed to be, isn't it?

I dislike it because it's unreliable, i'm concerned because it's uncounterable. I also like consistency between my spells. If nondetection foils see invis and true seeing, then so should mind blank, and that's not a roll.

[Jack_Simth]

I dislike it because it's unreliable,So... you don't like the base mechanics of the d20 system?

i'm concerned because it's uncounterable.The counter is "Make a caster level check" - turns out it does have one! Fancy that.

I also like consistency between my spells. If nondetection foils see invis and true seeing, then so should mind blank, and that's not a roll.Why should Mind Blank beat them? Just because it's a higher level spell? A 1st level spell, Protection From Evil, stops a 9th in it's tracks (Dominate Monster). But then, you apparently don't like rolls anyway, so why do you see that as a problem? That it's the last in the chain of counters of counters of counters of....? In a game with finite rules content, all such chains have to end somewhere, don't they?

[Crake]

So... you don't like the base mechanics of the d20 system?

I like spells that do what they do, no roll required. Plenty of those exist. I dislike spells who's entire functionality is predicated on a single dice roll, and yes, this means I very much dislike save or dies/sucks.


The counter is "Make a caster level check" - turns out it does have one! Fancy that.

That isn't a counter, that is the spell simply failing to function over a dice roll.


Why should Mind Blank beat them? Just because it's a higher level spell?

No, because mind blank's wording covers all the same ground as nondetection, plus extra. Thus, if nondetection can do it, then so can mind blank. Has nothing to do with the spell level.


A 1st level spell, Protection From Evil, stops a 9th in it's tracks (Dominate Monster). But then, you apparently don't like rolls anyway, so why do you see that as a problem? That it's the last in the chain of counters of counters of counters of....? In a game with finite rules content, all such chains have to end somewhere, don't they?

I prefer stopping right at the first counter, rather than having back and forth. Ability -> Counter, the end. Otherwise you start getting into absurd back and forth counter counter counter rocket tag, like who can stack the most contingencies and what not. It's all fun in theory, in practise it makes for boring games and boring stories.

But that's just like, my opinion man.

[Psyren]

I don't mind the concept of a protection you can layer on top of your invisibility so that it beats see invisibility, or even true seeing. That's fine, and is in fact exactly what MFD does. My issue with nondetection specifically is that getting that effect is extremely easy. The spell level is low (3rd), it's a core spell that's on nearly every list, and a metric ton of items, archetypes, and monsters grant it. It's a widespread effect even in 3.5.

And yeah, you might say the caster level check is itself a form of counterplay because it can be beaten with a roll, but the reality is more complicated than that. Nondetection puts the onus of winning the interaction challenge (i.e. spotting the invisible person) back on the observer - they must win that roll. This means that if you have any observers who are not casters trying to look for invisible people - say, guards or sentries that might be using see invisibility potions or wands to keep watch - their chances of success fall through the floor against what should be a pretty basic tactic in the setting. That actually removes counterplay because rather than the invisible character needing to also be stealthy or clever in other ways, or have access to stronger magic, they can just slap nondetection on top and waltz past any checkpoints in the setting that don't have full-time mages in their employ, which is likely to be most of them.

Restricting that effect to something stronger like MFD meanwhile drastically reduces the number of folks capable of using it, without completely taking it off the table. You'd pretty much have to be an operative, adventurer, or some other elite at that point - exactly the folks who should be beating see invisibility and true seeing regularly.

[BettaGeorge]

Well, y'all have convinced me to homebrew some kind of Greater Nondetection.

[Zombimode]

I'm confused.

You're concerned that it's unreliable, but you're also concerned that it's uncounterable? It turns the chess game back into a game of dice: It's a roll to succeed. That's where the game is supposed to be, isn't it?

Attack roll vs. AC,
Saving throw vs. Save DC,
Caster Level check vs. Spell Resistance,
Bluff check vs. Sense Motive check,
Spot/Listen vs. Hide/Move Silently (or Perception vs. Stealth, in Pathfinder)
... even initiative is a die check.

It's how the game is built. Spells like See Invisibility and True Seeing are the exception, not the rule, and casters having so many things that skip that paradigm is a big part of why casters break the game if they've a mind to.

Hard defenses are pretty much a feature of D&D 3.5, especially in the form of spells.

Protection from X defeats mind controll, no roll.
Freedom of Movement defeats all kinds of things, no roll.
Energy Resistance in every form just works, not roll.
The poision immunity of Remove Poison just works, no roll.
Spell Immunity just works, no roll.

There are of course a lot of chance-based effects. Both are a feature of the game.

Personally I agree with Nondetection being a chance-based defense feels both off and underwhelming. Its use cases are already rather narrow and IF you need it being so unreliable it makes you wonder if you should perpare a different spell instead that will actually help you in whatever you are trying to achieve.

[Jack_Simth]

I like spells that do what they do, no roll required. Plenty of those exist. I dislike spells who's entire functionality is predicated on a single dice roll, and yes, this means I very much dislike save or dies/sucks.
It is literally called The Core Mechanic (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#theCoreMechanic). If you don't like the core mechanic of the game, then there's very little more to discuss.

[Psyren]

Well, y'all have convinced me to homebrew some kind of Greater Nondetection.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/mask-from-divination/

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't mind the concept of a protection you can layer on top of your invisibility so that it beats see invisibility, or even true seeing. That's fine, and is in fact exactly what MFD does. My issue with nondetection specifically is that getting that effect is extremely easy. The spell level is low (3rd), it's a core spell that's on nearly every list, and a metric ton of items, archetypes, and monsters grant it. It's a widespread effect even in 3.5.

A metric ton of items? I count 1 in the SRD. The ring of mind shielding creates a related effect as discussed above. The only thing that produces an outright nondetection effect is the amulet of proof against detection and location with a flat dc 19 for the CL check. See invisibility is a second level spell so it's CL 3 at absolute minimum; a 25% chance to overcome the amulet even as a potion. Then there's the actual items that it's attached to: a hand of glory at CL 5 which is much cheaper, an onyx dog figurine of wondrous power at CL 11 for about half of the cost of the amulet, and the substantially more expensive crystal ball with see invisibility at CL 10.

So if we're talking wand or potion to wand or potion, that's just even odds.


And yeah, you might say the caster level check is itself a form of counterplay because it can be beaten with a roll, but the reality is more complicated than that. Nondetection puts the onus of winning the interaction challenge (i.e. spotting the invisible person) back on the observer - they must win that roll. This means that if you have any observers who are not casters trying to look for invisible people - say, guards or sentries that might be using see invisibility potions or wands to keep watch - their chances of success fall through the floor against what should be a pretty basic tactic in the setting. That actually removes counterplay because rather than the invisible character needing to also be stealthy or clever in other ways, or have access to stronger magic, they can just slap nondetection on top and waltz past any checkpoints in the setting that don't have full-time mages in their employ, which is likely to be most of them.

As I said above, item to item is pretty even so we only really need to worry about actual casters using it for this issue to actually be an issue.

That's where we run into the other half of the equation: the actual spot rules. Remember that invisibility doesn't actually make you visually undetectable. It's just a flat +20 to hide if you're moving and total concealment benefits if you're attacked.

There is are two classes in 3e that have both nondetction and invisibility "on time" as well as hide as a class skill; the beguiler and a cleric with the trickery domain. The bard also gets invisibility and stealth skills but he gets only 1 second level spell per day at 4th level and doesn't get non-detection at all.

That being the case, most characters that have both spells to cast will be adding that +20 to hide and little else, perhaps a few points for dex until they're at least mid-level. The 1 min/CL duration complicates moving at half-speed too. If you've only got 5-10 minutes before you're making raw hide checks while fully visibile, you'll get past a checkpoint but good freakin' luck with any kind of serious infiltration. Even at the checkpoint, a guard that's been given a device for seeing invisible things could just as easily be given items for boosting spot or ways to just go around it like a couple hunting dogs.

Then of course, there's the hard counter: invisibility purge is also level 3 and an evocation. Nondetection doesn't even get a check. It can be attached to a hallow effect and it's the basis for the chamber of seeing in the SBG. The latter is only 7500 and a prime candidate for any kind of security location, like a gatehouse or a vault.

I haven't looked in detail at the other things that nondetection can be layered over but I'd be happy to wager they are similarly far less than perfect.


Restricting that effect to something stronger like MFD meanwhile drastically reduces the number of folks capable of using it, without completely taking it off the table. You'd pretty much have to be an operative, adventurer, or some other elite at that point - exactly the folks who should be beating see invisibility and true seeing regularly.

Even at relatively low-levels, I wouldn't have a problem with, say, a beguiler being able to foil such things. It's a purpose-built deception and infiltration expertise class. Literally -anything- that isn't, whether it be the beguiler or a rogue/wizard or similar, is going to trip over some part of the equation. A straight skill-monkey is going to be going extra stealthy with items and a caster's skills are gonna be in the toilet unless he's going to spend a -lot- of his daily resources on the matter. Trueseeing is a 5th level spell and -very- rare on an item so the CL will be competitive anyway.


In a nutshell: I really don't think it's that big a deal.

[Psyren]

A metric ton of items? I count 1 in the SRD. The ring of mind shielding creates a related effect as discussed above. The only thing that produces an outright nondetection effect is the amulet of proof against detection and location with a flat dc 19 for the CL check.

Potion, wand, stave, scroll, Masking armor, Hat of Anonymity, Rod of Mind Mastery, over a dozen archetypes, and who knows how many monsters and PrCs.


a 25% chance to overcome the amulet even as a potion. Then there's the actual items that it's attached to: a hand of glory at CL 5 which is much cheaper, an onyx dog figurine of wondrous power at CL 11 for about half of the cost of the amulet, and the substantially more expensive crystal ball with see invisibility at CL 10.

So if we're talking wand or potion to wand or potion, that's just even odds.

How is a 25% chance "even odds?" :smallconfused:



Even at relatively low-levels, I wouldn't have a problem with, say, a beguiler being able to foil such things. It's a purpose-built deception and infiltration expertise class. Literally -anything- that isn't, whether it be the beguiler or a rogue/wizard or similar, is going to trip over some part of the equation. A straight skill-monkey is going to be going extra stealthy with items and a caster's skills are gonna be in the toilet unless he's going to spend a -lot- of his daily resources on the matter. Trueseeing is a 5th level spell and -very- rare on an item so the CL will be competitive anyway.


In a nutshell: I really don't think it's that big a deal.

I'm fine with a Beguiler foiling such things too. That's a PC class and a magical infiltration specialist. An expert or even a rogue buying two potions is another matter entirely.

And for the record, I don't think it's a "big deal" either - I'm stating my preference and agreeing with the PF designers' RAI decision/reading of the spell they inherited from 3.5. By all means, run your game how you want and I'll do the same.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Potion, wand, stave, scroll, Masking armor, Hat of Anonymity, Rod of Mind Mastery, over a dozen archetypes, and who knows how many monsters and PrCs.

Minimum CL, same, same unless caster, and I'm not familiar with those items since I don't play PF. I'd guess they're all pretty low CL too though. In any case, it's apparently much rarer in 3e.




How is a 25% chance "even odds?" :smallconfused:

The 25% was minimum CL vs the amulet. DC 16 against CL 3 is technically 40/60 for see invisibility. For more powerful divination effects the math favors the divination pretty heavily in items. Trueseeing from a staff is at CL 9 at minimum and a wand of nondetection is still only DC16; a 70/30.



I'm fine with a Beguiler foiling such things too. That's a PC class and an infiltration specialist. An expert or rogue buying two potions is another matter entirely.

A potion of nondetection is 750gp and a wand is 11,250. Extrapolating from the figures in MIC, that's an item appropriate to about a 5th level NPC for the pot and 15th for the wand. For a PC it's a bit easier at 3 and 11 (spending 750 on a pot late in level 1 or level 2 is a fool's choice, even if the guidelines do suggest it as a viable option). That's a -major- expense for all 4 cases. Given the odds, I'm perfectly comfortable with that going either way.

If I'm giving it to an NPC trying to get past the PCs, it's not going to be a random encounter ambush or some such. It's going to be a "guard this location" style plot-hook. Beating that CL check for the pot is something they should have no difficulty with unless, for some reason, no one is an actual caster.

If one of the PCs wants to spend like that to be extra sure they get through, that's the kind of thinking I want to reward; counters to the counters of your chosen method. I can still hard-counter if I think it's necessary.



And for the record, I don't think it's a "big deal" either - I'm stating my preference and agreeing with the PF designers' RAI decision/reading of the spell they inherited from 3.5. By all means, run your game how you want and I'll do the same.

There's no venom in my disagreement. I just thought the point was worth arguing. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

Minimum CL, same, same unless caster, and I'm not familiar with those items since I don't play PF. I'd guess they're all pretty low CL too though. In any case, it's apparently much rarer in 3e.

Er, try again - only one of those items is unique to PF actually. All the rest are 3.5. And their CL is even higher than just a potion.


The 25% was minimum CL vs the amulet. DC 16 against CL 3 is technically 40/60 for see invisibility. For more powerful divination effects the math favors the divination pretty heavily in items. Trueseeing from a staff is at CL 9 at minimum and a wand of nondetection is still only DC16; a 70/30.

No, it's everything. When used on yourself, the DC is 15+CL to beat, on top of Nondetection being a higher minimum CL than See Invisibility - which means potion vs. potion or wand vs. wand, the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the sneak. It gets even worse with the non-consumable items, but those are more expensive at least. (Granted, that's a one-time expenditure for a lifetime of trumping noncaster guards, so you could argue it pays for itself eventually.)


A potion of nondetection is 750gp and a wand is 11,250. Extrapolating from the figures in MIC, that's an item appropriate to about a 5th level NPC for the pot and 15th for the wand. For a PC it's a bit easier at 3 and 11 (spending 750 on a pot late in level 1 or level 2 is a fool's choice, even if the guidelines do suggest it as a viable option). That's a -major- expense for all 4 cases. Given the odds, I'm perfectly comfortable with that going either way.

If I'm giving it to an NPC trying to get past the PCs, it's not going to be a random encounter ambush or some such. It's going to be a "guard this location" style plot-hook. Beating that CL check for the pot is something they should have no difficulty with unless, for some reason, no one is an actual caster.

You don't see any problem with a 3rd-level PC or 5th-level NPC reliably beating True Seeing, which requires 9th level?

And yes, guards or sentries are rarely "actual casters." Anyone who can afford those kinds of elite mooks can also do fancier things like the Invisibility Purge room thing you suggested.


There's no venom in my disagreement. I just thought the point was worth arguing. :smallsmile:

Likewise :smallamused:

[Crake]

It is literally called The Core Mechanic (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#theCoreMechanic). If you don't like the core mechanic of the game, then there's very little more to discuss.


Whenever you attempt an action that has some chance of failure, you roll a twenty-sided die (d20). To determine if your character succeeds at a task you do this:

I like to avoid things that have a chance at failure, as I don't like leaving things to chance. Invariably there's going to be moments where chance is unavoidable, but I'll avoid actively including chance-based tools in my arsenal.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Er, try again - only one of those items is unique to PF actually. All the rest are 3.5. And their CL is even higher than just a potion.

Okay, found 'em. My bad for the presumption. That said, 34k and 45k for CL 11 and 5 (minimum) on the hat and the armor. Hardly low-level stuff. Since we're being a bit completionist :smalltongue: there's also the enigma helm soulmeld and a few PrC features that give the effect too.




No, it's everything. When used on yourself, the DC is 15+CL to beat, on top of Nondetection being a higher minimum CL than See Invisibility - which means potion vs. potion or wand vs. wand, the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the sneak. It gets even worse with the non-consumable items, but those are more expensive at least. (Granted, that's a one-time expenditure for a lifetime of trumping noncaster guards, so you could argue it pays for itself eventually.)

Even at DC 21, it's not insurmountable even for a potion of see invisibility. Still does nothing for a bloodhound and a sack of flour or just an easily disturbed patch of ground like a zen garden. It's hard to take a magical complication serious when completely mundane methods can hamper the approach pretty severely.


You don't see any problem with a 3rd-level PC or 5th-level NPC reliably beating True Seeing, which requires 9th level?

Even adjusted for DC 21, exactly even odds on the true seeing isn't what I'd call reliable. True seeing is also a whole lot less "all or nothing" than see invisibility. A brazier of aura revealing (magic), only 1k, gets to roll against -every- magic on the target unless they're invisible. The guy that lights up like a christmas tree when he approaches probably warrants extra scrutiny.


And yes, guards or sentries are rarely "actual casters." Anyone who can afford those kinds of elite mooks can also do fancier things like the Invisibility Purge room thing you suggested.

Well, yeah? The PC infiltrator getting past the front door is probably a good thing. There's -still- an awfully tight time frame for invisibility unless we're getting on toward mid-level.

Also of note; alarm isn't a divination. A -lot- of the stuff that foils attempted infiltration isn't divination.

True seeing doesn't have another counter before you get mindblank up, if I'm not mistaken. I'd think that's worth consideration too.

Even discounting nondetection, going invisible by dust of disappearance, while strikingly short in duration, is an absolute invisibility that explicitly cannot be magically countered at all. If you're just trying to bust a checkpoint, 42 seconds isn't very long but you -can- just make a break for it while the doors are open. You're up a creek if the GM rolled a 2 though.