Yep. While under the effect of nondetection, you cannot be targeted by detect magic. The thing is, detect magic only targets whoever it's cast on. So all that really means is that you can't have detect magic cast on you.
"Magical scrying sensors" refers to spells like scrying, arcane eye, divination, and debatably alarm and find familiar.
Every actual 'Detect' spell only targets self. So, what you are arguing, is that the purpose of Non-Detection seems to be to protect the recipient from scrying and from... being able to use detect spells themselves?
Alarm (and Glyph of Warding and Symbol and similar spells) are abjuration, not divination, so none of those are affected. Find Familiar is a conjuration...
They don't have to be divination for you to be hidden from them, they just have to magical scrying sensors, which arguably alarm and find familiar are.
Nondetection prevents you from things like locate creature, which is a divination spell that targets a person.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Yep. While under the effect of nondetection, you cannot be targeted by detect magic. The thing is, detect magic only targets whoever it's cast on. So all that really means is that you can't have detect magic cast on you.
"Magical scrying sensors" refers to spells like scrying, arcane eye, divination, and debatably alarm and find familiar.
Every actual 'Detect' spell only targets self. So, what you are arguing, is that the purpose of Non-Detection seems to be to protect the recipient from scrying and from... being able to use detect spells themselves?
Alarm (and Glyph of Warding and Symbol and similar spells) are abjuration, not divination, so none of those are affected. Find Familiar is a conjuration...
They don't have to be divination for you to be hidden from them, they just have to magical scrying sensors, which arguably alarm and find familiar are.
Nondetection prevents you from things like locate creature, which is a divination spell that targets a person.
"For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic. The target can be a willing creature or a place or an object no larger than 10 feet in any dimension. The target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors."
Alarm is not scrying. It is not detecting remotely. It is reacting to something entering its area of effect.
Familiars are summoned creatures. If it affects a familiar's ability to detect the target, it would make the target immune to normal sensory detection on the part of all creatures. Again, that is not scrying.
Looking through the familiar's eyes is most certainly scrying. It's debatable whether or not that makes the familiar a scrying sensors whilst looking through it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Nondetection prevents you from things like locate creature, which is a divination spell that targets a person.
Locate Creature has a range of "Self", doesn't use the word "target" in its description but instead says "You sense the direction to the creature's location". Detect Magic has a range of "Self", doesn't use the word "target" in its description but instead says "you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you".
Any argument made that one of them beats Nondetection but that the other doesn't has some serious explaining to do to convince me because both their wordings and they way they work are very similar.
Nondetection prevents you from things like locate creature, which is a divination spell that targets a person.
Locate Creature has a range of "Self", doesn't use the word "target" in its description but instead says "You sense the direction to the creature's location". Detect Magic has a range of "Self", doesn't use the word "target" in its description but instead says "you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you".
Any argument made that one of them beats Nondetection but that the other doesn't has some serious explaining to do to convince me because both their wordings and they way they work are very similar.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Nondetection works on stuff like See Invisibility, which is a self-targeting divination spell. It similarly works on any divination spell at all. This is according to Jeremy Crawford.
This is, in my reading, the correct interpretation RAW. You guys are focusing on the last sentence of the spell's description, but I believe the first sentence is actually the crucial one: "For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic." Clearly, if you are hidden from divination magic, that includes self-targeted divination magic that gazes upon you. The language of that sentence is agnostic to whom the spell is officially targeting. This effect is in addition to the effects of not being targetable by divination magic, or seen by magical scrying sensors, which are described in the last sentence of the description.
Here's the thing: The words "hide" and "hidden" have a mechanical meaning in 5e. There's a whole sidebar in Chapter 7 that provides rules for hiding. There is a hide action defined in Chapter 9 and the general definition given is that if you are hidden then you are unseen and unheard and therefore your location is unknown and as a consequence you are untargetable. However, even when you are hidden you can still be damaged by a fireball spell since that is an AOE spell that does not directly target creatures or objects.
Regardless of what JC has tweeted on the subject, the wording for the Nondetection spell reads to me like the first sentence is basically flavor text that explains what is happening with the spell -- that the target of the spell is hidden from divination magic. What does this mean mechanically? Well, the following sentences provide the mechanical explanation for what is actually happening in the first sentence. The explanation is that "hidden from divination magic" means "the target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors."
It might be interesting to note that there is a magical item that has nearly identical wording -- the Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location: "While wearing this amulet, you are hidden from divination magic. You can’t be targeted by such magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors." A description of what the item does is given that uses a technical term in its definition. That term is then defined and explained so that the full meaning of the description becomes clear.
The text in that spell description has nothing to do with the Hide action. For one thing, you are not using the Hide action. You are not rolling a Dex(Stealth) check, and no one is rolling a Wis(Perception) check against it. Secondly, there is no "hidden" condition. The conditions the Hide action applies are "unseen" and "unheard."
Therefore, since you're not taking the hiding action and there's no "hidden" condition, the only way to interpret the the first sentence is the plain-language interpretation. And that means that you are not revealed under the gaze of divination spells.
Regarding your next point, "hidden from divination magic" does not exactly mean "can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors." One crucial difference is that the first quote also includes hiding you from the gaze of all self-casted spells not casted upon you, such as See Invisibility and Detect Magic. Conversely, a second difference is that the first quote does not protect you from spells like Hunter's Mark (because it's not used to detect you in the first place), while the second quote does. These are not equal statements at all. Therefore, the first sentence cannot simply be dismissed as flavor text by citing redundancy, because it is introducing unique content to the spell effect.
I get that GMs can rule how they wish at their own table, and you can choose to interpret it however you want. I'm not trying to take that away from you. But I think the most consistent interpretation RAW, and the one that is consistent with the JC ruling, is the one I gave above. In order to arrive at your conclusion, you have to blow off the ruling, the first sentence of the spell description, and invoke rule definitions of "hide" that don't exist in this context. At that point, it is basically a house rule.
Not surprisingly, I disagree with everything you just said.
It's unfortunate that you are clinging so hard to the fact that I mentioned that a Hide action exists as if that were a major part of my idea. As if I were somehow claiming that we are taking the Hide action in this scenario. The Hide action has nothing to do with anything here. I was merely listing all of the various places where the words "hide" or "hidden" appear in the rulebooks where these terms have a specific, mechanical meaning. You can literally just open each chapter and do a search for these words which is basically what I did in order to simply explain that this is a widespread concept throughout the game. I see that it would have been more clear if I had broken that thought into two sentences. Like, hey, the Hide action exists where these terms "hide" and "hidden" have a real meaning. Period. Also, the general definition for "hide" or "hidden" in places where these terms have a real mechanical meaning is that you are unseen and unheard and therefore your location is unknown and as a consequence you are untargetable.
Maybe a block quote of text from the rulebooks would make the idea more clear:
If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's locationor you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see
The implication is that when you are hidden your location is unknown and you cannot be targeted. In the case of attacking, the rules allow your general location to be targeted if guessed correctly, but many spells require that a creature is targeted, not a location. In that case, there is no valid target -- because you are hidden. Notice that when it comes to the concept of targeting, the word hidden is NOT just flavor -- it's a game term that has a very important, specific, mechanical consequence.
No one is claiming that there is a "hidden" condition -- it's not listed as one of the Conditions. But as long as we're playing that game, there is also NOT an "unseen" Condition, nor an "unheard" Condition anywhere in this game either. Regardless, "hidden" has a meaning in the game -- as a consequence of being both unseen and unheard at the same time and also undiscovered by any other means, your location is unknown and you cannot be targeted.
Therefore, since you're not taking the hiding action and there's no "hidden" condition, the only way to interpret the the first sentence is the plain-language interpretation. And that means that you are not revealed under the gaze of divination spells.
Wrong. Not taking the Hide action and the lack of existence of a Hidden Condition does NOT mean that your interpretation is correct or that it is the only interpretation. This is flawed logic -- one thought does not lead to the other in any way, shape, or form. There is indeed another interpretation which I happen to believe is most correct, which is that "the target can't be targeted by any divination magic". The spell description then gives an additional ability -- that the target can't be perceived through magical scrying sensors.
My argument has nothing to do with redundancy. Yes, I agree that both sentences standing on their own in plain-english taken out of the context of the game would not mean the same thing. My whole point is that I do not think that these are meant to be standalone sentences. It reads to me like it's one sentence that uses a mechanical term. The second sentence then defines that term and what it means for the spell.
To be clear, tons and tons of spells in the game are written with that style. Introducing the spell with some flavor text that generally describes what is going on. Followed by a detailed mechanical description of how it impacts the game. To pick a spell at random, consider "Reverse Gravity". That spell starts with this: "This spell reverses gravity in a 50-foot-radius, 100-foot high cylinder centered on a point within range." Ok, great. But what does that MEAN??? Well, it tells you in the following sentences: "All creatures and objects that aren’t somehow anchored to the ground in the area fall upward and reach the top of the area when you cast this spell." So, RAW, this spell affects creatures and objects ONLY. We just had this discussion in the Tiny Hut thread. What sorts of things are not creatures or objects according to the game? Well, things like fire breath, water, air, sand, sound, oil, ale and so on are not considered to be objects under some interpretations. But wait! Should we just go back to the first sentence and note that "gravity is reversed" and just extend that to everything we know about gravity in the real world and all of the scientific consequences that we can possibly think of? No. The second sentence is what describes what actually happens in the game. Creatures and objects are affected -- that's it. The first sentence doesn't really mean anything -- it's just the description of the spell. Again, tons of spells in the game are like that. Should the D&D 5e writers have made it more clear which parts are flavor and which have mechanical consequences? YES!!! But unfortunately they didn't make it very clear to everyone -- it takes a bit of reading between the lines.
Let's just cut to the chase. You say that they were unclear about what parts of the description are flavor vs mechanically relevant. However, they did make it absolutely, 100%, crystal clear in the case of Non-detection. The Lead Designer of 5e said, "The nondetection spell hides you from divination magic. See invisibility is a divination spell." He's not exactly mincing words there. There is no wiggle room in the interpretation of that statement. It's iron-clad. The Non-detection spell hides you from divination magic, including those that are self-cast on a separate target like See Invisibility. (I linked that above.) And there is a sentence in the spell description that directly states that intention, which is the plain-text reading of the first sentence.
Just look at the similarity of Jeremy Crawford's own clarification with the sentence you're trying to say is not mechanically relevant:
"The nondetection spell hides you from divination magic. See invisibility is a divination spell.""
"For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic."
If we just had the JC clarification but not the supporting plain-text reading, then we could say that his clarification is at least supportive on an RAI level. But since we have both the clarification, and it is consistent with the plain-text reading of the first sentence, then that's full-blown RAI and RAW support. The full monty.
You can pretend the first sentence doesn't exist, but then we can say at a minimum that it's not RAW. Once you start talking about whether something was meant to be mechanically relevant or not, trying to get into the designers' heads that way, and start applying white-out to sentences out of your book based on what you think it was supposed to say, instead of what it literally says, you're getting into RAI territory. And at that point, you cannot possibly be supported on a RAI basis either, because we have the Lead Designer saying their actual intentions, in no uncertain terms. No RAI and no RAW leaves home-brew. Nothing wrong with home-brew, but let's just call it what it is. A personal spin on a written rule whose plain-text reading is directly corroborated by the Lead Designer.
But why would they write it this way if the first sentence provides a blanket immunity of sorts? Why not just write "For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic and magical scrying sensors" and that's it? Under your interpretation why even bother to clarify that you cannot be targeted? Shouldn't that already be obvious?
Suppose you were affected by a spell that said something like: "For the duration, you are hidden from fire. You cannot be targeted by any fire-based spells." Then, an enemy casts Fireball on a nearby area and you are within the AOE. Under your interpretation, I assume that you take no damage. Under my interpretation, you do. The reason is because of the words that were chosen and the style of writing which is consistent across many, but not all, spell descriptions. The word "hidden" has a meaning throughout the game -- that your location is unknown and you cannot be targeted. This is further confirmed and clarified in the back half of the spell description. The style of writing is overall description -> mechanical consequences.
It would definitely help tremendously if the game creators stopped using this style of writing in the future. They could at least put flavor text in italics or something or they could just not write any spells in this way. But I'm not holding my breath for such changes.
So wait a minute, now we are saying that the use of the word "targeted" in the context of "the creature can't be targeted" doesn't have a specific, mechanical meaning either? Now we are really stretching it. The word "targeted" in this context appears literally hundreds, if not thousands of times throughout the game and it always has a specific, mechanical meaning. I can understand arguing against the normal 5e consequences of using the word "hidden", but making the same argument for "targeted"? You've lost me there.
Look, I don't really feel very strongly about this one. After all, the spell does say the words that you guys are saying so your interpretation really can't be wrong. I am just reading this spell description differently and presenting it here as an option for people so that they can rule how they think is best.
So wait a minute, now we are saying that the use of the word "targeted" in the context of "the creature can't be targeted" doesn't have a specific, mechanical meaning either? Now we are really stretching it. The word "targeted" in this context appears literally hundreds, if not thousands of times throughout the game and it always has a specific, mechanical meaning. I can understand arguing against the normal 5e consequences of using the word "hidden", but making the same argument for "targeted"? You've lost me there.
The problem here is that the designers doesn't always stick to that specific meaning.
Spells like Detect Magic or See Invisibility has a clear target (self) and it then let you sense or see things. So if I follow your argument you think that if you cast either of those spells and I cast Nondetection then that would do me no good because your spell doesn't target me. Right?
The thing here though is that if you look at how the designers reason when it comes to the Twinned Spell metamagic (which requires a single "target"). They say (in the SAC) that they intend that a spell like Ice Knife cannot be twinned even though it specifically has a single target but a secondary effect that can affect multiple creatures.
So it seems clear that the designers where working with some kind of primary and secondary target definition when they wrote the rules. And if they did so in one part of the rules that concern spells wouldn't it be logical that they did the same in another part of the rules for spells?
This is further confirmed and clarified in the back half of the spell description. The style of writing is overall description -> mechanical consequences.
It would definitely help tremendously if the game creators stopped using this style of writing in the future. They could at least put flavor text in italics or something or they could just not write any spells in this way. But I'm not holding my breath for such changes.
This I whole-heartedly agree with. I find it amusing that they say in the SAC that spells and class features sometimes have figurative names and that the text of said feature instead explains what it does. But then they quite often put figurative language in that text. A bit less artistic freedom would have been really helpful IMO.
Spells like Detect Magic or See Invisibility has a clear target (self) and it then let you sense or see things. So if I follow your argument you think that if you cast either of those spells and I cast Nondetection then that would do me no good because your spell doesn't target me. Right?
That's exactly correct even if it's a bit counterintuitive. When you cast See Invisibility on yourself the divination magic affects YOU and gives YOU an ability that you didn't have before. For the duration, you can look around and see things in the nearby environment that you couldn't see before. But, while you are looking around you are not somehow exuding divination magic out into the environment, shooting the magic out through your eyes or something. You simply have enhanced senses due to the divination magic that is at work within you. When you actually see an Invisible creature, no divination magic is involved in that sighting -- it's just your enhanced senses that is causing that. The same holds true for Detect Magic. You are perceiving things with enhanced senses but no divination magic is bouncing off of these objects that you are looking at. The magic is within -- hence, the target of "self" for these types of spells.
As for the SAC ruling regarding Twinned Spell metamagic not working on Ice Knife . . . honestly, their ruling is incorrect just like many of their other rulings are. They might be giving a RAI argument against this combo, but if we just read the ability and the spell it is clear that according to RAW that combo should work just fine. The ability requires that the spell "targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self" and that "a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level". There is no way to read the spell description for Ice Knife such that it targets more than one creature. Twinned Spell metamagic works on Ice Knife.
In my opinion, in this game the meaning of the term "targeted" in the context of "the creature can't be targeted" is pretty ironclad.
Again, if we want to assign a mechanical meaning to the first sentence of nondetection such that it provides blanket protection from AOE-type divination spells or whatever, that is certainly one possible interpretation -- I just don't read it that way. Even if I did, I suspect that a lot of things still would not work the way people are thinking (see the See Invisibility example above).
Really, I think that this spell is just not well written or well thought out -- it probably shouldn't be a 3rd level spell as written.
Spells like Detect Magic or See Invisibility has a clear target (self) and it then let you sense or see things. So if I follow your argument you think that if you cast either of those spells and I cast Nondetection then that would do me no good because your spell doesn't target me. Right?
That's exactly correct even if it's a bit counterintuitive. When you cast See Invisibility on yourself the divination magic affects YOU and gives YOU an ability that you didn't have before. For the duration, you can look around and see things in the nearby environment that you couldn't see before.
Exactly, it gives you the ability to divine others, rather than divining you. Hence, may argument. It is a divination spell but is not targeting the caster with divination.
Wait, what? I don't understand this argument at all. See Invisibility is a Divination spell that targets self. The magic affects yourself -- it gives you the ability to see others. Those "others" are not affected by or targeted by any divination magic at all. Nondetection does nothing to protect those "others" against this using either interpretation of the Nondetection spell.
It looks like one of your concerns from earlier in the thread is that if you have Nondetection cast upon yourself that you wouldn't be able to cast See Invisibility on yourself. Unfortunately, yes, that is a consequence of the Nondetection spell for the duration of that spell. The Nondetection spell is not well written and not well thought out.
Another quick point -- I just read through the whole thread again and at one point there was a suggestion as to which spells count as "magical scrying sensors". RAW, the only one that was suggested that actually qualifies is Scrying. There is also another one that wasn't mentioned called Clairvoyance. Maybe there are others but it's difficult to do a proper search for such things. But this is just more proof that Nondetection has quite limited utility and probably shouldn't be a 3rd level spell because of that.
I was never focused on the aspect that it prevents you from targeting yourself with divination spells but that is a clear side effect of the spell under either interpretation. Perhaps the spell description should have made an exception for being targeted by divination spells with a range of self but unfortunately that is not given by the spell description. This point should not be in any doubt. Whether you believe the first sentence of Nondetection is flavor or mechanical -- in both cases you cannot target yourself with a divination spell if you have Nondetection cast on yourself, that should be pretty clear.
The main discussion is whether or not "protects one from being divined" is limited to being targeted or if it's a blanket protection from all divination magic. I think both interpretations have their merits on that one -- but as we have seen, a lot of things still may not work as expected in either case.
I was never focused on the aspect that it prevents you from targeting yourself with divination spells but that is a clear side effect of the spell under either interpretation. Perhaps the spell description should have made an exception for being targeted by divination spells with a range of self but unfortunately that is not given by the spell description. This point should not be in any doubt. Whether you believe the first sentence of Nondetection is flavor or mechanical -- in both cases you cannot target yourself with a divination spell if you have Nondetection cast on yourself, that should be pretty clear.
The main discussion is whether or not "protects one from being divined" is limited to being targeted or if it's a blanket protection from all divination magic. I think both interpretations have their merits on that one -- but as we have seen, a lot of things still may not work as expected in either case.
The distinction should be made between end effect, i.e. being targeted by the ability granted, rather than by any aspect of the spell, i.e. the granting of the ability to use the ability granted. This is the same distinction that causes confusion with respect to Ice Knife.
Sorry, can you rephrase? I'm really not sure what you're saying here and I don't want to misinterpret. And how does the Ice Knife example relate to all of this again?
The spell 'See Invisible' targets self, granting the target the ability to see creatures or objects that are invisible.
- The argument here is that, because it targets self, non-detection should block that part of the spell, rather than the actual seeing through invisibility, as if the former is the actual divining and the latter simply 'is.'
The spell Ice Knife targets one person, doing damage if it hits, then subsequently does AE damage in the area of the target.
- Since it is ranged and has only one actual 'target,' the argument is that it should be twin-able, with the subsequent AE damage similarly something that simply 'is.'
Ok, this all lines up well with my interpretation so I guess I'm not sure if we're still disagreeing on anything? I might be losing the thread of this discussion though.
As for what the devs say about any of this, as always it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. They mostly comment on the RAI of things and the design decisions that went into that but many of the dev rulings quite clearly are incorrect regarding RAW. Just recently there was a forum post about Tiny Hut where the dev ruled one way and then a year later ruled in exactly the opposite way, more or less admitting that he had made a mistake. This is actually more common than it should be but it is what it is. It's better to have the Sage Advice to refer back to than to not have it at all, but just barely.
It looks like one of your concerns from earlier in the thread is that if you have Nondetection cast upon yourself that you wouldn't be able to cast See Invisibility on yourself. Unfortunately, yes, that is a consequence of the Nondetection spell for the duration of that spell. The Nondetection spell is not well written and not well thought out.
I just had a thought and actually if one rules this as strict as you've suggested it should be then Nondetection doesn't stop you from casting most of the spells with a range of "self" on yourself.
Just look at See Invisibility and Detect Magic, neither spell uses the word "target" (either for the caster or for anyone/thing you look at) and the spellcasting rules about "range" doesn't say anything about "target" either.
Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
This do seem fairly counter intuitive to me but then so does rulings that mean that Nondetection only works against something like seven spells in total.
It looks like one of your concerns from earlier in the thread is that if you have Nondetection cast upon yourself that you wouldn't be able to cast See Invisibility on yourself. Unfortunately, yes, that is a consequence of the Nondetection spell for the duration of that spell. The Nondetection spell is not well written and not well thought out.
I just had a thought and actually if one rules this as strict as you've suggested it should be then Nondetection doesn't stop you from casting most of the spells with a range of "self" on yourself.
Just look at See Invisibility and Detect Magic, neither spell uses the word "target" (either for the caster or for anyone/thing you look at) and the spellcasting rules about "range" doesn't say anything about "target" either.
Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
This do seem fairly counter intuitive to me but then so does rulings that mean that Nondetection only works against something like seven spells in total.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I kind of like it! This could be a good workaround. I'm not 100% sold but at first glance the sections in Chapter 10 on Range and on Targets and Targeting Yourself don't seem to present any obvious flaws with this idea although I'm going to go back and read it a few more times. I'm vaguely curious if Sage Advice has ever been asked this question of whether or not spells with a range of self actually target the caster.
Besides anything specific that pops up in those sections I've thought of a couple of minor issues that might refute this . . .
The first one is, ironically, the wording for Twinned Spell Metamagic. It says "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self". It seems unnecessary to exclude spells with a range of self in this context unless those spells target the caster.
The second issue: The entire spellcasting section on Range tells the story of where the target of the spell is allowed to be. It begins with "The target of a spell must be within the spell's range" and then the section goes on to describe how targeting is affected by various types of ranges. Then, the section on Targeting says "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets . . . creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect." The way I read this is that every spell in the game targets something "to be affected by the spell's magic" and therefore spells with a range of self must be targeting the caster. Of course, like everything else in this game the wording is pretty wishy-washy so it's potentially open to interpretation and perhaps this idea could work. But at this point I don't think I'll rule it that way.
They don't have to be divination for you to be hidden from them, they just have to magical scrying sensors, which arguably alarm and find familiar are.
Nondetection prevents you from things like locate creature, which is a divination spell that targets a person.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Looking through the familiar's eyes is most certainly scrying. It's debatable whether or not that makes the familiar a scrying sensors whilst looking through it.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
This is simply not true. It targets yourself when you cast it, and then it targets any magic in its AOE for the duration of the spell.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Locate Creature has a range of "Self", doesn't use the word "target" in its description but instead says "You sense the direction to the creature's location".
Detect Magic has a range of "Self", doesn't use the word "target" in its description but instead says "you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you".
Any argument made that one of them beats Nondetection but that the other doesn't has some serious explaining to do to convince me because both their wordings and they way they work are very similar.
Oh, that's pretty dumb. Sorry, I misremembered.
Well, still, it protects you from true strike (for all the good that does you), hunter's mark, identify, and mind spike.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Nondetection works on stuff like See Invisibility, which is a self-targeting divination spell. It similarly works on any divination spell at all. This is according to Jeremy Crawford.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/784553700182351873?lang=en
This is, in my reading, the correct interpretation RAW. You guys are focusing on the last sentence of the spell's description, but I believe the first sentence is actually the crucial one: "For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic." Clearly, if you are hidden from divination magic, that includes self-targeted divination magic that gazes upon you. The language of that sentence is agnostic to whom the spell is officially targeting. This effect is in addition to the effects of not being targetable by divination magic, or seen by magical scrying sensors, which are described in the last sentence of the description.
Here's the thing: The words "hide" and "hidden" have a mechanical meaning in 5e. There's a whole sidebar in Chapter 7 that provides rules for hiding. There is a hide action defined in Chapter 9 and the general definition given is that if you are hidden then you are unseen and unheard and therefore your location is unknown and as a consequence you are untargetable. However, even when you are hidden you can still be damaged by a fireball spell since that is an AOE spell that does not directly target creatures or objects.
Regardless of what JC has tweeted on the subject, the wording for the Nondetection spell reads to me like the first sentence is basically flavor text that explains what is happening with the spell -- that the target of the spell is hidden from divination magic. What does this mean mechanically? Well, the following sentences provide the mechanical explanation for what is actually happening in the first sentence. The explanation is that "hidden from divination magic" means "the target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors."
It might be interesting to note that there is a magical item that has nearly identical wording -- the Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location: "While wearing this amulet, you are hidden from divination magic. You can’t be targeted by such magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors." A description of what the item does is given that uses a technical term in its definition. That term is then defined and explained so that the full meaning of the description becomes clear.
The text in that spell description has nothing to do with the Hide action. For one thing, you are not using the Hide action. You are not rolling a Dex(Stealth) check, and no one is rolling a Wis(Perception) check against it. Secondly, there is no "hidden" condition. The conditions the Hide action applies are "unseen" and "unheard."
Therefore, since you're not taking the hiding action and there's no "hidden" condition, the only way to interpret the the first sentence is the plain-language interpretation. And that means that you are not revealed under the gaze of divination spells.
Regarding your next point, "hidden from divination magic" does not exactly mean "can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors." One crucial difference is that the first quote also includes hiding you from the gaze of all self-casted spells not casted upon you, such as See Invisibility and Detect Magic. Conversely, a second difference is that the first quote does not protect you from spells like Hunter's Mark (because it's not used to detect you in the first place), while the second quote does. These are not equal statements at all. Therefore, the first sentence cannot simply be dismissed as flavor text by citing redundancy, because it is introducing unique content to the spell effect.
I get that GMs can rule how they wish at their own table, and you can choose to interpret it however you want. I'm not trying to take that away from you. But I think the most consistent interpretation RAW, and the one that is consistent with the JC ruling, is the one I gave above. In order to arrive at your conclusion, you have to blow off the ruling, the first sentence of the spell description, and invoke rule definitions of "hide" that don't exist in this context. At that point, it is basically a house rule.
Not surprisingly, I disagree with everything you just said.
It's unfortunate that you are clinging so hard to the fact that I mentioned that a Hide action exists as if that were a major part of my idea. As if I were somehow claiming that we are taking the Hide action in this scenario. The Hide action has nothing to do with anything here. I was merely listing all of the various places where the words "hide" or "hidden" appear in the rulebooks where these terms have a specific, mechanical meaning. You can literally just open each chapter and do a search for these words which is basically what I did in order to simply explain that this is a widespread concept throughout the game. I see that it would have been more clear if I had broken that thought into two sentences. Like, hey, the Hide action exists where these terms "hide" and "hidden" have a real meaning. Period. Also, the general definition for "hide" or "hidden" in places where these terms have a real mechanical meaning is that you are unseen and unheard and therefore your location is unknown and as a consequence you are untargetable.
Maybe a block quote of text from the rulebooks would make the idea more clear:
The implication is that when you are hidden your location is unknown and you cannot be targeted. In the case of attacking, the rules allow your general location to be targeted if guessed correctly, but many spells require that a creature is targeted, not a location. In that case, there is no valid target -- because you are hidden. Notice that when it comes to the concept of targeting, the word hidden is NOT just flavor -- it's a game term that has a very important, specific, mechanical consequence.
No one is claiming that there is a "hidden" condition -- it's not listed as one of the Conditions. But as long as we're playing that game, there is also NOT an "unseen" Condition, nor an "unheard" Condition anywhere in this game either. Regardless, "hidden" has a meaning in the game -- as a consequence of being both unseen and unheard at the same time and also undiscovered by any other means, your location is unknown and you cannot be targeted.
Wrong. Not taking the Hide action and the lack of existence of a Hidden Condition does NOT mean that your interpretation is correct or that it is the only interpretation. This is flawed logic -- one thought does not lead to the other in any way, shape, or form. There is indeed another interpretation which I happen to believe is most correct, which is that "the target can't be targeted by any divination magic". The spell description then gives an additional ability -- that the target can't be perceived through magical scrying sensors.
My argument has nothing to do with redundancy. Yes, I agree that both sentences standing on their own in plain-english taken out of the context of the game would not mean the same thing. My whole point is that I do not think that these are meant to be standalone sentences. It reads to me like it's one sentence that uses a mechanical term. The second sentence then defines that term and what it means for the spell.
To be clear, tons and tons of spells in the game are written with that style. Introducing the spell with some flavor text that generally describes what is going on. Followed by a detailed mechanical description of how it impacts the game. To pick a spell at random, consider "Reverse Gravity". That spell starts with this: "This spell reverses gravity in a 50-foot-radius, 100-foot high cylinder centered on a point within range." Ok, great. But what does that MEAN??? Well, it tells you in the following sentences: "All creatures and objects that aren’t somehow anchored to the ground in the area fall upward and reach the top of the area when you cast this spell." So, RAW, this spell affects creatures and objects ONLY. We just had this discussion in the Tiny Hut thread. What sorts of things are not creatures or objects according to the game? Well, things like fire breath, water, air, sand, sound, oil, ale and so on are not considered to be objects under some interpretations. But wait! Should we just go back to the first sentence and note that "gravity is reversed" and just extend that to everything we know about gravity in the real world and all of the scientific consequences that we can possibly think of? No. The second sentence is what describes what actually happens in the game. Creatures and objects are affected -- that's it. The first sentence doesn't really mean anything -- it's just the description of the spell. Again, tons of spells in the game are like that. Should the D&D 5e writers have made it more clear which parts are flavor and which have mechanical consequences? YES!!! But unfortunately they didn't make it very clear to everyone -- it takes a bit of reading between the lines.
Let's just cut to the chase. You say that they were unclear about what parts of the description are flavor vs mechanically relevant. However, they did make it absolutely, 100%, crystal clear in the case of Non-detection. The Lead Designer of 5e said, "The nondetection spell hides you from divination magic. See invisibility is a divination spell." He's not exactly mincing words there. There is no wiggle room in the interpretation of that statement. It's iron-clad. The Non-detection spell hides you from divination magic, including those that are self-cast on a separate target like See Invisibility. (I linked that above.) And there is a sentence in the spell description that directly states that intention, which is the plain-text reading of the first sentence.
Just look at the similarity of Jeremy Crawford's own clarification with the sentence you're trying to say is not mechanically relevant:
"The nondetection spell hides you from divination magic. See invisibility is a divination spell.""
"For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic."
If we just had the JC clarification but not the supporting plain-text reading, then we could say that his clarification is at least supportive on an RAI level. But since we have both the clarification, and it is consistent with the plain-text reading of the first sentence, then that's full-blown RAI and RAW support. The full monty.
You can pretend the first sentence doesn't exist, but then we can say at a minimum that it's not RAW. Once you start talking about whether something was meant to be mechanically relevant or not, trying to get into the designers' heads that way, and start applying white-out to sentences out of your book based on what you think it was supposed to say, instead of what it literally says, you're getting into RAI territory. And at that point, you cannot possibly be supported on a RAI basis either, because we have the Lead Designer saying their actual intentions, in no uncertain terms. No RAI and no RAW leaves home-brew. Nothing wrong with home-brew, but let's just call it what it is. A personal spin on a written rule whose plain-text reading is directly corroborated by the Lead Designer.
But why would they write it this way if the first sentence provides a blanket immunity of sorts? Why not just write "For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic and magical scrying sensors" and that's it? Under your interpretation why even bother to clarify that you cannot be targeted? Shouldn't that already be obvious?
Suppose you were affected by a spell that said something like: "For the duration, you are hidden from fire. You cannot be targeted by any fire-based spells." Then, an enemy casts Fireball on a nearby area and you are within the AOE. Under your interpretation, I assume that you take no damage. Under my interpretation, you do. The reason is because of the words that were chosen and the style of writing which is consistent across many, but not all, spell descriptions. The word "hidden" has a meaning throughout the game -- that your location is unknown and you cannot be targeted. This is further confirmed and clarified in the back half of the spell description. The style of writing is overall description -> mechanical consequences.
It would definitely help tremendously if the game creators stopped using this style of writing in the future. They could at least put flavor text in italics or something or they could just not write any spells in this way. But I'm not holding my breath for such changes.
So wait a minute, now we are saying that the use of the word "targeted" in the context of "the creature can't be targeted" doesn't have a specific, mechanical meaning either? Now we are really stretching it. The word "targeted" in this context appears literally hundreds, if not thousands of times throughout the game and it always has a specific, mechanical meaning. I can understand arguing against the normal 5e consequences of using the word "hidden", but making the same argument for "targeted"? You've lost me there.
Look, I don't really feel very strongly about this one. After all, the spell does say the words that you guys are saying so your interpretation really can't be wrong. I am just reading this spell description differently and presenting it here as an option for people so that they can rule how they think is best.
The problem here is that the designers doesn't always stick to that specific meaning.
Spells like Detect Magic or See Invisibility has a clear target (self) and it then let you sense or see things. So if I follow your argument you think that if you cast either of those spells and I cast Nondetection then that would do me no good because your spell doesn't target me. Right?
The thing here though is that if you look at how the designers reason when it comes to the Twinned Spell metamagic (which requires a single "target"). They say (in the SAC) that they intend that a spell like Ice Knife cannot be twinned even though it specifically has a single target but a secondary effect that can affect multiple creatures.
So it seems clear that the designers where working with some kind of primary and secondary target definition when they wrote the rules. And if they did so in one part of the rules that concern spells wouldn't it be logical that they did the same in another part of the rules for spells?
This I whole-heartedly agree with. I find it amusing that they say in the SAC that spells and class features sometimes have figurative names and that the text of said feature instead explains what it does. But then they quite often put figurative language in that text. A bit less artistic freedom would have been really helpful IMO.
That's exactly correct even if it's a bit counterintuitive. When you cast See Invisibility on yourself the divination magic affects YOU and gives YOU an ability that you didn't have before. For the duration, you can look around and see things in the nearby environment that you couldn't see before. But, while you are looking around you are not somehow exuding divination magic out into the environment, shooting the magic out through your eyes or something. You simply have enhanced senses due to the divination magic that is at work within you. When you actually see an Invisible creature, no divination magic is involved in that sighting -- it's just your enhanced senses that is causing that. The same holds true for Detect Magic. You are perceiving things with enhanced senses but no divination magic is bouncing off of these objects that you are looking at. The magic is within -- hence, the target of "self" for these types of spells.
As for the SAC ruling regarding Twinned Spell metamagic not working on Ice Knife . . . honestly, their ruling is incorrect just like many of their other rulings are. They might be giving a RAI argument against this combo, but if we just read the ability and the spell it is clear that according to RAW that combo should work just fine. The ability requires that the spell "targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self" and that "a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level". There is no way to read the spell description for Ice Knife such that it targets more than one creature. Twinned Spell metamagic works on Ice Knife.
In my opinion, in this game the meaning of the term "targeted" in the context of "the creature can't be targeted" is pretty ironclad.
Again, if we want to assign a mechanical meaning to the first sentence of nondetection such that it provides blanket protection from AOE-type divination spells or whatever, that is certainly one possible interpretation -- I just don't read it that way. Even if I did, I suspect that a lot of things still would not work the way people are thinking (see the See Invisibility example above).
Really, I think that this spell is just not well written or well thought out -- it probably shouldn't be a 3rd level spell as written.
Wait, what? I don't understand this argument at all. See Invisibility is a Divination spell that targets self. The magic affects yourself -- it gives you the ability to see others. Those "others" are not affected by or targeted by any divination magic at all. Nondetection does nothing to protect those "others" against this using either interpretation of the Nondetection spell.
It looks like one of your concerns from earlier in the thread is that if you have Nondetection cast upon yourself that you wouldn't be able to cast See Invisibility on yourself. Unfortunately, yes, that is a consequence of the Nondetection spell for the duration of that spell. The Nondetection spell is not well written and not well thought out.
Another quick point -- I just read through the whole thread again and at one point there was a suggestion as to which spells count as "magical scrying sensors". RAW, the only one that was suggested that actually qualifies is Scrying. There is also another one that wasn't mentioned called Clairvoyance. Maybe there are others but it's difficult to do a proper search for such things. But this is just more proof that Nondetection has quite limited utility and probably shouldn't be a 3rd level spell because of that.
I was never focused on the aspect that it prevents you from targeting yourself with divination spells but that is a clear side effect of the spell under either interpretation. Perhaps the spell description should have made an exception for being targeted by divination spells with a range of self but unfortunately that is not given by the spell description. This point should not be in any doubt. Whether you believe the first sentence of Nondetection is flavor or mechanical -- in both cases you cannot target yourself with a divination spell if you have Nondetection cast on yourself, that should be pretty clear.
The main discussion is whether or not "protects one from being divined" is limited to being targeted or if it's a blanket protection from all divination magic. I think both interpretations have their merits on that one -- but as we have seen, a lot of things still may not work as expected in either case.
Sorry, can you rephrase? I'm really not sure what you're saying here and I don't want to misinterpret. And how does the Ice Knife example relate to all of this again?
Ok, this all lines up well with my interpretation so I guess I'm not sure if we're still disagreeing on anything? I might be losing the thread of this discussion though.
As for what the devs say about any of this, as always it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. They mostly comment on the RAI of things and the design decisions that went into that but many of the dev rulings quite clearly are incorrect regarding RAW. Just recently there was a forum post about Tiny Hut where the dev ruled one way and then a year later ruled in exactly the opposite way, more or less admitting that he had made a mistake. This is actually more common than it should be but it is what it is. It's better to have the Sage Advice to refer back to than to not have it at all, but just barely.
I just had a thought and actually if one rules this as strict as you've suggested it should be then Nondetection doesn't stop you from casting most of the spells with a range of "self" on yourself.
Just look at See Invisibility and Detect Magic, neither spell uses the word "target" (either for the caster or for anyone/thing you look at) and the spellcasting rules about "range" doesn't say anything about "target" either.
This do seem fairly counter intuitive to me but then so does rulings that mean that Nondetection only works against something like seven spells in total.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I kind of like it! This could be a good workaround. I'm not 100% sold but at first glance the sections in Chapter 10 on Range and on Targets and Targeting Yourself don't seem to present any obvious flaws with this idea although I'm going to go back and read it a few more times. I'm vaguely curious if Sage Advice has ever been asked this question of whether or not spells with a range of self actually target the caster.
Besides anything specific that pops up in those sections I've thought of a couple of minor issues that might refute this . . .
The first one is, ironically, the wording for Twinned Spell Metamagic. It says "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self". It seems unnecessary to exclude spells with a range of self in this context unless those spells target the caster.
The second issue: The entire spellcasting section on Range tells the story of where the target of the spell is allowed to be. It begins with "The target of a spell must be within the spell's range" and then the section goes on to describe how targeting is affected by various types of ranges. Then, the section on Targeting says "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets . . . creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect." The way I read this is that every spell in the game targets something "to be affected by the spell's magic" and therefore spells with a range of self must be targeting the caster. Of course, like everything else in this game the wording is pretty wishy-washy so it's potentially open to interpretation and perhaps this idea could work. But at this point I don't think I'll rule it that way.