hi gang, thanks for reading. i searched this rules forum, and can't find the specific answer. if it's elsewhere, please direct me.
a) using detect magic, you can sense the presence of magic within 30 ft.
b) if you detect the presence, you can use an action to see the aura of that magic if its object or creature is visible.
c) my first reading of the visibility in (b) is "not magically invisible", NOT "obscured or hidden".
got a session soon where our big plan currently is for a party member to hide, use any SELF spell to get an aura, then for me to use detect magic to see their signal while hiding behind a bush or whatever.
is there an overall explicitly accepted ruling for auras that are just behind objects?
i see a lot of use of detect magic to quickly find magic items, and seems like that supports the idea that you can see auras through things as long as the magic thing is *able to be seen non-magically at all*.
The rules governing Detect Magic's ability to see through materials are listed in the spell itself. If what you are trying to perceive isn't behind total cover then you just see it. If it is behind total cover then you need to estimate the types of material and how much are between you and what you are trying to perceive.
c) my first reading of the visibility in (b) is "not magically invisible", NOT "obscured or hidden".
This is an incorrect reading. "Visible" means "visible." An object that you cannot see because it's hidden behind another object is not visible until you change the environment such that it is no longer hidden from you.
If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
As hidden clearly means unseen, detect magic will merely notify you that the magic is within 30 ft, not informing you of it's type or exact location.
In the actual spell description the language is not 'unhidden'' or 'seen', but 'visible'.
"you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic"
Considering the prevalence and power of literal magic Invisibility, I feel like the use of 'visible' is very purposeful and specific to mean 'not invisible'. They could have said 'not hidden', 'not hiding', 'not obscured', or 'within line of sight', but they chose a word that has a spell named after its opposite, 'Invisibility'. I feel like that's meant to tell the DM, "Make your things invisible if you want to avoid 'Detect Magic'."
I have a cat. The cat is somewhere outside. I have no idea where it is, but it's definitely visible, even if it's under a car.
Also, the section on material thickness applies to "the spell", not "the first effect of the spell". As written it seems to say "You can't detect magic presence OR see an aura if it's behind xyz thick materials." Seems to imply you CAN see auras behind thinner materials.
Thanks for your responses, I hope it doesn't come off contentiously. Cheers :)
hi gang, thanks for reading. i searched this rules forum, and can't find the specific answer. if it's elsewhere, please direct me.
a) using detect magic, you can sense the presence of magic within 30 ft.
b) if you detect the presence, you can use an action to see the aura of that magic if its object or creature is visible.
c) my first reading of the visibility in (b) is "not magically invisible", NOT "obscured or hidden".
got a session soon where our big plan currently is for a party member to hide, use any SELF spell to get an aura, then for me to use detect magic to see their signal while hiding behind a bush or whatever.
is there an overall explicitly accepted ruling for auras that are just behind objects?
i see a lot of use of detect magic to quickly find magic items, and seems like that supports the idea that you can see auras through things as long as the magic thing is *able to be seen non-magically at all*.
thanks again, cheers :)
I would say you would not be able to see the aura of whatever spell they use if the party member hides from plain sight.
however, if they hide where they are not behind the detect magic's spell blocking requirements, you could still use the spell to detect the "signal".
As long as that party member does not have any magical items on themselves, and you have the detect magic spell active at the time of the party member using their signal spell, it should set off your detect magic sense and that would be your "signal".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
hi gang, thanks for reading. i searched this rules forum, and can't find the specific answer. if it's elsewhere, please direct me.
a) using detect magic, you can sense the presence of magic within 30 ft.
b) if you detect the presence, you can use an action to see the aura of that magic if its object or creature is visible.
c) my first reading of the visibility in (b) is "not magically invisible", NOT "obscured or hidden".
got a session soon where our big plan currently is for a party member to hide, use any SELF spell to get an aura, then for me to use detect magic to see their signal while hiding behind a bush or whatever.
is there an overall explicitly accepted ruling for auras that are just behind objects?
i see a lot of use of detect magic to quickly find magic items, and seems like that supports the idea that you can see auras through things as long as the magic thing is *able to be seen non-magically at all*.
thanks again, cheers :)
I see where you are coming from. The language isn't very clear.
I think seeing auras doesn't go through cover and the line about penetrating barriers is only for the sense presence part.
The question is basically, how big is an aura. Right? If the aura is 1 inch out from the person, then you're not seeing it if they're hiding, probably. But if it's, say, three feet, then unless they know specifically to hide it from you, you can likely see it poking out from whatever they're hiding behind.
The only other auras I know about in the game are the Paladin's auras, and the Aura of ___ spells. Both are 30ft, though the Paladin one doesn't get there until later. If we go with the smaller version, it's still 10ft.
Edit: I don't believe an aura would go *through* anything. Nothing does that unless specifically stated to do so.
The only other auras I know about in the game are the Paladin's auras, and the Aura of ___ spells. Both are 30ft, though the Paladin one doesn't get there until later. If we go with the smaller version, it's still 10ft.
Ah, for the purposes of Detect Magic, it's 'aura' lowecase, not 'Aura" as referencing an ability. My understanding of the auras in the Detect Magic description are, they are a clear outline that counters the creature or object, and follows movement of the body, like an x-ray.
The most important part of the spell description seems to be this:
"For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any.
The spellcan penetrate most barriers, but it is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt."
"The spell", unqualified, means "the entire spell". Other abilities with rules that apply to one use of many pretty clearly use qualifying language like "in this way". So if the entire spell is blocked by those materials, it, including its aura effect, is also not be blocked without those materials.
I think the above bolded text IS a statement that these auras go through things.
As for the 'visible' question, I just don't see a thief hiding in a regular crate being able to thwart the spell just coz they're trying to not be detected?
As for the 'visible' question, I just don't see a thief hiding in a regular crate being able to thwart the spell just coz they're trying to not be detected?
I sincerely don't understand your hangup about this. Can you see the thief? If the answer is no, the thief is not visible. That is literally what "visible" means.
As for the 'visible' question, I just don't see a thief hiding in a regular crate being able to thwart the spell just coz they're trying to not be detected?
I sincerely don't understand your hangup about this. Can you see the thief? If the answer is no, the thief is not visible. That is literally what "visible" means.
I understand the argument to the contrary, and I think it is valid, but not definitive. As in, it supports itself well enough, but fails to disprove other readings. I think your argument here is also valid, and more believable on its face. It "feels" correct to me, basically. But I'm not sure it does anything to disprove other readings either.
As for the 'visible' question, I just don't see a thief hiding in a regular crate being able to thwart the spell just coz they're trying to not be detected?
I sincerely don't understand your hangup about this. Can you see the thief? If the answer is no, the thief is not visible. That is literally what "visible" means.
I understand the argument to the contrary, and I think it is valid, but not definitive. As in, it supports itself well enough, but fails to disprove other readings. I think your argument here is also valid, and more believable on its face. It "feels" correct to me, basically. But I'm not sure it does anything to disprove other readings either.
Sure there is. The reading of "visible" offered by the OP is a technical meaning (as in, not affected the "invisible" condition, itself a game mechanical term). That's not how 5e's rules work. If the game doesn't provide a mechanical definition of the word, the word means what it means in common English. Since no specific mechanical definition of "visible" is provided, it is simply incorrect to invent one just to cheese some benefit out of a 1st-level spell that the spell was never meant to provide.
The only other auras I know about in the game are the Paladin's auras, and the Aura of ___ spells. Both are 30ft, though the Paladin one doesn't get there until later. If we go with the smaller version, it's still 10ft.
Ah, for the purposes of Detect Magic, it's 'aura' lowecase, not 'Aura" as referencing an ability. My understanding of the auras in the Detect Magic description are, they are a clear outline that counters the creature or object, and follows movement of the body, like an x-ray.
The most important part of the spell description seems to be this:
"For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any.
The spellcan penetrate most barriers, but it is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt."
"The spell", unqualified, means "the entire spell". Other abilities with rules that apply to one use of many pretty clearly use qualifying language like "in this way". So if the entire spell is blocked by those materials, it, including its aura effect, is also not be blocked without those materials.
I think the above bolded text IS a statement that these auras go through things.
As for the 'visible' question, I just don't see a thief hiding in a regular crate being able to thwart the spell just coz they're trying to not be detected?
Thanks again
You appear to be conflating some distinct rules. All of the rules text applies, all of the time. So while the spell can penetrate most barriers, its ability to show you auras is still limited by your ability to "see". Putting the entire spell together, someone with Detect Magic up:
Can sense the presence of magic within 30 feet. This sense is only blocked by 3+ feet of wood, 3+ feet of "dirt" (DM fiat what constitutes dirt), 1+ feet of stone, 1+ inch of "common metal", or any amount of lead, although these can be combined together to create one blocker; the blocker only blocks if it provides total cover.
Can use their action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object within 30 feet and learn the aura's school of magic, if any. This does not change the person's definition of "visible", which is person-dependent. So, for example, anyone can see through transparent glass, even if it provides total cover. If the caster is, for example, a Pact of the Tome Warlock with Ghostly Gaze up, they can see through anything (although the action is only legal if they can sense magic and we just covered how some barriers can block that, which means those barriers will block the action for our Warlock), so the entire spell will just work through, for example, an opaque silk curtain.
Another point to consider is whether you would prefer that a ritually-castable 1st-level spell that's on basically every spell list, be able to easily locate any Rogue who happens to have a magic knife. Or, I suppose, to put it another way, would you prefer that the DM have to know the thickness and material composition of every wall you ever see from here on out? Perhaps this will inform your decision on which way to rule.
Edit: Should acquiring a stealth item such as a Cloak of Elvenkind actually make it *harder* to hide? Because with how freely available Detect Magic is, that's kind of how it would be.
Edit: Should acquiring a stealth item such as a Cloak of Elvenkind actually make it *harder* to hide? Because with how freely available Detect Magic is, that's kind of how it would be.
Good question. How do many people seem to use DM magic to find hidden magic items? Not being rhetorical, I see this tactic mentioned in advice videos and threads.
1) To questions of 'visible' language though, 'visible' isn't used to mean "you currently see" in other places. Other terms are used. Usually "that youcan see." Lots of spells, abilities and combat rules use the language "if the attacker can see it." 'Visible' isn't used when determining total cover, but rather 'concealed'.
A search for 'visible' shows the majority of the uses of 'visible' are only in interaction with the invisibility state. Not all, but like 4/5.
2) DM also requires a) often a casting action b) a 2nd action c) and concentration, and you have to communicate what you see to your party, so it doesn't seem cheesy. Not everyone has Ritual Casting. There are other L1 spells like Faerie Fire that show everyone, even invisible creatures, that lose a check. Seems comparable.
3) And I think the wording "the spell" blatantly means that the thickness rules apply to the whole spell, and that the whole spell works if not blocked by those materials. So it comes down to 'visible', which again, usually is meant to relate to 'invisible'.
As for common english meanings, IRL invisibility magic doesn't exist, so I think it's careful word choice. Total cover does exist IRL, but even then they're very careful to use specific words to total cover.
Thanks for taking the time everyone, helps a lot, wanna figure out things with the DM before we have to stick to something. 😊
Edit: Should acquiring a stealth item such as a Cloak of Elvenkind actually make it *harder* to hide? Because with how freely available Detect Magic is, that's kind of how it would be.
I will say though, that makes for a really entertaining screw-up, and I'm sure lots of rogues have run into this and it was ultimately fun if they didn't die.
Any magic items worm or held by an hidden, totally obscured or invisible creature will be detected within range a of a Detect Magic spell, provided it's not blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt. Many total cover therefore blocks the spell, while wooden chests and doors do not.
But only the magic items and creatures you can sense that are actually visible, will enable you to see an aura around and learn it's school if any.
But only the magic items and creatures you can sense that are actually visible, will enable you to see an aura around and learn it's school if any.
thanks plaguescarred :)
what do you think about the 'visible' definition, and that in most other cases where things must be in plain sight, other terms are used? cheers mate.
edit: also after looking around it seems usually players lean to the plain sight definition, or at least youtube channels do, but Crawford hasn't been asked to clarify, and he only reiterates the text says 'visible'.
hi gang, thanks for reading. i searched this rules forum, and can't find the specific answer. if it's elsewhere, please direct me.
a) using detect magic, you can sense the presence of magic within 30 ft.
b) if you detect the presence, you can use an action to see the aura of that magic if its object or creature is visible.
c) my first reading of the visibility in (b) is "not magically invisible", NOT "obscured or hidden".
got a session soon where our big plan currently is for a party member to hide, use any SELF spell to get an aura, then for me to use detect magic to see their signal while hiding behind a bush or whatever.
is there an overall explicitly accepted ruling for auras that are just behind objects?
i see a lot of use of detect magic to quickly find magic items, and seems like that supports the idea that you can see auras through things as long as the magic thing is *able to be seen non-magically at all*.
thanks again, cheers :)
The rules governing Detect Magic's ability to see through materials are listed in the spell itself. If what you are trying to perceive isn't behind total cover then you just see it. If it is behind total cover then you need to estimate the types of material and how much are between you and what you are trying to perceive.
I would not allow you to detect auras from someone that was not seen. Hidden means not seen.
From Page 194 of the PHB, under "Unseen Attackers and Targets"
As hidden clearly means unseen, detect magic will merely notify you that the magic is within 30 ft, not informing you of it's type or exact location.
This is an incorrect reading. "Visible" means "visible." An object that you cannot see because it's hidden behind another object is not visible until you change the environment such that it is no longer hidden from you.
In the actual spell description the language is not 'unhidden'' or 'seen', but 'visible'.
"you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic"
Considering the prevalence and power of literal magic Invisibility, I feel like the use of 'visible' is very purposeful and specific to mean 'not invisible'. They could have said 'not hidden', 'not hiding', 'not obscured', or 'within line of sight', but they chose a word that has a spell named after its opposite, 'Invisibility'. I feel like that's meant to tell the DM, "Make your things invisible if you want to avoid 'Detect Magic'."
I have a cat. The cat is somewhere outside. I have no idea where it is, but it's definitely visible, even if it's under a car.
Also, the section on material thickness applies to "the spell", not "the first effect of the spell". As written it seems to say "You can't detect magic presence OR see an aura if it's behind xyz thick materials." Seems to imply you CAN see auras behind thinner materials.
Thanks for your responses, I hope it doesn't come off contentiously. Cheers :)
It's up to your DM. I could see them ruling either way, but you already know what I would rule.
I would say you would not be able to see the aura of whatever spell they use if the party member hides from plain sight.
however, if they hide where they are not behind the detect magic's spell blocking requirements, you could still use the spell to detect the "signal".
As long as that party member does not have any magical items on themselves, and you have the detect magic spell active at the time of the party member using their signal spell, it should set off your detect magic sense and that would be your "signal".
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
I see where you are coming from. The language isn't very clear.
I think seeing auras doesn't go through cover and the line about penetrating barriers is only for the sense presence part.
The question is basically, how big is an aura. Right? If the aura is 1 inch out from the person, then you're not seeing it if they're hiding, probably. But if it's, say, three feet, then unless they know specifically to hide it from you, you can likely see it poking out from whatever they're hiding behind.
The only other auras I know about in the game are the Paladin's auras, and the Aura of ___ spells. Both are 30ft, though the Paladin one doesn't get there until later. If we go with the smaller version, it's still 10ft.
Edit: I don't believe an aura would go *through* anything. Nothing does that unless specifically stated to do so.
Ah, for the purposes of Detect Magic, it's 'aura' lowecase, not 'Aura" as referencing an ability. My understanding of the auras in the Detect Magic description are, they are a clear outline that counters the creature or object, and follows movement of the body, like an x-ray.
The most important part of the spell description seems to be this:
"For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any.
The spell can penetrate most barriers, but it is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt."
"The spell", unqualified, means "the entire spell". Other abilities with rules that apply to one use of many pretty clearly use qualifying language like "in this way". So if the entire spell is blocked by those materials, it, including its aura effect, is also not be blocked without those materials.
I think the above bolded text IS a statement that these auras go through things.
As for the 'visible' question, I just don't see a thief hiding in a regular crate being able to thwart the spell just coz they're trying to not be detected?
Thanks again
I sincerely don't understand your hangup about this. Can you see the thief? If the answer is no, the thief is not visible. That is literally what "visible" means.
I understand the argument to the contrary, and I think it is valid, but not definitive. As in, it supports itself well enough, but fails to disprove other readings. I think your argument here is also valid, and more believable on its face. It "feels" correct to me, basically. But I'm not sure it does anything to disprove other readings either.
Sure there is. The reading of "visible" offered by the OP is a technical meaning (as in, not affected the "invisible" condition, itself a game mechanical term). That's not how 5e's rules work. If the game doesn't provide a mechanical definition of the word, the word means what it means in common English. Since no specific mechanical definition of "visible" is provided, it is simply incorrect to invent one just to cheese some benefit out of a 1st-level spell that the spell was never meant to provide.
You appear to be conflating some distinct rules. All of the rules text applies, all of the time. So while the spell can penetrate most barriers, its ability to show you auras is still limited by your ability to "see". Putting the entire spell together, someone with Detect Magic up:
Another point to consider is whether you would prefer that a ritually-castable 1st-level spell that's on basically every spell list, be able to easily locate any Rogue who happens to have a magic knife. Or, I suppose, to put it another way, would you prefer that the DM have to know the thickness and material composition of every wall you ever see from here on out? Perhaps this will inform your decision on which way to rule.
Edit: Should acquiring a stealth item such as a Cloak of Elvenkind actually make it *harder* to hide? Because with how freely available Detect Magic is, that's kind of how it would be.
Good question. How do many people seem to use DM magic to find hidden magic items? Not being rhetorical, I see this tactic mentioned in advice videos and threads.
1) To questions of 'visible' language though, 'visible' isn't used to mean "you currently see" in other places. Other terms are used. Usually "that you can see." Lots of spells, abilities and combat rules use the language "if the attacker can see it." 'Visible' isn't used when determining total cover, but rather 'concealed'.
A search for 'visible' shows the majority of the uses of 'visible' are only in interaction with the invisibility state. Not all, but like 4/5.
2) DM also requires a) often a casting action b) a 2nd action c) and concentration, and you have to communicate what you see to your party, so it doesn't seem cheesy. Not everyone has Ritual Casting. There are other L1 spells like Faerie Fire that show everyone, even invisible creatures, that lose a check. Seems comparable.
3) And I think the wording "the spell" blatantly means that the thickness rules apply to the whole spell, and that the whole spell works if not blocked by those materials. So it comes down to 'visible', which again, usually is meant to relate to 'invisible'.
As for common english meanings, IRL invisibility magic doesn't exist, so I think it's careful word choice. Total cover does exist IRL, but even then they're very careful to use specific words to total cover.
Thanks for taking the time everyone, helps a lot, wanna figure out things with the DM before we have to stick to something. 😊
I will say though, that makes for a really entertaining screw-up, and I'm sure lots of rogues have run into this and it was ultimately fun if they didn't die.
Any magic items worm or held by an hidden, totally obscured or invisible creature will be detected within range a of a Detect Magic spell, provided it's not blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt. Many total cover therefore blocks the spell, while wooden chests and doors do not.
But only the magic items and creatures you can sense that are actually visible, will enable you to see an aura around and learn it's school if any.
thanks plaguescarred :)
what do you think about the 'visible' definition, and that in most other cases where things must be in plain sight, other terms are used? cheers mate.
edit: also after looking around it seems usually players lean to the plain sight definition, or at least youtube channels do, but Crawford hasn't been asked to clarify, and he only reiterates the text says 'visible'.
I take visible as having line of sight to something that is not unseen, heavily obscured or invisible.