You are welcome to interpret it that way if you choose, but given 5e’s use of natural language, such a fussy technical extrapolation from the use of the word “the” seems too pedantic to be a clear case of RAI.
You are welcome to interpret it that way if you choose, but given 5e’s use of natural language, such a fussy technical extrapolation from the use of the word “the” seems too pedantic to be a clear case of RAI.
"The" is a pretty simple word. I'd wager most people know what it means, and that it safely falls into "natural language".
Edit: it is intuitive too.
You go outside on a stormy day. Do you detect the presence of rain?
How do you answer that? Yes, or No.
Not "I detect the presence of multiple rains." Or "I detect many presences of rain". Those answers do not follow natural language responses.
A natural language response is "Yeah, I detected the presence of rain."
The word ‘The’ in natural language is know as a Definite Article and is used in conjunction with the following Noun ‘presence’, google it.
An Invisible Stalker is an Elemental Creature, can be summoned by means of an upcasted Counjure Elemental spell ( among other means ), and is inherently magical in nature.
Just because it can make itself extremely difficult to see, does not mean ways of detecting it do not exist.
Detect Magic would light it up like a Christmas tree in the middle of an empty desert so long as you have the ability to “see” its aura.
( oh and homebrew has its places, as a quick reminder to all. )
The word ‘The’ in natural language is know as a Definite Article and is used in conjunction with the following Noun ‘presence’, google it.
An Invisible Stalker is an Elemental Creature, can be summoned by means of an upcasted Counjure Elemental spell ( among other means ), and is inherently magical in nature.
Just because it can make itself extremely difficult to see, does not mean ways of detecting it do not exist.
Detect Magic would light it up like a Christmas tree in the middle of an empty desert so long as you have the ability to “see” its aura.
( oh and homebrew has its places, as a quick reminder to all. )
No, per the spell’s description you wouldn’t get an aura, because you need to be able to see the creature or object to get an aura. However, it is entirely reasonable and within the scope of the description for a DM to say “you detect the presence of invisibility magic” or somesuch. Or they could rule otherwise, if they so wish. At the end of the day, what “presence” magic has and how it is perceived via this spell is almost entirely DMs discretion.
There is one more point against the idea that “presence” should simply be a binary “yes/no”; there’s a Wand of Detect Magic, and if you insist on that interpretation it loses significant value as the wand itself would block out anything that cannot show an aura, which would rather ruin the purpose of the item.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You sense the presence or you don't sence the presence.
This may be a pendantic thing here but it says "the" presence.
Not:
Detect "any" presence of magic.
Detect "a" presence of magic.
Detect "whatever" presence of magic.
Etc.
It is Detect "the" presence of magic.
This is a boolean. Yes/no.
Is the present in his office. Is the car on. Is the boat sinking. Is the map in the glovebox.
These are yes/no. Because "the".
I got quotes!
You are welcome to interpret it that way if you choose, but given 5e’s use of natural language, such a fussy technical extrapolation from the use of the word “the” seems too pedantic to be a clear case of RAI.
"The" is a pretty simple word. I'd wager most people know what it means, and that it safely falls into "natural language".
Edit: it is intuitive too.
You go outside on a stormy day. Do you detect the presence of rain?
How do you answer that? Yes, or No.
Not "I detect the presence of multiple rains." Or "I detect many presences of rain". Those answers do not follow natural language responses.
A natural language response is "Yeah, I detected the presence of rain."
I got quotes!
The word ‘The’ in natural language is know as a Definite Article and is used in conjunction with the following Noun ‘presence’, google it.
An Invisible Stalker is an Elemental Creature, can be summoned by means of an upcasted Counjure Elemental spell ( among other means ), and is inherently magical in nature.
Just because it can make itself extremely difficult to see, does not mean ways of detecting it do not exist.
Detect Magic would light it up like a Christmas tree in the middle of an empty desert so long as you have the ability to “see” its aura.
( oh and homebrew has its places, as a quick reminder to all. )
Byte my shiny metal ass
No, per the spell’s description you wouldn’t get an aura, because you need to be able to see the creature or object to get an aura. However, it is entirely reasonable and within the scope of the description for a DM to say “you detect the presence of invisibility magic” or somesuch. Or they could rule otherwise, if they so wish. At the end of the day, what “presence” magic has and how it is perceived via this spell is almost entirely DMs discretion.
There is one more point against the idea that “presence” should simply be a binary “yes/no”; there’s a Wand of Detect Magic, and if you insist on that interpretation it loses significant value as the wand itself would block out anything that cannot show an aura, which would rather ruin the purpose of the item.