Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kain Darkwind 05-29-07, 10:44 AM	Does nondetection protect an invisble creature from being seen via see invisibility or true seeing?
Archangel_Tyrael 05-29-07, 10:56 AM	no, nondetection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nondetection.htm) only helps protect you against scrying and some other divination spells
Witch 05-29-07, 11:03 AM	If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item, the caster of the divination must succeed on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against a DC of 11 + the caster level of the spellcaster who cast nondetection My vote goes to yes, it does function against See Invisibility and True Seeing.
Midrealm_DM 05-29-07, 11:57 AM	If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item, the caster of the divination must succeed on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against a DC of 11 + the caster level of the spellcaster who cast nondetection In addition if you cast the Non-Detection on yourself (or an item in your posession) the DC for the divining caster increases to 15+ your spell level. Player's Handbook p 257
goawayugh 05-29-07, 12:25 PM	Does nondetection protect an invisble creature from being seen via see invisibility or true seeing? As you can see already, it depends on who you ask. I'm still undecided about it.
Feeb 05-29-07, 12:34 PM	My vote goes to yes, it does function against See Invisibility and True Seeing. The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells. Nondetection also prevents location by such magic items as crystal balls. In what way are see invisibility or true seeing? like clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells (Detect Animals or Plants, Detect Chaos, Detect Evil, Detect Good, Detect Law, Detect Magic, Detect Poison, Detect Scrying, Detect Secret Doors, Detect Snares and Pits, Detect Thoughts and Detect Undead)? I could see including spells like Prying eyes or Arcane eye as these spells invoke means to view an object remotely (ala scrying), but see invisibility and true seeing effect one's immediate perceptions. More specifically, I would rule that Nondetection thwarts spells that do not require line of sight to function (whereas see invisibility and true seeing do not negate concealment.)
Witch 05-29-07, 12:35 PM	I see the first sentences as examples, seeing as later on, the spell clarifies that it works on all divinations. It specifies "If a divination is attempted against...".
mvincent 05-29-07, 12:36 PM	Does nondetection protect an invisble creature from being seen via see invisibility or true seeing?That does not seem to be the writer's intent.
Witch 05-29-07, 12:40 PM	That does not seem to be the writer's intent. And pray, how did you deduce that? I think it was the writer's intent.
wrecan 05-29-07, 12:42 PM	Seems to work under the rules to me. Nondetection makes you undetectable to divination spells. True seeing and see invisibility are divination spells. The caster still gets a save against nondetection, so it's not foolproof.
Kain Darkwind 05-29-07, 12:55 PM	As you can see already, it depends on who you ask. I'm still undecided about it. Yes, I was wondering more if there was perhaps an official ruling on the matter. Even Sage Advice would be better than Rules as Interpreted.
mvincent 05-29-07, 01:07 PM	And pray, how did you deduce that?Intuition I think it was the writer's intent.How 'bout this then: We'll ask WotC. If they agree with you I'll praise your mad geek skilz. If they agree with me, then you'll praise mine. Fair?
Witch 05-29-07, 01:12 PM	Intuition How 'bout this then: We'll ask WotC. If they agree with you I'll praise your mad geek skilz. If they agree with me, then you'll praise mine. Fair? No - but I agree to the basic gist of it. I'll acknowledge the fact that your interpretation was the intended one if they say so, but that doesn't mean I'll automatically accept it.
Stumm_Dolch 05-29-07, 01:16 PM	I'm throwing my vote in the hat for the "it works vs. see invis." I think it's rather clear. In this case the caster level check is representative of a spot vs. hide check. And is therefore balanced. Especially when you consider it takes 2 spells to thwart the prying eyes of the diviner (invis and nondetection)
Feeb 05-29-07, 01:53 PM	I see the first sentences as examples, seeing as later on, the spell clarifies that it works on all divinations. It specifies "If a divination is attempted against...". I respectfully disagree. The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells. Nondetection also prevents location by such magic items as crystal balls. If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item, the caster of the divination must succeed The first sentance qualifies what specific divination spells are impaired by non-detection, where as the later example you quote above merely describes the spells mechanism for effect against one of the qualifiying divination spells. The "If a.." is not inclusive, it's not "if any.." or even a "all". We could re-write the description as follows and still maintain the meaning: The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by a subset of divination spells, c, where c includes spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells. Nondetection also prevents location by such magic items as crystal balls. If c is attempted against the warded creature or item, the caster of the divination must succeed
Witch 05-29-07, 01:55 PM	I understand your disagreement, but I read the thing as: The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by c, such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells. Nondetection also prevents location by such magic items as crystal balls. If c is attempted against the warded creature or item, the caster of c must succeed on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against a DC of 11 + the caster level of the spellcaster who cast nondetection.
mvincent 05-29-07, 02:00 PM	From a strict, literal rules standpoint, this topic still appears subject to some interpretation: 1) The spell says:"The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells.". . If it had a comma after "spells" (i.e. "... divination spells, such as..."), then it might seem more clear that it should apply to all divination spells. Unfortunately, there is no comma. 2) The 3.0 SRD version (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdspellsno.rtf) of the spell did not have the phrase "... such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells" (can someone check if the 3.0 PHB did?). If this was added to 3.5, then there might be a reason. 3) Nondetection appears to function against divinations "attempted against the warded creature or item". Since true seeing and see invisible affect the seer rather than the seen (i.e. there is no area of effect), it could be argued that they are not "attempted against the warded creature".
Timori 05-29-07, 04:06 PM	I'd vote no. Think about how detect and scrying work. You don't know where the subject is, but the spell finds them by detecting the aura or whatever. See Invisible and True Seeing is not actively seeking the subject, it's just magically enhanced vision. Just as nondetection wouldn't help a creature sitting in the shadows against Darkvision.
mvincent 05-29-07, 04:47 PM	Just as nondetection wouldn't help a creature sitting in the shadows against Darkvision.Although you are supporting my own conclusion, this analogy may not further the argument. Darkvision is not a divination spell. A closer analogy might be Arcane sight or find traps, but those (or at least arcane sight) possibly should be blocked by nondetection. That seems fairly damaging to one particular argument presented by our side (ouch... but I'm nonetheless happy to supply information). Of course, that means there might also be a case for nondetection "hiding" you from moment of prescience or (gasp) true strike. Similarly, that implies that someone using Comprehend Languages couldn't use that to understand you if you were using nondetection. No wonder Svirfneblin (which have a continuous nondetection ability) have such poor relationships with other races. ; ) Heh :eek: . Anyone think that nondetection prevents you from being true struck?
farrenj 05-29-07, 07:21 PM	I would be inclined to say no, but it makes the spell much more interesting if it does.
Timori 05-29-07, 07:26 PM	True, but then I don't agree with a bunch of spell categories. Darkvision and See Invisible should both be the same category IMO (and Healing under conjuration? Come on, there's a whole school devoted to life force). But that's another topic. :) The point is, See Invisible and True Seeing are not divinations in the true sense that the Detect Spells and Scrying is. If you are hiding in a crate, See Invisible or True Seeing won't find you. If you are hiding in a crate and are evil, that crate is gonna glow under a Detect Evil spell.
weasel0 05-29-07, 09:21 PM	I'm going with the "flavor" of the spells and say no, dispite the horridly ambigous RAW(as usual).
ItaraKoturo 05-30-07, 06:17 AM	The RAW isn't ambiguous at all. If the first sentence was intended to be an inclusive list of all spells that non-detection protects against, they wouldn't have said "such as". Non-detection protects against all divinations.
Derren S. 05-30-07, 06:43 AM	Nondetection does not protect against see invisibility because the spell does in no way effect the creature with nondetection on it. Those spells affect the person who casted this spell who is now able to see things he normally can't. At no point does the see invisibility spell interact with the person with nondetection on it and so nondetection can't ward it from the spell. Easy, isn't it?
Witch 05-30-07, 06:51 AM	That would all be good and well if True Seeing and See Invisibility don't actually interact with the Nondetection spell. Prove that premisse.
Derren S. 05-30-07, 06:58 AM	That would all be good and well if True Seeing and See Invisibility don't actually interact with the Nondetection spell. Prove that premisse. True Seeing Divination Level: Clr 5, Drd 7, Knowledge 5, Sor/Wiz 6 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: 1 min./level Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are. The subject sees through ... See Invisibility Divination Level: Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 2 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal[b] Target: [b]You Duration: 10 min./level (D) If a divination is attempted agains the warded creature or item... As you see the target of the spell and the only one who is affected by those spells is the creature whose senses gets enhanced. Those to spells never affact any creature besides the caster or the one who benefits from the spell. And thus nondetection does not work as the creature is never affected by a divination spell (attempted divination against that creature).
High Octane 05-30-07, 07:11 AM	No it doesnt block See invisibility. It says it blocks a divination, not divination spells. If that were true, the spell would be a much higher level.
Phrennzy 05-30-07, 09:55 AM	Non-Detection: Level 3 Wiz/Sor See Invisibility: Level 2 Wiz/Sor True Seeing: Level 6 Wiz/Sor Off the cuff ruling: Non-Detection trumps See Invisibility, but not True Seeing. The wording of Non-Detection says to me that it is intended to make the target difficult to detect. See Invisibility is a Divination spell. IMO, Non-Detection trumps See Invisibility. In the case of True Seeing, if I ruled that it did not ignore Non-Detection, I'd give the True Seer a bonus to his caster level check.
Puca 05-30-07, 11:21 AM	I say it does not. I dont pretend this is more than my interpretation. See Invisibility and True Seeing, like Darkvision and several other spells are not used against another creature. The creature on which those spells are targeted is the beneficiary of those spells. See Invisibility heightens or improves the vision of the caster. It doesnt target the invisible rogue in the corner. True Seeing works similarly, affecting the creature touched. All the example spells (Clairvoyance, Locate spells, Detect spells) affect an area or create a sensor. None of them improve the sense of the castor or some other creature. That is the distinction and the key word in the spell description of Nondetection IMHO. See Invisible isnt used against anyone.
Light_Colonel 05-30-07, 11:57 AM	I asked: Customer (XXXX) 05/30/2007 07:53 AM There is currently quite a debate going on about the workings of the Non-detection spell and how it interacts with divination spells. The description of Non-Detection says it wards against Divination spells, then states "Such as..." and lists a very narrow list of spells. It never outright says that it does not ward against *all* divination spells though. So my questions then are: 1) Does Non-detection work against any divination spell, or only those listed under its description? 1.5) If it works against all divinations, does that then give blanket immunity to See Invisibility, True Seeing and True Strike? ******************** Page Number: 257 Book Name: Players Handbook The reply: Response (Support Agent) 05/30/2007 08:35 AM XXXX, 1) Yes it does. 2) You could not use See Invisibility, or True Seeing, but True Strike does not attempt to detect you in any way, it merely provides a +20 insight to your next attack and can therfore work properly against a character with Nondetection up. If your opponent is invisible or in another room, True Strike would not allow you to detect the person and shoot them through the wall or anything. However, if I can pinpoint your location (through normal sight or otherwise) I can use true strike to get a +20 insight bonus to my attack roll... even if you are under the effect of nondetection. Good Gaming! We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire. To login to your account, or update your question please click here. Zephreum. Customer Service Representative Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada) 425-204-8069 (From all other countries) Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST It would seem Non-detection trumps pretty much everything. What an awesome spell.
mvincent 05-30-07, 12:08 PM	The RAW isn't ambiguous at all.Evidently it is unclear... else this thread, and the numerous conflicting opinions, would not exist. If the first sentence was intended to be an inclusive list of all spells that non-detection protects against, they wouldn't have said "such as". Non-detection protects against all divinations.As mentioned; there is no comma before "such as" (which actually makes a big difference). Also as mentioned; that phrase (and the examples) were missing from the 3.0 SRD. Without that phrase, the description is both simpler and expresses more clearly your interpretation. So why would they add a phrase that makes the spell description less clear?
mvincent 05-30-07, 12:31 PM	I asked:Note (because someone would mention this anyway): custserv is notorious for giving inaccurate and/or unresearched information. Two different custserv answers may sometimes be entirely different. This is not their fault, and they are certainly not slackers, it is just the nature of the system. They can't really afford the time to spend hours researching a single, inconsequential topic (like many people on this board can). That said; they can serve as an excellent tie-breaker. I'd certainly abide by this ruling. I'm still curious what the authors intended, but a custserv answer at least serves as an 'official' reference for making a ruling. I'll use it.
Derren S. 05-30-07, 01:20 PM	Except when the custserv ruling contradicts the rules like this one does.
WinDReiN 05-30-07, 01:41 PM	Invisibility Purge(Evocation) is not affected by Nondetection. IMHO NonD shouldn't provide protection against TS or SI. What would then Mind Blank do, make you immune?
Light_Colonel 05-30-07, 01:43 PM	Except when the custserv ruling contradicts the rules like this one does. How exactly does the CustServ answer go against the rules?
Timori 05-30-07, 07:32 PM	So how about this scenario: A wizard casts True Seeing on a fighter ally. A few minutes later, the fighter comes upon an invisible, nondetectable enemy wizard. Now the friendly wizard must roll the caster level check? Even though he cast the spell a few minutes ago and it's been working fine up till then and he's effectively conferred to the power to the fighter?
weasel0 05-30-07, 08:03 PM	1) Does Non-detection work against any divination spell, or only those listed under its description? 1) Yes it does. Uhm... yeah, that answers absolutly NOTHING!! 2) You could not use See Invisibility, or True Seeing, but True Strike does not attempt to detect you in any way, it merely provides a +20 insight to your next attack and can therfore work properly against a character with Nondetection up. If your opponent is invisible or in another room, True Strike would not allow you to detect the person and shoot them through the wall or anything. However, if I can pinpoint your location (through normal sight or otherwise) I can use true strike to get a +20 insight bonus to my attack roll... even if you are under the effect of nondetection. See Invis. nor True Seeing don't "detect" you either. They simply let you see though illusions. Also See Inv. or True Seeing wouldn't let you see someone in another room either. :rolleyes: gg indeed.
ItaraKoturo 05-31-07, 03:14 AM	Uhm... yeah, that answers absolutly NOTHING!! It's pretty clear from the remainder of his reply what he meant by "Yes". See Invis. nor True Seeing don't "detect" you either. They simply let you see though illusions. And Scrying doesn't "detect" you either, it simply lets you watch someone from far away! :rolleyes:
Derren S. 05-31-07, 03:58 AM	How exactly does the CustServ answer go against the rules? See Weasel0 post. See Invisibility does as much detection as True Strike does. Nondetection blocks attempted divinations, but see invisibility does not attempt a divination against another creature but enchants a creature to be able to see more than before. Saying that Nondetection protects you from See Invisibility is like saying Protection from Evil protects you from the attacks of a dominated creature.
mvincent 05-31-07, 12:09 PM	See Invisibility does as much detection as True Strike does. Nondetection blocks attempted divinations, but see invisibility does not attempt a divination against another creature but enchants a creature to be able to see more than before.While I've been arguing the same side as you, I can understand custserv's response (in fact: if anyone here can't understand both sides of the argument and view them as reasonable, then they probably can't be too credible). Note that the custserv answer isn't saying that the spell works against all divinations (as some had argued previously), just one's that can be construed as 'detecting' you in some manner... per the answer; actually targeting the creature is not a requisite. Since it can be overcome with a CL check, this actually doesn't seem that unbalancing to me.
wrecan 05-31-07, 01:13 PM	I think the confusion was from the word "detect" in this phrase from Non-Detection: The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells People had been assuming that detection applies only when the divination provides a new sense. Such as with locate object or divination But CustServ is saying that it also applies when the divination spell supplements an existing sense, which is what see invisible does. I think that to be a completely rational interpretation of the rule. Her'es a neat twist. Someone with non-detection active might be invisible to a caster who observes an area through which the person walks, even though he has no invisibility active!
Light_Colonel 05-31-07, 01:23 PM	Her'es a neat twist. Someone with non-detection active might be invisible to a caster who observes an area through which the person walks, even though he has no invisibility active! While I agree with the rest of your post, this part I think I disagree with. If you are talking about Scrying or other remote viewing, I suppose that is possible. If on the other hand you meant that a character with See Invisible would perceieve a non-detected (but visible) character as Invisible, then I disagree.
mvincent 05-31-07, 01:29 PM	Her'es a neat twist. Someone with non-detection active might be invisible to a caster who observes an area through which the person walks, even though he has no invisibility active!I recall reading that somewhere, but I cannot find it now. Anyone? If you are talking about Scrying or other remote viewing, I suppose that is possible.I believe that is what he was referring to.
Derren S. 05-31-07, 01:34 PM	I believe that is what he was referring to. I think he really meant normal vision. See Invisibility aguments someones normal vision. When Nondetection really would work against See Invisibility, then someone with a See Invis agumented vision would not see ("detect") someone protected by nondetection even if this person was not invisible at all.
mvincent 05-31-07, 01:41 PM	someone with a See Invis agumented vision would not see ("detect") someone protected by nondetection even if this person was not invisible at all.You mean even when not remote viewing? That's silly. wrecan: is that what you meant?
wrecan 05-31-07, 02:30 PM	You mean even when not remote viewing? That's silly. wrecan: is that what you meant? No. Here's the scenario. Ranger Rob is entering into negotations with Diviner Debbie over how much Debbie is going to pay Rob for the deerskins he sells her. Because Rob is concerned that Debbie will try to gain an unfair advantage in the negotiations by using detect thoughts, he casts nondetection on himself. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to either of them Wizard Willie has heard that his nemesis Debbie is entering into negotiations for "big bucks". Willie wants to know who she is dealing with. He finds out where and when the meeting will occur. Then he gets in range and uses clairvoyance to scry on the room. Can Willie use clairvoyance to see Rob? (Let's assume he would fail his caster check against a nondetection) Rob is not invisible, but, on the other hand, Willie's can see the room (and thus detect its occupants) only because he is using a divination spell (clairvoyance). Since nondetection foils attempts to detect people with divinations, wouldn't Rob fail to appear to Willie? Wouldn't it appear to Willie that nobody is in the room with Debbie?
Light_Colonel 05-31-07, 03:57 PM	No. Here's the scenario. Ranger Rob is entering into negotations with Diviner Debbie over how much Debbie is going to pay Rob for the deerskins he sells her. Because Rob is concerned that Debbie will try to gain an unfair advantage in the negotiations by using detect thoughts, he casts nondetection on himself. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to either of them Wizard Willie has heard that his nemesis Debbie is entering into negotiations for "big bucks". Willie wants to know who she is dealing with. He finds out where and when the meeting will occur. Then he gets in range and uses clairvoyance to scry on the room. Can Willie use clairvoyance to see Rob? (Let's assume he would fail his caster check against a nondetection) Rob is not invisible, but, on the other hand, Willie's can see the room (and thus detect its occupants) only because he is using a divination spell (clairvoyance). Since nondetection foils attempts to detect people with divinations, wouldn't Rob fail to appear to Willie? Wouldn't it appear to Willie that nobody is in the room with Debbie? No, Willie cannot see Rob using Clairvoyance. Some other questions: Does Non-Detection work on your items as well as you? I seem to remember there being spells that give you Tremorsense, Darkvision and Blightsight/Blindsense. Are these spells Divination spells? If so....
mvincent 05-31-07, 04:07 PM	I seem to remember there being spells that give you Tremorsense, Darkvision and Blightsight/Blindsense. Are these spells Divination spells? If so....Darkvision (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/darkvision.htm) is transmutation
Derren S. 05-31-07, 04:09 PM	I seem to remember there being spells that give you Tremorsense, Darkvision and Blightsight/Blindsense. Are these spells Divination spells? If so.... ...thy wouldn't be affected at all by nondetection as they, like See Invisibility, do not attampt to detect/divine other creatures but modify the perception of the targeted creature.
mvincent 05-31-07, 04:15 PM	...thy wouldn't be affected at all by nondetection as they, like See Invisibility, do not attampt to detect/divine other creatures but modify the perception of the targeted creature.Geez Derren. That issue is open to interpretation, and you've aready weighted in with your opinion (as did I... which was the same as yours... but I don't keep insisting that it is the only way to view it). We're talking about something else now. Quit making my side look bad.
Phrennzy 05-31-07, 04:49 PM	No. Here's the scenario. Ranger Rob is entering into negotations with Diviner Debbie over how much Debbie is going to pay Rob for the deerskins he sells her. Because Rob is concerned that Debbie will try to gain an unfair advantage in the negotiations by using detect thoughts, he casts nondetection on himself. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to either of them Wizard Willie has heard that his nemesis Debbie is entering into negotiations for "big bucks". Willie wants to know who she is dealing with. He finds out where and when the meeting will occur. Then he gets in range and uses clairvoyance to scry on the room. Can Willie use clairvoyance to see Rob? (Let's assume he would fail his caster check against a nondetection) Rob is not invisible, but, on the other hand, Willie's can see the room (and thus detect its occupants) only because he is using a divination spell (clairvoyance). Since nondetection foils attempts to detect people with divinations, wouldn't Rob fail to appear to Willie? Wouldn't it appear to Willie that nobody is in the room with Debbie? I stopped reading after "Wizard Willie has heard that his nemesis Debbie is entering into negotiations for "big bucks". A deerskin trade being big bucks. Oy. :ghosted: Then I composed myself and went back and read it. Willie would only see/hear Debbie. Although it would be obvious someone else was in there when Debbie hands a bag of money to thin air, and it vanishes. Wizard Willie. Another great euphemism for wang.
Kain Darkwind 05-31-07, 10:37 PM	I'm glad everyone here has been so helpful. Thanks a ton. I see now that this is a rather simple issue and not really complex or dependent on personal interpretation. Out of curiosity, what does it take for an issue like this to get settled officially? Customer service gets knocked. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I bet Sage Advice would get the same treatment.
mvincent 05-31-07, 11:06 PM	Out of curiosity, what does it take for an issue like this to get settled officially? Customer service gets knocked. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I bet Sage Advice would get the same treatment.Sage Advice (i.e. the FAQ) would actually constitute it being 'officially" being settled in this case. The RotG should probably suffice also.