If Adam the Wondermage is attuned to an Amulet of Nondetection then he is immune to divination magic. If Fred the Cleric tries to see Adam’s aura via divination magic, Fred doesn’t see anything. If Fred looks at Adam via a Gem of Seeing, does it function like a filter or shift the entirety of Fred’s sight into a “true seeing” state?
If a person with normal vision was using a lens which shifted his vision so that he saw heat, then if he looked at a cave rock which had no heat, would he see it?
If he was using a lens which shifted his vision to True Sight and then looked at something immune to divination magic, would he see a blank space, would the object be invisible to him, or what?
And if he looked at a person immune to divination spells, how would that person look?
Hmhmhm... let's break that down with a bit of RAW.
Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location has two effects: 1) You cannot be targeted by divination magic, 2) you cannot be perceived through magical scrying sensors.
Gem of Seeing just grants the user Truesight when looking through the gem.
So, in this specifc case, you totally can see Adam with truesight, because it is no divination magic and no scrying sensor.
Same would go for the spell True Seeing, as it targets Fred not Adam, and is also not a scrying sensor.
For the IR question, a cave rock does not have no heat, it has ambient temperature with some fluctuation, you actually can see a lot with an IR sensor, the special thing is, that heat sources or very cold areas stick out of the surroundings like a sore thumb.
In older editions, something like a Gem of Seeing would've had a listing of the spells used to create it, essentially coding it as a permanent version of one or more spells. If that were true here, True Sight would obviously be the spell, and True Sight is a divination spell, so the Gem would be foiled by Nondetection.
However, no such thing exists for 5e. Magic items aren't inherently linked to spells. The Gem is its own thing, operating under its own rules. It's clearly magic, and it's clearly doing something that, magically, is only done in the divination school, but that doesn't mean it's using divination magic, annoyingly. So it beats Nondetection, at least RAW.
---
The question of "can a creature using the spell True Sight see a creature whose only effect is Nondetection?" is an odd one. I would say yes, just because it seems absurd to say no. But idk.
Nothing annoying about it. Even if the gem was "you cast Truesight" rather than 'you have Truesight', Voras is correct. Nondetection states "you cannot be targeted by divination magic"; True Seeing doesn't target any creature save the caster. The spell grants the creature an extra sense. Nondetection doesn't make you immune to truesight and never has.
The Amulet doesn't protect you from spells which have a range of self?
So, these are the spells it renders you unaffected / unaffectable by
Foresight, if you are the beneficiary
Guidance, if you are the beneficiary
Tongues, if you are the beneficiary
True Seeing, if you are the benificiary
Beast Sense, if you are the benificiary
Gift of Alacrity, if you are the benificiary
Arcane Eye - unclear
Rary's Telepathic Bond
Fortune's Favor
Mind Spike
Hunter's Mark
Clairvoyance
I think an alternative interpretation makes a bit more sense. The Amulet's description says " you are hidden from Divination magic" and Nondetection's spell description says, " you hide a target that you touch from divination magic" It doesn't say that you are unaffected by Divination magic, it says that the target is hidden from Divination magic.
Nondetection states "you cannot be targeted by divination magic"; True Seeing doesn't target any creature save the caster. The spell grants the creature an extra sense. Nondetection doesn't make you immune to truesight and never has.
It also says "For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic." Granted, this is the first sentence, and for whatever reason, D&D players have convinced themselves that the first sentences of spell descriptions are the *least* important ones, in raw defiance of the way information is typically organized, but still, it's there. ;P
Arcane Eye does not target a creature and is not a scrying sensor, so it should still detect the creature protected by nondetection.
Same goes for Clairvoyance, it targets an area and the sensor is a Clairvoyance sensor not a scrying sensor.
The other spells above are correct, even the beneficial ones, as they still target the nondetection protected creature, which is a no go.
The scrying sensor is specifically discribed in the spell scrying, so even if you cast scrying on a creature next to the protected creature, you still do not see the protected creature, even though it is not directly targeted.
Fun fact: RAW The Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location does not block the Locate Creature spell, as Locate Creature has a target of self for the caster.
Nondetection states "you cannot be targeted by divination magic"; True Seeing doesn't target any creature save the caster. The spell grants the creature an extra sense. Nondetection doesn't make you immune to truesight and never has.
It also says "For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic." Granted, this is the first sentence, and for whatever reason, D&D players have convinced themselves that the first sentences of spell descriptions are the *least* important ones, in raw defiance of the way information is typically organized, but still, it's there. ;P
The problem is, that "hide from divination magic" is a non-defined term. How does "hiding from divinination work"? In my opinion by the fact, that you cannot be targeted by divination spells and you cannot be perceived by scrying sensors.
Arcane Eye does not target a creature and is not a scrying sensor, so it should still detect the creature protected by nondetection.
Same goes for Clairvoyance, it targets an area and the sensor is a Clairvoyance sensor not a scrying sensor.
The other spells above are correct, even the beneficial ones, as they still target the nondetection protected creature, which is a no go.
Fun fact: RAW The Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location does not block the Locate Creature spell, as Locate Creature has a target of self for the caster.
The amulet says that the wearer is hidden from divination magic. They cannot be targeted by divination magic and also cannot be perceived by it.
"While wearing this amulet, you are hidden from divination magic."
I agree with the beneficial spells. It clearly states you cannot be targeted by those spells so even if you need or want it, it is a no go.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Nondetection states "you cannot be targeted by divination magic"; True Seeing doesn't target any creature save the caster. The spell grants the creature an extra sense. Nondetection doesn't make you immune to truesight and never has.
It also says "For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic." Granted, this is the first sentence, and for whatever reason, D&D players have convinced themselves that the first sentences of spell descriptions are the *least* important ones, in raw defiance of the way information is typically organized, but still, it's there. ;P
The problem is, that "hide from divination magic" is a non-defined term. How does "hiding from divinination work"? In my opinion by the fact, that you cannot be targeted by divination spells and you cannot be perceived by scrying sensors.
I've found that if words are being used in 5e and are not defined in PHB or DMG, then the next best place to look is the OED (Oxford English Dictionary). You should discover fairly quickly that the phrase, "you hide a target that you touch from divination magic" will become very clear.
Nondetection states "you cannot be targeted by divination magic"; True Seeing doesn't target any creature save the caster. The spell grants the creature an extra sense. Nondetection doesn't make you immune to truesight and never has.
It also says "For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic." Granted, this is the first sentence, and for whatever reason, D&D players have convinced themselves that the first sentences of spell descriptions are the *least* important ones, in raw defiance of the way information is typically organized, but still, it's there. ;P
The problem is, that "hide from divination magic" is a non-defined term. How does "hiding from divinination work"? In my opinion by the fact, that you cannot be targeted by divination spells and you cannot be perceived by scrying sensors.
I've found that if words are being used in 5e and are not defined in PHB or DMG, then the next best place to look is the OED (Oxford English Dictionary). You should discover fairly quickly that the phrase, "you hide a target that you touch from divination magic" will become very clear.
Yes, but what does that mean? Can a divination caster then make a Perception(Wisdom) check to discover the creature with nondetection? Because that is how "hide" works in D&D.
Nondetection states "you cannot be targeted by divination magic"; True Seeing doesn't target any creature save the caster. The spell grants the creature an extra sense. Nondetection doesn't make you immune to truesight and never has.
It also says "For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic." Granted, this is the first sentence, and for whatever reason, D&D players have convinced themselves that the first sentences of spell descriptions are the *least* important ones, in raw defiance of the way information is typically organized, but still, it's there. ;P
The problem is, that "hide from divination magic" is a non-defined term. How does "hiding from divinination work"? In my opinion by the fact, that you cannot be targeted by divination spells and you cannot be perceived by scrying sensors.
I've found that if words are being used in 5e and are not defined in PHB or DMG, then the next best place to look is the OED (Oxford English Dictionary). You should discover fairly quickly that the phrase, "you hide a target that you touch from divination magic" will become very clear.
Yes, but what does that mean? Can a divination caster then make a Perception(Wisdom) check to discover the creature with nondetection? Because that is how "hide" works in D&D.
It seems to me that the word "hide" in this instance is not using the 5e definition, since the 5e definition refers to an _acrion_ taken within the action economy.
It seems to me that the target is hidden the instant the amulet is attuned (or the spell cast) and remains so until the amulet is unattuned (or the spell ends). As such, it isn't part of the action economy. So, we have to look elsewhere for the relevant definition of "hide."
If I'm over here, and you're across the room from me with an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location, why wouldn't I see you whether I had truesight or not? It's not like me having expanded senses would make you less visible to me. Also, truesight is a sense and not inherently magical unless we decide that it is magical because it came from a magic item, which is a reasonable inference. Even so, I'm not sure that it qualifies as divination magic without the true seeing spell.
If I'm over here, and you're across the room from me with an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location, why wouldn't I see you whether I had truesight or not? It's not like me having expanded senses would make you less visible to me. Also, truesight is a sense and not inherently magical unless we decide that it is magical because it came from a magic item, which is a reasonable inference. Even so, I'm not sure that it qualifies as divination magic without the true seeing spell.
A creature with the inherent ability of True Sight wouldn't be reliant on Divination Magic, but that is clearly not what the discussion is about.
I'm still not convinced that truesight in and of itself qualifies as divination magic unless it is granted by a spell of the divination school of magic or unless it explicitly calls itself out as such. I don't think you can draw a direct parallel to truesight granted by the true seeing spell because not all the effects of the spell are granted by the gem.
If Adam the Wondermage is attuned to an Amulet of Nondetection then he is immune to divination magic.
There's no Amulet of Nondetection in the game. If you're asking about a homebrew, please note that it is a homebrew and we can't answer it as we don't know the answer. In particular, you could mean an [Tooltip Not Found] or you could mean a magic item that casts the spell Nondetection on the bearer or you could mean almost anything else.
Assuming you mean the Amulet of Proof against Detection or Location, Adam has to both be attuned to it and be wearing it, and it still doesn't render Adam "immune" to divination magic. Adam becomes "hidden" from divination magic, can't be targeted by it, and can't be perceived through magical scrying sensors. As an example of how this isn't immunity, if Adam had the same protection from illusion magic, he'd take full damage from a Shadow Blade, as the spell doesn't target or sense what it hurts in any way.
If Fred the Cleric tries to see Adam’s aura via divination magic, Fred doesn’t see anything.
He might. It would depend on the divination magic in question. As this isn't a class feature of clerics, I have no idea what magic you're referring to.
If Fred looks at Adam via a Gem of Seeing, does it function like a filter or shift the entirety of Fred’s sight into a “true seeing” state?
A gem of seeing grants truesight. I have no idea what you are imagining the difference is between a filter and a shift, but truesight is a strict benefit - truesight can't make it harder for Fred to see Adam, if that's what you're asking. But also, a Gem of Seeing has no interaction with divination magic or scrying sensors, and hence has no interaction with the Amulet I am still assuming you meant.
If a person with normal vision was using a lens which shifted his vision so that he saw heat, then if he looked at a cave rock which had no heat, would he see it?
If would depend on what you meant by the word shift and what was surrounding the rock, but a strictly IR camera pointed at a rock somehow at absolute zero while in room temperature atmosphere would 100% see the rock. Note that this has nothing to do with D&D rules.
If he was using a lens which shifted his vision to True Sight and then looked at something immune to divination magic, would he see a blank space, would the object be invisible to him, or what?
None of the above, unless the lens invoked divination magic (as the gem does not), then presupposing we had something immune to divination magic (which, so far as I know, nothing in the game is), we could answer you as soon as you explained what sort of divination magic the lens was invoking.
And if he looked at a person immune to divination spells, how would that person look?
Completely normal, presumably, as there's no indication the lens in your hypothetical has anything to do with any divination spells. Remember, D&D is chock full of magic which isn't a spell.
The Amulet doesn't protect you from spells which have a range of self?
Continuing to assume you mean the same Amulet I've been assuming, it would depend on the spell. All spells with a range of Self target the caster, but many spells target in multiple steps. For example, Fireball targets a point in space, then targets creatures within its AOE. It is absolutely possible for an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location to protect you from a Divination spell with a range of Self - you have to read the text of the spell to determine what its other targets might be.
Scrying is actually an excellent example: its text clearly indicates it targets the entity making a Wisdom save, so the Amulet would mean Scrying can't even be cast with Adam as the intended entity to be sensed, even before we get to the step that the manifested sensor can't see Adam even if cast with someone else as the intended entity.
I've found that if words are being used in 5e and are not defined in PHB or DMG, then the next best place to look is the OED (Oxford English Dictionary). You should discover fairly quickly that the phrase, "you hide a target that you touch from divination magic" will become very clear.
If Adam the Wondermage is attuned to an Amulet of Nondetection then he is immune to divination magic. If Fred the Cleric tries to see Adam’s aura via divination magic, Fred doesn’t see anything.
If Fred looks at Adam via a Gem of Seeing, does it function like a filter or shift the entirety of Fred’s sight into a “true seeing” state?
If a person with normal vision was using a lens which shifted his vision so that he saw heat, then if he looked at a cave rock which had no heat, would he see it?
If he was using a lens which shifted his vision to True Sight and then looked at something immune to divination magic, would he see a blank space, would the object be invisible to him, or what?
And if he looked at a person immune to divination spells, how would that person look?
Hmhmhm... let's break that down with a bit of RAW.
Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location has two effects: 1) You cannot be targeted by divination magic, 2) you cannot be perceived through magical scrying sensors.
Gem of Seeing just grants the user Truesight when looking through the gem.
So, in this specifc case, you totally can see Adam with truesight, because it is no divination magic and no scrying sensor.
Same would go for the spell True Seeing, as it targets Fred not Adam, and is also not a scrying sensor.
For the IR question, a cave rock does not have no heat, it has ambient temperature with some fluctuation, you actually can see a lot with an IR sensor, the special thing is, that heat sources or very cold areas stick out of the surroundings like a sore thumb.
In older editions, something like a Gem of Seeing would've had a listing of the spells used to create it, essentially coding it as a permanent version of one or more spells. If that were true here, True Sight would obviously be the spell, and True Sight is a divination spell, so the Gem would be foiled by Nondetection.
However, no such thing exists for 5e. Magic items aren't inherently linked to spells. The Gem is its own thing, operating under its own rules. It's clearly magic, and it's clearly doing something that, magically, is only done in the divination school, but that doesn't mean it's using divination magic, annoyingly. So it beats Nondetection, at least RAW.
---
The question of "can a creature using the spell True Sight see a creature whose only effect is Nondetection?" is an odd one. I would say yes, just because it seems absurd to say no. But idk.
Nothing annoying about it. Even if the gem was "you cast Truesight" rather than 'you have Truesight', Voras is correct. Nondetection states "you cannot be targeted by divination magic"; True Seeing doesn't target any creature save the caster. The spell grants the creature an extra sense. Nondetection doesn't make you immune to truesight and never has.
Please do not contact or message me.
The Amulet doesn't protect you from spells which have a range of self?
So, these are the spells it renders you unaffected / unaffectable by
Foresight, if you are the beneficiary
Guidance, if you are the beneficiary
Tongues, if you are the beneficiary
True Seeing, if you are the benificiary
Beast Sense, if you are the benificiary
Gift of Alacrity, if you are the benificiary
Arcane Eye - unclear
Rary's Telepathic Bond
Fortune's Favor
Mind Spike
Hunter's Mark
Clairvoyance
I think an alternative interpretation makes a bit more sense. The Amulet's description says " you are hidden from Divination magic" and Nondetection's spell description says, " you hide a target that you touch from divination magic" It doesn't say that you are unaffected by Divination magic, it says that the target is hidden from Divination magic.
It also says "For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic." Granted, this is the first sentence, and for whatever reason, D&D players have convinced themselves that the first sentences of spell descriptions are the *least* important ones, in raw defiance of the way information is typically organized, but still, it's there. ;P
Arcane Eye does not target a creature and is not a scrying sensor, so it should still detect the creature protected by nondetection.
Same goes for Clairvoyance, it targets an area and the sensor is a Clairvoyance sensor not a scrying sensor.
The other spells above are correct, even the beneficial ones, as they still target the nondetection protected creature, which is a no go.
The scrying sensor is specifically discribed in the spell scrying, so even if you cast scrying on a creature next to the protected creature, you still do not see the protected creature, even though it is not directly targeted.
Fun fact: RAW The Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location does not block the Locate Creature spell, as Locate Creature has a target of self for the caster.
The problem is, that "hide from divination magic" is a non-defined term. How does "hiding from divinination work"? In my opinion by the fact, that you cannot be targeted by divination spells and you cannot be perceived by scrying sensors.
The amulet says that the wearer is hidden from divination magic. They cannot be targeted by divination magic and also cannot be perceived by it.
"While wearing this amulet, you are hidden from divination magic."
I agree with the beneficial spells. It clearly states you cannot be targeted by those spells so even if you need or want it, it is a no go.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I've found that if words are being used in 5e and are not defined in PHB or DMG, then the next best place to look is the OED (Oxford English Dictionary). You should discover fairly quickly that the phrase, "you hide a target that you touch from divination magic" will become very clear.
Yes, but what does that mean? Can a divination caster then make a Perception(Wisdom) check to discover the creature with nondetection? Because that is how "hide" works in D&D.
It seems to me that the word "hide" in this instance is not using the 5e definition, since the 5e definition refers to an _acrion_ taken within the action economy.
It seems to me that the target is hidden the instant the amulet is attuned (or the spell cast) and remains so until the amulet is unattuned (or the spell ends). As such, it isn't part of the action economy. So, we have to look elsewhere for the relevant definition of "hide."
If I'm over here, and you're across the room from me with an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location, why wouldn't I see you whether I had truesight or not? It's not like me having expanded senses would make you less visible to me. Also, truesight is a sense and not inherently magical unless we decide that it is magical because it came from a magic item, which is a reasonable inference. Even so, I'm not sure that it qualifies as divination magic without the true seeing spell.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
A creature with the inherent ability of True Sight wouldn't be reliant on Divination Magic, but that is clearly not what the discussion is about.
I'm still not convinced that truesight in and of itself qualifies as divination magic unless it is granted by a spell of the divination school of magic or unless it explicitly calls itself out as such. I don't think you can draw a direct parallel to truesight granted by the true seeing spell because not all the effects of the spell are granted by the gem.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There's no Amulet of Nondetection in the game. If you're asking about a homebrew, please note that it is a homebrew and we can't answer it as we don't know the answer. In particular, you could mean an [Tooltip Not Found] or you could mean a magic item that casts the spell Nondetection on the bearer or you could mean almost anything else.
Assuming you mean the Amulet of Proof against Detection or Location, Adam has to both be attuned to it and be wearing it, and it still doesn't render Adam "immune" to divination magic. Adam becomes "hidden" from divination magic, can't be targeted by it, and can't be perceived through magical scrying sensors. As an example of how this isn't immunity, if Adam had the same protection from illusion magic, he'd take full damage from a Shadow Blade, as the spell doesn't target or sense what it hurts in any way.
He might. It would depend on the divination magic in question. As this isn't a class feature of clerics, I have no idea what magic you're referring to.
A gem of seeing grants truesight. I have no idea what you are imagining the difference is between a filter and a shift, but truesight is a strict benefit - truesight can't make it harder for Fred to see Adam, if that's what you're asking. But also, a Gem of Seeing has no interaction with divination magic or scrying sensors, and hence has no interaction with the Amulet I am still assuming you meant.
If would depend on what you meant by the word shift and what was surrounding the rock, but a strictly IR camera pointed at a rock somehow at absolute zero while in room temperature atmosphere would 100% see the rock. Note that this has nothing to do with D&D rules.
None of the above, unless the lens invoked divination magic (as the gem does not), then presupposing we had something immune to divination magic (which, so far as I know, nothing in the game is), we could answer you as soon as you explained what sort of divination magic the lens was invoking.
Completely normal, presumably, as there's no indication the lens in your hypothetical has anything to do with any divination spells. Remember, D&D is chock full of magic which isn't a spell.
Continuing to assume you mean the same Amulet I've been assuming, it would depend on the spell. All spells with a range of Self target the caster, but many spells target in multiple steps. For example, Fireball targets a point in space, then targets creatures within its AOE. It is absolutely possible for an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location to protect you from a Divination spell with a range of Self - you have to read the text of the spell to determine what its other targets might be.
Scrying is actually an excellent example: its text clearly indicates it targets the entity making a Wisdom save, so the Amulet would mean Scrying can't even be cast with Adam as the intended entity to be sensed, even before we get to the step that the manifested sensor can't see Adam even if cast with someone else as the intended entity.
In 5E, hidden is a game term which means unseen and unheard. Hiding you from divination magic would mean you are unseen and unheard by the divination magic.