According to the description, an Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location, you are hidden from divination magic. So if someone cast a detect magic spell on the wearer, would they just appear to be wearing a non-magical amulet?
Detect magic is a divination spell, so for purposes the Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location the detect magic would reveal nothing. The quirk comes in how the DM chooses to interpret "nothing": the character appears to be adorned with mundane equipment or the character is just not there, hidden entirely from the the senses of the caster using the detect magic. I've always adjudicated detect magic as the caster visually inspects the object, then focuses on the item with the first round showing the item is magical (or not), the second round the degree of strength in the dweomer, and finally the school of magic in the third round. At that point the caster can take an action in the fourth round to make an Arcana check to ID the item, DC based on the scarcity of the item. Using my logic, the caster would see the item and go to focus on it and it would simply vanish, hidden by the Amulet.
The way I would rule it, detect magic detects magical auras around it. If you are wearing a amulet of proof against detection and location, the amulet obscures all magical auras on you. As such, detect magic would not detect anything on you, as if all of your equipment was mundane and you were not currently affected by any active spells.
Unlike what Rexx said, the person or item does not "vanish", merely it just appears to be non-magical. Having something vanish would be a very odd interpretation of the rules, in my opinion.
Unlike what Rexx said, the person or item does not "vanish", merely it just appears to be non-magical. Having something vanish would be a very odd interpretation of the rules, in my opinion.
Ah yes, odd, but certainly interesting. I can see how something being "hidden" to a divination spell that is visually obvious to the person would immediately throw up red flags and infer that the item observed is magical (when it may or may not) but I would hope it would inspire the curiosity of the player to further investigate the warding individual which may help further the story along. *shrugs* If the target of the divination is dressed in a manner that a PC thinks to cast detect magic then I'd say the target is sabotaging their magic item's ability to keep them anonymous.
I think the key word here "targeted", as in you cannot be targeted by a divination spell. If the caster can see you and attempts to target an item carried by the warded individual, the spell would not work. Effectively the same thing as saying the item hidden/vanished/not there. If you really want to have the Amulet cover up this potential "I know something is up" issue, have the Amulet cause the dispel magic automatically detect a chunk of ground the person is standing on that will detect as non-magical but the diviner would not aware of the warding.
Sure, if you and your players like it and find it interesting by running it your way, more power to you! I just don't think such an interpretation is what the "rules as written" dictate. It says you cannot be targeted, but it also says that you are "hidden" from divination magic as well. I read that as two separate restrictions, rather than one clarifying the other -- you cannot be directly targeted by such magic, and should there be area of effect divination that includes you, you are "hidden" from it.
I personally read hidden to be in the context of the divination spell being applied; in the case of detect magic, that would mean you are hidden from having magic detected on you, rather than hidden from sight.
Technically the spell says that you can't be the target or perceived. This means that the amulet itself could potentially still give off a magical aura through the use of detect magic, as well as other items that may be on you. Detect magic isn't actually targeting you so I believe it should still work. So I think detect magic would still work for the items on you since they aren't protected.
Basically the way I see it, detect magic is targeting you, not the person with the amulet. And says "you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you." So you would be able to still know the person in front of you has magical items, as they aren't the target of the spell, and it has nothing to do with being perceived with scrying magic.
SO you would still be there, but you couldn't be the target. However, if your friend standing next to you is the target of scrying, you would not be perceived. It would simply be like they were talking to nothing, or possibly someone else in the room outside of your field of vision with the spell. Essentially the spell can't perceive you, and so it appears that no one is there.
Sure, if you and your players like it and find it interesting by running it your way, more power to you! I just don't think such an interpretation is what the "rules as written" dictate. It says you cannot be targeted, but it also says that you are "hidden" from divination magic as well. I read that as two separate restrictions, rather than one clarifying the other -- you cannot be directly targeted by such magic, and should there be area of effect divination that includes you, you are "hidden" from it.
I personally read hidden to be in the context of the divination spell being applied; in the case of detect magic, that would mean you are hidden from having magic detected on you, rather than hidden from sight.
It says that you are hidden from Scrying Magic, not necessarily all magic and that you can't be the target of divination spells. Technically detect magic is not scrying magic and targets the caster, not the wearer of the amulet.
I'm with NightsLastHero on this one. The Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location protects YOU from being the target of a divination spell. It says nothing about your armor and equipment. I believe that is RAI, since almost all divination spells like [Tooltip Not Found] and Detect Evil and Good are focused on a creature, not its possessions.
I wouldn't expect Detect Poison and Disease to not notice the poison in a cup simply because you are holding the cup. Now, if the poisonous creature was the one wearing it, then I'd say that detect poison and disease doesn't work against the creature. I think the amulet is worded the way it is on purpose. I think it's meant to block spells that specifically target a creature. Since Detect Magic doesn't target the wearer, but it simply points out magical auras, I'd say the amulet itself would be what gives you away.
Now, maybe the aura that appears doesn't surround you as it does most other times a magical source is identified, but rather ONLY appears around the item itself. For example, if you were under the effects of a Polymorph or Disguise Self and wearing the amulet, I don't think detect magic would sense the effects of those spells (since those spells are directly affecting you), but it would still detect the amulet (assuming that it was put on after the polymorph, otherwise the item wouldn't work).
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Technically the spell says that you can't be the target or perceived. This means that the amulet itself could potentially still give off a magical aura through the use of detect magic, as well as other items that may be on you. Detect magic isn't actually targeting you so I believe it should still work. So I think detect magic would still work for the items on you since they aren't protected.
Basically the way I see it, detect magic is targeting you, not the person with the amulet. And says "you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you." So you would be able to still know the person in front of you has magical items, as they aren't the target of the spell, and it has nothing to do with being perceived with scrying magic.
SO you would still be there, but you couldn't be the target. However, if your friend standing next to you is the target of scrying, you would not be perceived. It would simply be like they were talking to nothing, or possibly someone else in the room outside of your field of vision with the spell. Essentially the spell can't perceive you, and so it appears that no one is there.
True, I thought there was a rule that said any active magic effects on you also applied to anything you have equipped, but I cannot find any such rule, and upon further thought such a rule would be terribly broken in numerous ways (there are a lot of magic effects where it makes absolutely no sense to apply to your gear as well). That being said, it would still block detection of active spell effects on you, such as disguise self. The original reason I thought to include gear was for spells such as locate object -- sure I can't target the creature with divination, but I could locate something that creature is wearing and track them that way. In my opinion, the amulet should protect against such things, but that looks like it would be a house rule.
Sure, if you and your players like it and find it interesting by running it your way, more power to you! I just don't think such an interpretation is what the "rules as written" dictate. It says you cannot be targeted, but it also says that you are "hidden" from divination magic as well. I read that as two separate restrictions, rather than one clarifying the other -- you cannot be directly targeted by such magic, and should there be area of effect divination that includes you, you are "hidden" from it.
I personally read hidden to be in the context of the divination spell being applied; in the case of detect magic, that would mean you are hidden from having magic detected on you, rather than hidden from sight.
It says that you are hidden from Scrying Magic, not necessarily all magic and that you can't be the target of divination spells. Technically detect magic is not scrying magic and targets the caster, not the wearer of the amulet.
The item says three things:
You are hidden from divination magic.
You can't be targeted by divination magic.
You can't be perceived through magical scrying sensors.
The second sentence (points 2 and 3) are not the entirety of what "hidden from divination magic" means, they are additional effects on top of being hidden from divination magic. Otherwise the "amulet of proof against detection and location" doesn't work against detection spells (like detect magic or detect evil and good), since such spells neither target you, nor are they scrying sensors. I hope you would agree that the intent of the item is not that it doesn't work against things that the item's name itself indicates it should work against.
(And without also applying to gear you're wearing, it isn't all that "proofy" against location either...)
Invisibility and Polymorph I believe specifically state they affect the items you have on you. So at least as far as the rules go I'd assume that any magic that affects the items on you, the spell itself would mention that it does. (This isn't to say that the designers no where mentioned that the intent was that it affects the items too, nor the possibility that I missed the rule.)
1,000 feet is only like 1/5 of a mile, so detect object is really not going to help you much, unless you are looking for someone in the same building as yourself, or really close.
I'm not sure that there is any divination magic that would be able to detect or find you that doesn't explicitly target you. Detect Magic works for within 30 feet, so literally it is useless itself as you will be physically seeing the person anyway. Detect Object is probably not going to be useful most of the time either as it is still a relatively small distance. So I'm not sure if in actual play it really matters if the items are covered or not as most likely if you are close enough to use the spells other than the scrying ones, you already know where the person is. Maybe to know which direction the item is going.
Invisibility and Polymorph I believe specifically state they affect the items you have on you. So at least as far as the rules go I'd assume that any magic that affects the items on you, the spell itself would mention that it does. (This isn't to say that the designers no where mentioned that the intent was that it affects the items too, nor the possibility that I missed the rule.)
1,000 feet is only like 1/5 of a mile, so detect object is really not going to help you much, unless you are looking for someone in the same building as yourself, or really close.
I'm not sure that there is any divination magic that would be able to detect or find you that doesn't explicitly target you. Detect Magic works for within 30 feet, so literally it is useless itself as you will be physically seeing the person anyway. Detect Object is probably not going to be useful most of the time either as it is still a relatively small distance. So I'm not sure if in actual play it really matters if the items are covered or not as most likely if you are close enough to use the spells other than the scrying ones, you already know where the person is. Maybe to know which direction the item is going.
Well, Polymorph melds the items you are wearing and negates their effects for the duration of the spell. That's why I mentioned putting the amulet on AFTER the transformation to benefit from its effect.
Detect Magic would still notice items that are on your person, but it wouldn't detect YOU as magical. So, enhancement spells like Bless and Enhance Ability or transformation spells like Alter Self and Polymorph wouldn't be detected.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Invisibility and Polymorph I believe specifically state they affect the items you have on you. So at least as far as the rules go I'd assume that any magic that affects the items on you, the spell itself would mention that it does. (This isn't to say that the designers no where mentioned that the intent was that it affects the items too, nor the possibility that I missed the rule.)
1,000 feet is only like 1/5 of a mile, so detect object is really not going to help you much, unless you are looking for someone in the same building as yourself, or really close.
I'm not sure that there is any divination magic that would be able to detect or find you that doesn't explicitly target you. Detect Magic works for within 30 feet, so literally it is useless itself as you will be physically seeing the person anyway. Detect Object is probably not going to be useful most of the time either as it is still a relatively small distance. So I'm not sure if in actual play it really matters if the items are covered or not as most likely if you are close enough to use the spells other than the scrying ones, you already know where the person is. Maybe to know which direction the item is going.
Well, Polymorph melds the items you are wearing and negates their effects for the duration of the spell. That's why I mentioned putting the amulet on AFTER the transformation to benefit from its effect.
Detect Magic would still notice items that are on your person, but it wouldn't detect YOU as magical. So, enhancement spells like Bless and Enhance Ability or transformation spells like Alter Self and Polymorph wouldn't be detected.
I was using polymorph and invisibility as spells that specifically state what happens to equipment you have on yourself, to indicate the possibility that the amulet was not intended to affect your equipment as it did not specifically state that. Had nothing to really do with your comment.
Alarm isn't a divination spell and so I think wouldn't apply wouldn't apply. I can see the other ones. Not sure about Arcane Eye (At the very least you could deduce where a creature is if you knew its approximate location - creature still has to open doors and such). And if you chose the hearing aspect of clairvoyance I'm not sure if the amulet would prevent sound.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I don't see it as "scrying" as scrying seems to me to indicate having to locate a creature, which I feel alarm isn't really doing. Basically if you forced me to list scrying spells, Alarm wouldn't have been one of them I'd have listed.
I don't like the 5e description of the Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location. It's too vague in its description. I've always treated this item as its 2e version. It protects you and what you are wearing from detection, any detection magic. No auras, detection, or scrying magic will work on you or what you are carrying, all your items would show as mundane. I wish the 5e version gave some examples of spells it protects from like its 2e counterpart, but I realize they went for brevity and just let DM's decide the specifics.
I'm not a huge fan of brevity. Mostly because it slows the game down more than if the item had just had a more detailed description, as you end up with a player/dm discussion on whether or not something is possible. Or worse is when you waste a 9th level spell because you thought it worked one way and the DM thinks it looks another way and the dm doesn't let you take it back.
I'm not a huge fan of brevity. Mostly because it slows the game down more than if the item had just had a more detailed description, as you end up with a player/dm discussion on whether or not something is possible. Or worse is when you waste a 9th level spell because you thought it worked one way and the DM thinks it looks another way and the dm doesn't let you take it back.
My experience is that no matter how many words are used describing something, there can and will be a player/dm discussion about how it works. In fact, I find that the more words on the page, the more opportunities there are to take something as meaning something other than what the writer intended or another reader might take it as meaning.
And in all cases, a DM not letting you take back an action you never would have stated for your character if you understood some game element as working the way the DM understands it is a trait completely unrelated to brevity or the lack thereof - it's all about whether the DM ascribes to the adversarial jerk school of DMing or not.
I'm not a huge fan of brevity. Mostly because it slows the game down more than if the item had just had a more detailed description, as you end up with a player/dm discussion on whether or not something is possible. Or worse is when you waste a 9th level spell because you thought it worked one way and the DM thinks it looks another way and the dm doesn't let you take it back.
My experience is that no matter how many words are used describing something, there can and will be a player/dm discussion about how it works. In fact, I find that the more words on the page, the more opportunities there are to take something as meaning something other than what the writer intended or another reader might take it as meaning.
And in all cases, a DM not letting you take back an action you never would have stated for your character if you understood some game element as working the way the DM understands it is a trait completely unrelated to brevity or the lack thereof - it's all about whether the DM ascribes to the adversarial jerk school of DMing or not.
This is largely a side effect of two things, one fixable and one not. The first is that the rulebooks are written in conversational tone. This is done to make them far more approachable and actually interesting to read, but also means that ambiguities can exist which would otherwise not exist should the rulebook be written in concise and exacting terminology. The "fix" is to write it in such terminology, but I think as a whole that would be a detriment; while the rules would indeed be clearer, they would still not cover everything (my 2nd thing I was talking about), and it'd be horribly boring to read, meaning more players would be turned off by the system and there would be less players overall. If you want an example of what such a rulebook would theoretically look like, take a peek at Magic: the Gathering's comprehensive rulebook.
The second thing is that no rulebook could possibly cover every possible option available to PCs and DMs. A large premise behind D&D and other tabletop roleplaying games is that you can "do anything" and "be anyone." A rulebook could constrain you to only doing a very small list of things, but that would harm that premise. Even if D&D did have an exactingly precise rulebook like MtG's, it could still not cover every possible rules interaction and corner case, meaning DMs will still need to adjudicate various things.
Brevity can be effective, but brevity to the point that it introduces new ambiguities is not helping anyone. I believe the amulet is such a case of this, as I think it is logical that it would apply to equipment, whereas there is no mention of such. This opens it up to loopholes, however short-ranged, where it doesn't protect against something it is theoretically supposed to protect against. Adding a single sentence listing a couple of example spells it protects against would go a long way in clearing up how it is "supposed" to work, without adding paragraphs of text that still cannot cover everything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
According to the description, an Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location, you are hidden from divination magic. So if someone cast a detect magic spell on the wearer, would they just appear to be wearing a non-magical amulet?
God and Gaming.
Detect magic is a divination spell, so for purposes the Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location the detect magic would reveal nothing. The quirk comes in how the DM chooses to interpret "nothing": the character appears to be adorned with mundane equipment or the character is just not there, hidden entirely from the the senses of the caster using the detect magic. I've always adjudicated detect magic as the caster visually inspects the object, then focuses on the item with the first round showing the item is magical (or not), the second round the degree of strength in the dweomer, and finally the school of magic in the third round. At that point the caster can take an action in the fourth round to make an Arcana check to ID the item, DC based on the scarcity of the item. Using my logic, the caster would see the item and go to focus on it and it would simply vanish, hidden by the Amulet.
We all leave footprints in the sands of time.
The way I would rule it, detect magic detects magical auras around it. If you are wearing a amulet of proof against detection and location, the amulet obscures all magical auras on you. As such, detect magic would not detect anything on you, as if all of your equipment was mundane and you were not currently affected by any active spells.
Unlike what Rexx said, the person or item does not "vanish", merely it just appears to be non-magical. Having something vanish would be a very odd interpretation of the rules, in my opinion.
We all leave footprints in the sands of time.
Sure, if you and your players like it and find it interesting by running it your way, more power to you! I just don't think such an interpretation is what the "rules as written" dictate. It says you cannot be targeted, but it also says that you are "hidden" from divination magic as well. I read that as two separate restrictions, rather than one clarifying the other -- you cannot be directly targeted by such magic, and should there be area of effect divination that includes you, you are "hidden" from it.
I personally read hidden to be in the context of the divination spell being applied; in the case of detect magic, that would mean you are hidden from having magic detected on you, rather than hidden from sight.
Technically the spell says that you can't be the target or perceived. This means that the amulet itself could potentially still give off a magical aura through the use of detect magic, as well as other items that may be on you. Detect magic isn't actually targeting you so I believe it should still work. So I think detect magic would still work for the items on you since they aren't protected.
Basically the way I see it, detect magic is targeting you, not the person with the amulet. And says "you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you." So you would be able to still know the person in front of you has magical items, as they aren't the target of the spell, and it has nothing to do with being perceived with scrying magic.
SO you would still be there, but you couldn't be the target. However, if your friend standing next to you is the target of scrying, you would not be perceived. It would simply be like they were talking to nothing, or possibly someone else in the room outside of your field of vision with the spell. Essentially the spell can't perceive you, and so it appears that no one is there.
I'm with NightsLastHero on this one. The Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location protects YOU from being the target of a divination spell. It says nothing about your armor and equipment. I believe that is RAI, since almost all divination spells like [Tooltip Not Found] and Detect Evil and Good are focused on a creature, not its possessions.
I wouldn't expect Detect Poison and Disease to not notice the poison in a cup simply because you are holding the cup. Now, if the poisonous creature was the one wearing it, then I'd say that detect poison and disease doesn't work against the creature. I think the amulet is worded the way it is on purpose. I think it's meant to block spells that specifically target a creature. Since Detect Magic doesn't target the wearer, but it simply points out magical auras, I'd say the amulet itself would be what gives you away.
Now, maybe the aura that appears doesn't surround you as it does most other times a magical source is identified, but rather ONLY appears around the item itself. For example, if you were under the effects of a Polymorph or Disguise Self and wearing the amulet, I don't think detect magic would sense the effects of those spells (since those spells are directly affecting you), but it would still detect the amulet (assuming that it was put on after the polymorph, otherwise the item wouldn't work).
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
The second sentence (points 2 and 3) are not the entirety of what "hidden from divination magic" means, they are additional effects on top of being hidden from divination magic. Otherwise the "amulet of proof against detection and location" doesn't work against detection spells (like detect magic or detect evil and good), since such spells neither target you, nor are they scrying sensors. I hope you would agree that the intent of the item is not that it doesn't work against things that the item's name itself indicates it should work against.
(And without also applying to gear you're wearing, it isn't all that "proofy" against location either...)
Invisibility and Polymorph I believe specifically state they affect the items you have on you. So at least as far as the rules go I'd assume that any magic that affects the items on you, the spell itself would mention that it does. (This isn't to say that the designers no where mentioned that the intent was that it affects the items too, nor the possibility that I missed the rule.)
1,000 feet is only like 1/5 of a mile, so detect object is really not going to help you much, unless you are looking for someone in the same building as yourself, or really close.
I'm not sure that there is any divination magic that would be able to detect or find you that doesn't explicitly target you. Detect Magic works for within 30 feet, so literally it is useless itself as you will be physically seeing the person anyway. Detect Object is probably not going to be useful most of the time either as it is still a relatively small distance. So I'm not sure if in actual play it really matters if the items are covered or not as most likely if you are close enough to use the spells other than the scrying ones, you already know where the person is. Maybe to know which direction the item is going.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I'd argue Alarm would be a scrying sensor.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I am with skizzerzfor how the Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location works. Those three sentences are cumulative. Otherwise, it would be written: "You are hidden from divination magic that target you".
Thank you all for your input! It helped me immensely.
God and Gaming.
I don't like the 5e description of the Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location. It's too vague in its description. I've always treated this item as its 2e version. It protects you and what you are wearing from detection, any detection magic. No auras, detection, or scrying magic will work on you or what you are carrying, all your items would show as mundane. I wish the 5e version gave some examples of spells it protects from like its 2e counterpart, but I realize they went for brevity and just let DM's decide the specifics.
I'm not a huge fan of brevity. Mostly because it slows the game down more than if the item had just had a more detailed description, as you end up with a player/dm discussion on whether or not something is possible. Or worse is when you waste a 9th level spell because you thought it worked one way and the DM thinks it looks another way and the dm doesn't let you take it back.