I always feel like these rule debates are non-discussions. I do recognize good arguments from both sides - but I still feel the language of Nondetection is undeniably clear: It hides you from divination magic and magical sensors. Like: Bam!
If it's divination magic, it doesn't work. If it's a magical sensor, it doesn't work. The human eye is a non-magical sensor - but if you enchant if with Detect Magic, then hey presto, it becomes a magical sensor, that for the purposes of this discussion ... doesn't work.
And don't try to get me with the word 'scy', either. It actually means to see the future. So if that was the lynchpin of the description, it would only protect against scrying attempts from the past! That, at least, should be laughable enough to not stir further discussion =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Again, why would the purpose of a spell called non-detection be to limit the ability to detect, rather than the ability to be detected? Why would that be an aspect of the spell?
I think this is a pretty reasonable side-effect of a spell like this -- like, it should probably have both effects. This would be similar to being in an anti-magic field or an area affected by Silence or Darkness or something -- like, it provides protection by making it as if that thing doesn't exist, so you can't use it either as a consequence.
As for nitpicking individual words or phrases in spell descriptions -- we all understand that as a baseline the game uses common english language meanings for things. But, if the game consistently uses a word in a different way or assigns a different meaning then the game's usage should take priority over the common usage. This applies to words like "scrying" but my argument has been that this also should apply to the word "hide" in this case.
I think that the spell description should have just started out with something like "For the duration, a target that you touch cannot be affected by Divination magic" instead of choosing the flavor text-y writing style that is potentially leading to unforeseen mechanical consequences.
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.
Unfortunately, targeting isn't as nearly iron clad as you seem to believe.
e.g Fireball
"A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
From the spellcasting rules
"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."
The TARGET of the fireball spell is clearly the point of origin in space where the fireball is aimed. The spellcasting rules specifically describe that point as the target.
However, the spell text ALSO clearly defines every creature within 20' of the target of the spell as also being a "target".
So which is it? Is the target the point in space where the spell originates or is the target the creatures affected by the spell? Or is it both?
In the case of See Invisible ... is the target "Self" or is the target "Self" plus all the creatures affected by the spell? Are creatures that can be seen by the creature affected by See Invisibility also targets since they could not be seen if the magic was not in effect? I don't know, it is a DM call.
However, using the game "definition" of target to try to decide the interactions between See Invisibility and Non-Detection isn't a good argument since the definition of "target" in the rules is not clearly defined and is used for different things in different contexts.
Unfortunately, targeting isn't as nearly iron clad as you seem to believe.
e.g Fireball
"A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
From the spellcasting rules
"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."
The TARGET of the fireball spell is clearly the point of origin in space where the fireball is aimed. The spellcasting rules specifically describe that point as the target.
However, the spell text ALSO clearly defines every creature within 20' of the target of the spell as also being a "target".
So which is it? Is the target the point in space where the spell originates or is the target the creatures affected by the spell? Or is it both?
In the case of See Invisible ... is the target "Self" or is the target "Self" plus all the creatures affected by the spell? Are creatures that can be seen by the creature affected by See Invisibility also targets since they could not be seen if the magic was not in effect? I don't know, it is a DM call.
However, using the game "definition" of target to try to decide the interactions between See Invisibility and Non-Detection isn't a good argument since the definition of "target" in the rules is not clearly defined and is used for different things in different contexts.
I disagree. I think that the concept of targeting is pretty well defined in the game. As it relates to spellcasting, targets are determined at the moment of casting the spell. The target is required to designate where the magical effect springs into existence within the world, and this place must be within range and must have a line of sight to the spellcaster. For AOE spells, the term point of "origin" is used, because the spells must "originate" someplace -- they originate at the target. As you mentioned from the spellcasting rules, you pick one or more targets "to be affected by the spell's magic". Depending on the spell, the target might be required to be a creature or object and other times it is a point in space.
Honestly, the use of the word "target" in the Fireball spell is an error and should be fixed via errata. They were probably trying to say "affected creatures and objects", but who knows? I'm not sure if examples like this pop up consistently in obvious AOE-type spells but they really shouldn't. It would be inconsistent with the concept of targeting that is laid out in the rules for spellcasting.
As for the concept of targeting generally (in spellcasting or otherwise) I think that when a creature is targeted they must be directly "affected" in some way. Being attacked by a nonmagical weapon is an example. But being seen or heard does not directly affect a creature so these abilities should not be described as "targeting" the creature in my opinion. I'll have trouble citing one specific rule that says this exact thing -- it's how I see it based on a large confluence of rules throughout many chapters of the books.
The See Invisibility mechanics are super clear to me. It's a spell that gives a creature an ability to see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible, among other things. Heck, there are plenty of creatures and monsters that already have the ability to do this that has nothing to do with magic. The magic is granting the ability. The ability is not magical. Creatures who are seen in this way have not been affected by magic in any way.
I'll have trouble citing one specific rule that says this exact thing -- it's how I see it based on a large confluence of rules throughout many chapters of the books.
Unfortunately, like many terms that are used in the game, a "target" is not super cleanly defined in any one place. It is a game concept that is used somewhat consistently throughout the game. It's an important term that has mechanical meaning and is not typically used in a way that is "meant to be in plain English".
For example, in Chapter 9 the root word "target" appears 53 times. In almost every case it is used in the context of something being attacked. When a creature is attacked they are specifically selected to be directly affected by that action. Admittedly, there are a few uses of "target" in that chapter that seem slightly inconsistent. Most of those are when the word "target" is used as a noun to describe something that cannot be targeted -- sort of weird but at least the meaning is clear.
Perhaps to your point, there is one or possibly two instances out of 53 in Chapter 9 where the term "target" is used a little bit differently. It has to do with a creature (or an object?) that is in the process of taking damage:
"Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target."
and
"If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast."
Honestly, once again this just feels like a mistake by the writers. It is inconsistent with the dozens upon dozens and possibly hundreds of times that the word "target" is used throughout the game. Yes, there are spells that deal damage to more than one target -- but Fireball and Flame strike should not have been used as examples of this. On top of that, notice that the Fireball spell description does indeed use "target" in some sort of AOE context (which it shouldn't), but yet the text for Flame Strike does not do this -- in that case it says "a creature takes [ damage ]" instead of "a target takes [ damage ]".
Targeting is a pretty fundamental game concept. If the main argument is that it's possible to find an inconsistency with how the term is used somewhere within the rules . . . I dunno, as far as I'm concerned the term still has a specific meaning.
In my opinion, AOE spells affect creatures indirectly, not directly. In all of these cases, instead of using the plural noun "targets" it would be more accurate to use a phrase like "affected creatures" or "affected creatures and objects". We see that this is how Flame Strike is written. Why isn't Fireball written that way also? One of those is likely written erroneously.
Unfortunately, targeting isn't as nearly iron clad as you seem to believe.
e.g Fireball
"A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
From the spellcasting rules
"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."
The TARGET of the fireball spell is clearly the point of origin in space where the fireball is aimed. The spellcasting rules specifically describe that point as the target.
However, the spell text ALSO clearly defines every creature within 20' of the target of the spell as also being a "target".
So which is it? Is the target the point in space where the spell originates or is the target the creatures affected by the spell? Or is it both?
In the case of See Invisible ... is the target "Self" or is the target "Self" plus all the creatures affected by the spell? Are creatures that can be seen by the creature affected by See Invisibility also targets since they could not be seen if the magic was not in effect? I don't know, it is a DM call.
However, using the game "definition" of target to try to decide the interactions between See Invisibility and Non-Detection isn't a good argument since the definition of "target" in the rules is not clearly defined and is used for different things in different contexts.
I disagree. I think that the concept of targeting is pretty well defined in the game. As it relates to spellcasting, targets are determined at the moment of casting the spell. The target is required to designate where the magical effect springs into existence within the world, and this place must be within range and must have a line of sight to the spellcaster. For AOE spells, the term point of "origin" is used, because the spells must "originate" someplace -- they originate at the target. As you mentioned from the spellcasting rules, you pick one or more targets "to be affected by the spell's magic". Depending on the spell, the target might be required to be a creature or object and other times it is a point in space.
Honestly, the use of the word "target" in the Fireball spell is an error and should be fixed via errata. They were probably trying to say "affected creatures and objects", but who knows? I'm not sure if examples like this pop up consistently in obvious AOE-type spells but they really shouldn't. It would be inconsistent with the concept of targeting that is laid out in the rules for spellcasting.
As for the concept of targeting generally (in spellcasting or otherwise) I think that when a creature is targeted they must be directly "affected" in some way. Being attacked by a nonmagical weapon is an example. But being seen or heard does not directly affect a creature so these abilities should not be described as "targeting" the creature in my opinion. I'll have trouble citing one specific rule that says this exact thing -- it's how I see it based on a large confluence of rules throughout many chapters of the books.
The See Invisibility mechanics are super clear to me. It's a spell that gives a creature an ability to see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible, among other things. Heck, there are plenty of creatures and monsters that already have the ability to do this that has nothing to do with magic. The magic is granting the ability. The ability is not magical. Creatures who are seen in this way have not been affected by magic in any way.
I beg to differ. Just because one definition of target appears to be the one you believe to be correct, doesn't mean it is the only one.
For example:
"A target with total cover can’t be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
The rules on Total Cover use the same definition of Target as is found in the fireball spell. Target clearly has multiple meanings and just stating that the authors made a mistake in the cases you don't like or agree with is ignoring the rules as written in preference for your particular interpretation.
Here is another example:
"If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell’s damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast."
Deals damage to more than one target - is the target of the fireball or flame strike the point in space or all the creatures in the area of effect or both? This is another example in the text using the same definition as used in the fireball spell.
"If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself."
In this case, you can target yourself even if the spell is "targeted" at a point in space.
There are other examples in the rules using the alternate definition of target. It is just that the most common usage is the creature/object towards which the attack/magic is directed.
-----
In terms of the whole Nondetection vs detect magic/see invisible question, the rules are sufficiently ambiguous in my opinion that a DM can rule either way and still be consistent with the rules.
Nondetection:
"For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic."
Some DMs might consider that fluff, not defining mechanics. Others will take it to mean that the target of Nondetection is literally hidden from divination magic and so See Invisble or Detect Magic would not work on that creature. BOTH readings are correct, they both agree with RAW and I, personally, would not take a position strongly advocating one or the other interpretation since I don't see any text elsewhere in the rules that would clarify this example.
The whole "trying to figure out if the creatures seen by See Invisible or the magic viewed by Detect Magic are "targets" of those spells", are efforts to force these to fit the mechanics described in the Nondetection spell in order to decide on a more specific rules basis which takes precedence. If there was text showing that anything affected by a spell was a target of that spell (as occurs for AoE spells) then yes you could decide that anything affected by these spells were targets and thus Nondetection would prevent them working.
However, that is not the case, there aren't clear examples that might define "targets" in that context. Are the creatures affected by Spirit Guardians "targets" of that spell? Using the fireball wording then yes but Spirit Guardians doesn't use the word target. There are other examples. Both Detect Magic and See Invisible are Self targeted spells giving the target a magical ability to see information about other creatures. Are those creatures "targets"? DM decision.
The bottom line in my opinion is that this discussion has gone on for several pages and no one is going to "win" it since the wording of Nondetection or the definition of "targets" is sufficiently ambiguous that the interpretation comes down to DM preference and either interpretation would be consistent with RAW.
On mobile now so I'll have to be brief for now. On many of those points I agree that it's open to interpretation due to the loose writing style of the rule books.
The main idea where I disagree with that is with respect to spells with a range of self. Regardless of how you interpret the nondetection spell and also regardless of whether spells with a range of self actually target self . . . we know for sure that "other creatures" (creatures that are not self) are NOT affected by these spells. These spells do not and can not target those creatures since those creatures are not within range. They also are not within the AOE unless it is a spell that defines an AOE in addition to having a range of self. Spells with a range of self and no other AOE definition cannot affect other creatures -- to claim that they can is pretty obvious homebrew territory.
But as for many other points such as the meaning of terms like "hide" or "target" -- sure, there is at least some room for multiple interpretations.
On mobile now so I'll have to be brief for now. On many of those points I agree that it's open to interpretation due to the loose writing style of the rule books.
The main idea where I disagree with that is with respect to spells with a range of self. Regardless of how you interpret the nondetection spell and also regardless of whether spells with a range of self actually target self . . . we know for sure that "other creatures" (creatures that are not self) are NOT affected by these spells. These spells do not and can not target those creatures since those creatures are not within range. They also are not within the AOE unless it is a spell that defines an AOE in addition to having a range of self. Spells with a range of self and no other AOE definition cannot affect other creatures -- to claim that they can is pretty obvious homebrew territory.
But as for many other points such as the meaning of terms like "hide" or "target" -- sure, there is at least some room for multiple interpretations.
I'm not sure I would completely agree with that either :)
Here is the text of detect magic:
"For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any."
I would think that using your action to see an aura around a creature or object that is magical could (by at least some definitions) be considered a "target" since the character is specifically using their action to divine information about specific creatures or objects that are magical. Coincidentally, detect magic also defines an AoE of 30' radius from the caster.
In addition, RAW, Detect Magic does not show you what is magical, just that there is something magical within 30'. No additional information is given until an action is used (to "target" the magical creatures or objects :) [note smiley]) and it only works on creatures or objects that are visible.
RAW, this means that detect magic might reveal an invisibility spell in use within 30' but it could not be used to find that invisible creature because no additional information is available if you can't see the magical creature or object. Also, RAW, detect magic might tell you something magical is in a room, but by itself would not tell you the magic item is in the desk, buried under the floor, in the attic, or anywhere else that the character can't see.
Sorry :) ... the later Detect Magic comments were a digression since I don't really like how RAW for detect magic appears to work. :) However, I could see a DM deciding that the magical creatures and objects are "targeted" by detect magic when the character uses their action to reveal information about those that they can see.
I'm not saying that is the correct or only interpretation but I do think it would be a valid one also consistent with RAW.
Coincidentally, detect magic also defines an AoE of 30' radius from the caster.
In the context of this discussion there is nothing coincidental about this. This detail makes Detect Magic fundamentally different from See Invisibility. It basically makes Detect Magic an AOE spell with the point of origin at "self" whereas the See Invisibility spell only affects the spellcaster.
Also, it might be open to interpretation as to whether or not "any visible creature or object" means the same thing as "any creature or object that you can see". Like, is the distinction between "in the desk" vs "out in the open" or is it more like "visible object in the desk" vs "invisible object in the desk"? I'm really not sure. Like, can the aura be seen through walls or not? That part seems unclear. Although I guess I'd lean toward your thought that you actually have to see the object in order to see the surrounding aura.
Fwiw, my interpretation of Detect Magic is that it grants the spellcaster an ability to basically emit a field of some sort out into the environment in all directions up to a certain range. By using an action, the caster can sort of examine this field for disturbances or wrinkles within it that provides the spellcaster with information in the form of an aura. So, it would be very similar to holding a blacklight in a dark room and looking for items that emit fluorescence -- except that it's a two step process. In the analogous scenario, first the room would go from pitch-black to shedding some light somewhere -- but then you'd have to use an action to focus your eyes on your surroundings to be able to identify where the light is coming from -- which object or objects are emitting the fluorescence. The action is not targeting any specific object, it just enables you to see all nearby objects with this property, like walking into a room with a blacklight and looking around at all of the things that are lit up.
So, these creatures and objects which give off this aura are indirectly affected by being inside the AOE of the spell. They are affected by this "field" which causes them to give off this aura. The spell targets the spellcaster as the point of origin to create a sphere-shaped AOE. Creatures and objects within this AOE are "affected creatures and objects" in my opinion. Not targets.
The ramifications with respect to the interaction with the Nondetection spell: If we consider nondetection to provide blanket protection from all divination magic then a magical object protected by nondetection should NOT allow the caster of Detect Magic to sense magic nearby and the object should NOT give off an aura when located within the AOE of Detect Magic. If instead we interpret nondetection to provide protection only from divination magic that targets the object then a magical object protected by nondetection WILL allow the caster of Detect Magic to sense magic nearby and the object WILL give off an aura when located within the AOE of Detect Magic (when an action is used to see such an aura) because the AOE of Detect Magic is not actually targeting the objects within that area, it is indirectly and indiscriminately affecting them with the effect created within the AOE.
See Invisibility is different. In both of the above interpretations for nondetection . . . a creature protected by nondetection is not protected from the ability granted by See Invisibility that was cast on their foe.
It's possible that everything that I've just said above is nonsense. I did some poking around and for some reason the PHB hard copy that I'm looking at does NOT specify an AOE for Detect Magic. It simply declares that the spell has a Range of "self". When searching for this spell generally, an entry from roll20 pops up -- that spell description also does NOT specify an AOE -- it only says "Range: self". And yet when we search for this within D&D Beyond, the spell description declares "Range/Area Self (30 ft sphere)". Errata affecting this spell might explain it, but I'm not aware of any such change. So now I really don't know what to think about this spell. What a mess.
P.S. This trend also exists for "Detect Evil and Good" and "Detect Poison and Disease" but NOT for "Detect Thoughts" for some reason. In that last case, D&D Beyond does not list an AOE at all and simply declares that the spell has a Range of "self".
It's possible that everything that I've just said above is nonsense. I did some poking around and for some reason the PHB hard copy that I'm looking at does NOT specify an AOE for Detect Magic. It simply declares that the spell has a Range of "self". When searching for this spell generally, an entry from roll20 pops up -- that spell description also does NOT specify an AOE -- it only says "Range: self". And yet when we search for this within D&D Beyond, the spell description declares "Range/Area Self (30 ft sphere)". Errata affecting this spell might explain it, but I'm not aware of any such change. So now I really don't know what to think about this spell. What a mess.
P.S. This trend also exists for "Detect Evil and Good" and "Detect Poison and Disease" but NOT for "Detect Thoughts" for some reason. In that last case, D&D Beyond does not list an AOE at all and simply declares that the spell has a Range of "self".
Like I said above, what a mess.
This is because the 30' limitation is in the spell description itself. Looking at the PHB 10th printing text:
"DETECT MAGIC 1st-level divination (ritual) Casting Time: 1 action Range: Self Components: V, S Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any. The spell can penetrate most barriers, but it is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt."
Is the "range" self? or Self (30')? It depends on whether someone is referring to the range of casting the spell which is "Self" or the range over which the magic has an effect which is 30'.
My guess is that all of the Detection spells with a 30' radius were written by one designer while spells like Spirit Guardians, which is also a Self spell, were written by someone else so that the 15' radius was included in both the spell description and the "Range" block. Spirit Guardians can only be cast on the caster at a range of "Self". The 15' radius is the Area of Effect of the spell or "range" of its effect. This is identical wording to the Detection spells.
Everything in our comments is simply related to the use of natural language and the rules being written and edited by a team so that even simple spells have inconsistencies in their presentation.
On the other hand :), maybe leaving out the area of effect of the spell from the Range block was supposed to have some meaning that they forgot to include or which was lost in the editing process? Personally, I'd ascribe it to the work being a team effort and stylistic differences between the different writers.
Either way, it just comes down to a DM decision on how they want to run it. Personally, I'd allow Non-detection to prevent Detect Magic from functioning on that creature. Interpreting See Invisibility would depend on how I decided to interpret the first sentence of Nondetection. (which I haven't decided yet :) ).
It's possible that everything that I've just said above is nonsense. I did some poking around and for some reason the PHB hard copy that I'm looking at does NOT specify an AOE for Detect Magic. It simply declares that the spell has a Range of "self". When searching for this spell generally, an entry from roll20 pops up -- that spell description also does NOT specify an AOE -- it only says "Range: self". And yet when we search for this within D&D Beyond, the spell description declares "Range/Area Self (30 ft sphere)". Errata affecting this spell might explain it, but I'm not aware of any such change. So now I really don't know what to think about this spell. What a mess.
P.S. This trend also exists for "Detect Evil and Good" and "Detect Poison and Disease" but NOT for "Detect Thoughts" for some reason. In that last case, D&D Beyond does not list an AOE at all and simply declares that the spell has a Range of "self".
Like I said above, what a mess.
This is because the 30' limitation is in the spell description itself. Looking at the PHB 10th printing text:
"DETECT MAGIC 1st-level divination (ritual) Casting Time: 1 action Range: Self Components: V, S Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any. The spell can penetrate most barriers, but it is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt."
Is the "range" self? or Self (30')? It depends on whether someone is referring to the range of casting the spell which is "Self" or the range over which the magic has an effect which is 30'.
My guess is that all of the Detection spells with a 30' radius were written by one designer while spells like Spirit Guardians, which is also a Self spell, were written by someone else so that the 15' radius was included in both the spell description and the "Range" block. Spirit Guardians can only be cast on the caster at a range of "Self". The 15' radius is the Area of Effect of the spell or "range" of its effect. This is identical wording to the Detection spells.
Everything in our comments is simply related to the use of natural language and the rules being written and edited by a team so that even simple spells have inconsistencies in their presentation.
On the other hand :), maybe leaving out the area of effect of the spell from the Range block was supposed to have some meaning that they forgot to include or which was lost in the editing process? Personally, I'd ascribe it to the work being a team effort and stylistic differences between the different writers.
Either way, it just comes down to a DM decision on how they want to run it. Personally, I'd allow Non-detection to prevent Detect Magic from functioning on that creature. Interpreting See Invisibility would depend on how I decided to interpret the first sentence of Nondetection. (which I haven't decided yet :) ).
But it's supposed to mean something -- it shouldn't just be a stylistic difference. For spells like Burning Hands or the Spirit Guardians spell that you mentioned, it is clear that the magic has a point of origin (the target) and then it spreads out to create a magical effect that fills up a nearby space within the environment, which is the size and shape defined in parentheses next to the range. That's the defined area of effect created by the spell which actually causes the nearby area to change in some way such that creatures and objects within the area are affected by it. In the cases of Burning hands and Spirit Guardians, the spell description goes on to describe precisely what happens to creatures and objects who are affected by this AOE if they are located within it at a certain moment (One time for Burning Hands, which has an instantaneous effect. For spirit guardians, which creates an ongoing effect, creatures are affected when entering the area for the first time in a turn or any time that they start their own turn within the area). In contrast, a spell such as See Invisibility only affects the spellcaster. There is no area of effect created by the casting of the spell that can affect other creatures or objects. We need to be able to rely on such things to determine how each spell actually works.
So, the point is, how did this change for Detect Magic between the written book and what appears on D&D Beyond? The only answer is that someone literally changed it when copying the spell over from the book to the online platform, and yet I am not aware of any official errata for the spell. I find this to be quite problematic -- it makes it very difficult for players and DMs to know what is going on with the officially published materials.
I always feel like these rule debates are non-discussions. I do recognize good arguments from both sides - but I still feel the language of Nondetection is undeniably clear: It hides you from divination magic and magical sensors. Like: Bam!
If it's divination magic, it doesn't work. If it's a magical sensor, it doesn't work. The human eye is a non-magical sensor - but if you enchant if with Detect Magic, then hey presto, it becomes a magical sensor, that for the purposes of this discussion ... doesn't work.
And don't try to get me with the word 'scy', either. It actually means to see the future. So if that was the lynchpin of the description, it would only protect against scrying attempts from the past! That, at least, should be laughable enough to not stir further discussion =)
I think this interpretation is the correct one. The range:self divination spells are turning you into a magical scrying sensor. The only difference between a spell like detect magic or see invisibility, and something like arcane eye or scrying, is that the sensor is in your head rather than disembodied. Incidentally, "scrying" doesn't only mean seeing the future, but also just uncovering hidden information, according to dictionary.com.
Unfortunately, targeting isn't as nearly iron clad as you seem to believe.
e.g Fireball
"A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
From the spellcasting rules
"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."
The TARGET of the fireball spell is clearly the point of origin in space where the fireball is aimed. The spellcasting rules specifically describe that point as the target.
However, the spell text ALSO clearly defines every creature within 20' of the target of the spell as also being a "target".
So which is it? Is the target the point in space where the spell originates or is the target the creatures affected by the spell? Or is it both?
In the case of See Invisible ... is the target "Self" or is the target "Self" plus all the creatures affected by the spell? Are creatures that can be seen by the creature affected by See Invisibility also targets since they could not be seen if the magic was not in effect? I don't know, it is a DM call.
However, using the game "definition" of target to try to decide the interactions between See Invisibility and Non-Detection isn't a good argument since the definition of "target" in the rules is not clearly defined and is used for different things in different contexts.
I disagree. I think that the concept of targeting is pretty well defined in the game. As it relates to spellcasting, targets are determined at the moment of casting the spell. The target is required to designate where the magical effect springs into existence within the world, and this place must be within range and must have a line of sight to the spellcaster. For AOE spells, the term point of "origin" is used, because the spells must "originate" someplace -- they originate at the target. As you mentioned from the spellcasting rules, you pick one or more targets "to be affected by the spell's magic". Depending on the spell, the target might be required to be a creature or object and other times it is a point in space.
Honestly, the use of the word "target" in the Fireball spell is an error and should be fixed via errata. They were probably trying to say "affected creatures and objects", but who knows? I'm not sure if examples like this pop up consistently in obvious AOE-type spells but they really shouldn't. It would be inconsistent with the concept of targeting that is laid out in the rules for spellcasting.
As for the concept of targeting generally (in spellcasting or otherwise) I think that when a creature is targeted they must be directly "affected" in some way. Being attacked by a nonmagical weapon is an example. But being seen or heard does not directly affect a creature so these abilities should not be described as "targeting" the creature in my opinion. I'll have trouble citing one specific rule that says this exact thing -- it's how I see it based on a large confluence of rules throughout many chapters of the books.
The See Invisibility mechanics are super clear to me. It's a spell that gives a creature an ability to see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible, among other things. Heck, there are plenty of creatures and monsters that already have the ability to do this that has nothing to do with magic. The magic is granting the ability. The ability is not magical. Creatures who are seen in this way have not been affected by magic in any way.
I think you guys are using the word "target" in two different ways with different meanings.
"Target" as a noun means anyone who the spell affects, regardless of whether they were being targeted by the spell.
"Target" as a verb points to the location or object that the caster is aiming the spell at.
So, it's quite possible for a caster to hit a target (noun) that she did not target (verb).
The range:self divination spells are turning you into a magical scrying sensor.
----------
Spells only do what they say they do in 5e. Most of the divination spells with a Range of self do not say this and therefore do not do this.
The only spells mentioned so far in this thread which qualify as magical scrying sensors are Scrying and Clairvoyance. In both cases the spell description specifically uses the word "sensor".
----------
Quote from brolcz:
I think you guys are using the word "target" in two different ways with different meanings.
"Target" as a noun means anyone who the spell affects, regardless of whether they were being targeted by the spell.
"Target" as a verb points to the location or object that the caster is aiming the spell at.
So, it's quite possible for a caster to hit a target (noun) that she did not target (verb).
----------
No, the word "target" should not mean that first thing. Creatures that are affected by the magical effect of an AOE are not being selectively targeted, they are being indiscriminately and indirectly affected by the environment. In most cases the game uses terms such as "affected creatures" to describe such creatures. Yes, it's true that there are a few places where this usage of "target" pops up here and there, such as in the Fireball description. But, a vast majority of the time the term is not used that way and therefore these few cases are most likely just the result of mistakes and inconsistencies from the writers. Sure, that can't really be proven -- it's just an overall sense that I get from reading through lots of text found all throughout the game.
Elaborating on some comments from an earlier post:
Out of curiosity, I went through every spell in a hardcopy version of the PHB, specifically looking at spells with a Range of self. There are 82 such spells. Many of these are simply listed as "Range: self" with no associated area of effect listed alongside the specified range. Many others have a specific size and shape in parentheses next to the specified range, indicating the area of effect that is affected by the casting of the spell.
For each of these 82 spells, I noted the Range entry and compared it to the corresponding entry for the same spell listed within D&D Beyond.
It turns out that there are exactly 7 spells that have a discrepancy between the hardcopy and the D&D Beyond versions of the spell with respect to the Range entry. These are:
Note that five of these are inconsistent in one direction and the other two are inconsistent in the other direction. The vast majority of spells with a range of self have the same entry in both versions of the spell.
Unless someone is able to explain these changes via errata, my own conclusion is that these inconsistencies are simply the result of sloppiness and mistakes made while creating the online version of each spell. But it's hard to say for sure. But the problem remains -- for spells that are impacted by this such as Detect Magic the DM must now decide which version of these spells will exist in their world, since, as mentioned before, the presence or absence of a defined area of effect entry alongside the specified range fundamentally determines how the spell functions with respect to how it interacts with and affects the nearby environment and all creatures and objects within that environment.
Elaborating on some comments from an earlier post:
Out of curiosity, I went through every spell in a hardcopy version of the PHB, specifically looking at spells with a Range of self. There are 82 such spells. Many of these are simply listed as "Range: self" with no associated area of effect listed alongside the specified range. Many others have a specific size and shape in parentheses next to the specified range, indicating the area of effect that is affected by the casting of the spell.
For each of these 82 spells, I noted the Range entry and compared it to the corresponding entry for the same spell listed within D&D Beyond.
It turns out that there are exactly 7 spells that have a discrepancy between the hardcopy and the D&D Beyond versions of the spell with respect to the Range entry. These are:
Note that five of these are inconsistent in one direction and the other two are inconsistent in the other direction. The vast majority of spells with a range of self have the same entry in both versions of the spell.
Unless someone is able to explain these changes via errata, my own conclusion is that these inconsistencies are simply the result of sloppiness and mistakes made while creating the online version of each spell. But it's hard to say for sure. But the problem remains -- for spells that are impacted by this such as Detect Magic the DM must now decide which version of these spells will exist in their world, since, as mentioned before, the presence or absence of a defined area of effect entry alongside the specified range fundamentally determines how the spell functions with respect to how it interacts with and affects the nearby environment and all creatures and objects within that environment.
I think the 30' radius was removed from Speak with Plants because it doesn't move with the caster. Speak with Plants affects plants within 30' when the spell is cast but you can continue to speak with them. So the spell is self but it doesn't have an ongoing 30' radius.
It may also have been removed from Gust of Wind because, although the caster remains the source of the gust, they can change the direction of the gust as a bonus action on each turn. So, it is a 60' line but could be a different 60' line on each turn.
All the rest of the spells have a 30' radius that moves with the caster which is described in the spell text rather than on the Range line. Since there is no specific statement made anywhere that the different formatting has some rules meaning - I'd just chalk it up to editing or style differences. The D&D rules aren't a legal document, they are guidelines for playing a game that they admit up front can be played differently at every table and that a DM makes the decisions for how their table runs.
These discussions might only become relevant when a DM and their players differ on how they interpret the rules and one or the other is unhappy or dissatisfied. RAW discussions can then sometimes shed some light on how to play it.
that is a very closed minded interpretation of the spell - THE DETECT MAGIC spell has a TARGET of SELF (or the CASTER) NOT what it is divining; just like Non Detect ion has a TARGET of SELF - the Non-detection wards the caster against the DIVINATION ability granted by DETECT MAGIC - OPEN YOUR MIND
similar question - does Nondetection protect you against Detect Invisibility
A creature under the effect of nondetection can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors, including see invisibility and any other spells from the divination school.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I always feel like these rule debates are non-discussions. I do recognize good arguments from both sides - but I still feel the language of Nondetection is undeniably clear: It hides you from divination magic and magical sensors. Like: Bam!
If it's divination magic, it doesn't work. If it's a magical sensor, it doesn't work. The human eye is a non-magical sensor - but if you enchant if with Detect Magic, then hey presto, it becomes a magical sensor, that for the purposes of this discussion ... doesn't work.
And don't try to get me with the word 'scy', either. It actually means to see the future. So if that was the lynchpin of the description, it would only protect against scrying attempts from the past! That, at least, should be laughable enough to not stir further discussion =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I think this is a pretty reasonable side-effect of a spell like this -- like, it should probably have both effects. This would be similar to being in an anti-magic field or an area affected by Silence or Darkness or something -- like, it provides protection by making it as if that thing doesn't exist, so you can't use it either as a consequence.
As for nitpicking individual words or phrases in spell descriptions -- we all understand that as a baseline the game uses common english language meanings for things. But, if the game consistently uses a word in a different way or assigns a different meaning then the game's usage should take priority over the common usage. This applies to words like "scrying" but my argument has been that this also should apply to the word "hide" in this case.
I think that the spell description should have just started out with something like "For the duration, a target that you touch cannot be affected by Divination magic" instead of choosing the flavor text-y writing style that is potentially leading to unforeseen mechanical consequences.
Unfortunately, targeting isn't as nearly iron clad as you seem to believe.
e.g Fireball
"A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
From the spellcasting rules
"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."
The TARGET of the fireball spell is clearly the point of origin in space where the fireball is aimed. The spellcasting rules specifically describe that point as the target.
However, the spell text ALSO clearly defines every creature within 20' of the target of the spell as also being a "target".
So which is it? Is the target the point in space where the spell originates or is the target the creatures affected by the spell? Or is it both?
In the case of See Invisible ... is the target "Self" or is the target "Self" plus all the creatures affected by the spell? Are creatures that can be seen by the creature affected by See Invisibility also targets since they could not be seen if the magic was not in effect? I don't know, it is a DM call.
However, using the game "definition" of target to try to decide the interactions between See Invisibility and Non-Detection isn't a good argument since the definition of "target" in the rules is not clearly defined and is used for different things in different contexts.
I disagree. I think that the concept of targeting is pretty well defined in the game. As it relates to spellcasting, targets are determined at the moment of casting the spell. The target is required to designate where the magical effect springs into existence within the world, and this place must be within range and must have a line of sight to the spellcaster. For AOE spells, the term point of "origin" is used, because the spells must "originate" someplace -- they originate at the target. As you mentioned from the spellcasting rules, you pick one or more targets "to be affected by the spell's magic". Depending on the spell, the target might be required to be a creature or object and other times it is a point in space.
Honestly, the use of the word "target" in the Fireball spell is an error and should be fixed via errata. They were probably trying to say "affected creatures and objects", but who knows? I'm not sure if examples like this pop up consistently in obvious AOE-type spells but they really shouldn't. It would be inconsistent with the concept of targeting that is laid out in the rules for spellcasting.
As for the concept of targeting generally (in spellcasting or otherwise) I think that when a creature is targeted they must be directly "affected" in some way. Being attacked by a nonmagical weapon is an example. But being seen or heard does not directly affect a creature so these abilities should not be described as "targeting" the creature in my opinion. I'll have trouble citing one specific rule that says this exact thing -- it's how I see it based on a large confluence of rules throughout many chapters of the books.
The See Invisibility mechanics are super clear to me. It's a spell that gives a creature an ability to see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible, among other things. Heck, there are plenty of creatures and monsters that already have the ability to do this that has nothing to do with magic. The magic is granting the ability. The ability is not magical. Creatures who are seen in this way have not been affected by magic in any way.
. . . -->
Unfortunately, like many terms that are used in the game, a "target" is not super cleanly defined in any one place. It is a game concept that is used somewhat consistently throughout the game. It's an important term that has mechanical meaning and is not typically used in a way that is "meant to be in plain English".
For example, in Chapter 9 the root word "target" appears 53 times. In almost every case it is used in the context of something being attacked. When a creature is attacked they are specifically selected to be directly affected by that action. Admittedly, there are a few uses of "target" in that chapter that seem slightly inconsistent. Most of those are when the word "target" is used as a noun to describe something that cannot be targeted -- sort of weird but at least the meaning is clear.
Perhaps to your point, there is one or possibly two instances out of 53 in Chapter 9 where the term "target" is used a little bit differently. It has to do with a creature (or an object?) that is in the process of taking damage:
"Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target."
and
"If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast."
Honestly, once again this just feels like a mistake by the writers. It is inconsistent with the dozens upon dozens and possibly hundreds of times that the word "target" is used throughout the game. Yes, there are spells that deal damage to more than one target -- but Fireball and Flame strike should not have been used as examples of this. On top of that, notice that the Fireball spell description does indeed use "target" in some sort of AOE context (which it shouldn't), but yet the text for Flame Strike does not do this -- in that case it says "a creature takes [ damage ]" instead of "a target takes [ damage ]".
Targeting is a pretty fundamental game concept. If the main argument is that it's possible to find an inconsistency with how the term is used somewhere within the rules . . . I dunno, as far as I'm concerned the term still has a specific meaning.
In my opinion, AOE spells affect creatures indirectly, not directly. In all of these cases, instead of using the plural noun "targets" it would be more accurate to use a phrase like "affected creatures" or "affected creatures and objects". We see that this is how Flame Strike is written. Why isn't Fireball written that way also? One of those is likely written erroneously.
I beg to differ. Just because one definition of target appears to be the one you believe to be correct, doesn't mean it is the only one.
For example:
"A target with total cover can’t be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
The rules on Total Cover use the same definition of Target as is found in the fireball spell. Target clearly has multiple meanings and just stating that the authors made a mistake in the cases you don't like or agree with is ignoring the rules as written in preference for your particular interpretation.
Here is another example:
"If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell’s damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast."
Deals damage to more than one target - is the target of the fireball or flame strike the point in space or all the creatures in the area of effect or both? This is another example in the text using the same definition as used in the fireball spell.
"If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself."
In this case, you can target yourself even if the spell is "targeted" at a point in space.
There are other examples in the rules using the alternate definition of target. It is just that the most common usage is the creature/object towards which the attack/magic is directed.
-----
In terms of the whole Nondetection vs detect magic/see invisible question, the rules are sufficiently ambiguous in my opinion that a DM can rule either way and still be consistent with the rules.
Nondetection:
"For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic."
Some DMs might consider that fluff, not defining mechanics. Others will take it to mean that the target of Nondetection is literally hidden from divination magic and so See Invisble or Detect Magic would not work on that creature. BOTH readings are correct, they both agree with RAW and I, personally, would not take a position strongly advocating one or the other interpretation since I don't see any text elsewhere in the rules that would clarify this example.
The whole "trying to figure out if the creatures seen by See Invisible or the magic viewed by Detect Magic are "targets" of those spells", are efforts to force these to fit the mechanics described in the Nondetection spell in order to decide on a more specific rules basis which takes precedence. If there was text showing that anything affected by a spell was a target of that spell (as occurs for AoE spells) then yes you could decide that anything affected by these spells were targets and thus Nondetection would prevent them working.
However, that is not the case, there aren't clear examples that might define "targets" in that context. Are the creatures affected by Spirit Guardians "targets" of that spell? Using the fireball wording then yes but Spirit Guardians doesn't use the word target. There are other examples. Both Detect Magic and See Invisible are Self targeted spells giving the target a magical ability to see information about other creatures. Are those creatures "targets"? DM decision.
The bottom line in my opinion is that this discussion has gone on for several pages and no one is going to "win" it since the wording of Nondetection or the definition of "targets" is sufficiently ambiguous that the interpretation comes down to DM preference and either interpretation would be consistent with RAW.
----
On mobile now so I'll have to be brief for now. On many of those points I agree that it's open to interpretation due to the loose writing style of the rule books.
The main idea where I disagree with that is with respect to spells with a range of self. Regardless of how you interpret the nondetection spell and also regardless of whether spells with a range of self actually target self . . . we know for sure that "other creatures" (creatures that are not self) are NOT affected by these spells. These spells do not and can not target those creatures since those creatures are not within range. They also are not within the AOE unless it is a spell that defines an AOE in addition to having a range of self. Spells with a range of self and no other AOE definition cannot affect other creatures -- to claim that they can is pretty obvious homebrew territory.
But as for many other points such as the meaning of terms like "hide" or "target" -- sure, there is at least some room for multiple interpretations.
I'm not sure I would completely agree with that either :)
Here is the text of detect magic:
"For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any."
I would think that using your action to see an aura around a creature or object that is magical could (by at least some definitions) be considered a "target" since the character is specifically using their action to divine information about specific creatures or objects that are magical. Coincidentally, detect magic also defines an AoE of 30' radius from the caster.
In addition, RAW, Detect Magic does not show you what is magical, just that there is something magical within 30'. No additional information is given until an action is used (to "target" the magical creatures or objects :) [note smiley]) and it only works on creatures or objects that are visible.
RAW, this means that detect magic might reveal an invisibility spell in use within 30' but it could not be used to find that invisible creature because no additional information is available if you can't see the magical creature or object. Also, RAW, detect magic might tell you something magical is in a room, but by itself would not tell you the magic item is in the desk, buried under the floor, in the attic, or anywhere else that the character can't see.
Sorry :) ... the later Detect Magic comments were a digression since I don't really like how RAW for detect magic appears to work. :) However, I could see a DM deciding that the magical creatures and objects are "targeted" by detect magic when the character uses their action to reveal information about those that they can see.
I'm not saying that is the correct or only interpretation but I do think it would be a valid one also consistent with RAW.
In the context of this discussion there is nothing coincidental about this. This detail makes Detect Magic fundamentally different from See Invisibility. It basically makes Detect Magic an AOE spell with the point of origin at "self" whereas the See Invisibility spell only affects the spellcaster.
Also, it might be open to interpretation as to whether or not "any visible creature or object" means the same thing as "any creature or object that you can see". Like, is the distinction between "in the desk" vs "out in the open" or is it more like "visible object in the desk" vs "invisible object in the desk"? I'm really not sure. Like, can the aura be seen through walls or not? That part seems unclear. Although I guess I'd lean toward your thought that you actually have to see the object in order to see the surrounding aura.
Fwiw, my interpretation of Detect Magic is that it grants the spellcaster an ability to basically emit a field of some sort out into the environment in all directions up to a certain range. By using an action, the caster can sort of examine this field for disturbances or wrinkles within it that provides the spellcaster with information in the form of an aura. So, it would be very similar to holding a blacklight in a dark room and looking for items that emit fluorescence -- except that it's a two step process. In the analogous scenario, first the room would go from pitch-black to shedding some light somewhere -- but then you'd have to use an action to focus your eyes on your surroundings to be able to identify where the light is coming from -- which object or objects are emitting the fluorescence. The action is not targeting any specific object, it just enables you to see all nearby objects with this property, like walking into a room with a blacklight and looking around at all of the things that are lit up.
So, these creatures and objects which give off this aura are indirectly affected by being inside the AOE of the spell. They are affected by this "field" which causes them to give off this aura. The spell targets the spellcaster as the point of origin to create a sphere-shaped AOE. Creatures and objects within this AOE are "affected creatures and objects" in my opinion. Not targets.
The ramifications with respect to the interaction with the Nondetection spell: If we consider nondetection to provide blanket protection from all divination magic then a magical object protected by nondetection should NOT allow the caster of Detect Magic to sense magic nearby and the object should NOT give off an aura when located within the AOE of Detect Magic. If instead we interpret nondetection to provide protection only from divination magic that targets the object then a magical object protected by nondetection WILL allow the caster of Detect Magic to sense magic nearby and the object WILL give off an aura when located within the AOE of Detect Magic (when an action is used to see such an aura) because the AOE of Detect Magic is not actually targeting the objects within that area, it is indirectly and indiscriminately affecting them with the effect created within the AOE.
See Invisibility is different. In both of the above interpretations for nondetection . . . a creature protected by nondetection is not protected from the ability granted by See Invisibility that was cast on their foe.
It's possible that everything that I've just said above is nonsense. I did some poking around and for some reason the PHB hard copy that I'm looking at does NOT specify an AOE for Detect Magic. It simply declares that the spell has a Range of "self". When searching for this spell generally, an entry from roll20 pops up -- that spell description also does NOT specify an AOE -- it only says "Range: self". And yet when we search for this within D&D Beyond, the spell description declares "Range/Area Self (30 ft sphere)". Errata affecting this spell might explain it, but I'm not aware of any such change. So now I really don't know what to think about this spell. What a mess.
P.S. This trend also exists for "Detect Evil and Good" and "Detect Poison and Disease" but NOT for "Detect Thoughts" for some reason. In that last case, D&D Beyond does not list an AOE at all and simply declares that the spell has a Range of "self".
Like I said above, what a mess.
This is because the 30' limitation is in the spell description itself. Looking at the PHB 10th printing text:
"DETECT MAGIC
1st-level divination (ritual)
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes
For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any. The spell can penetrate most barriers, but it is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt."
Is the "range" self? or Self (30')? It depends on whether someone is referring to the range of casting the spell which is "Self" or the range over which the magic has an effect which is 30'.
My guess is that all of the Detection spells with a 30' radius were written by one designer while spells like Spirit Guardians, which is also a Self spell, were written by someone else so that the 15' radius was included in both the spell description and the "Range" block. Spirit Guardians can only be cast on the caster at a range of "Self". The 15' radius is the Area of Effect of the spell or "range" of its effect. This is identical wording to the Detection spells.
Everything in our comments is simply related to the use of natural language and the rules being written and edited by a team so that even simple spells have inconsistencies in their presentation.
On the other hand :), maybe leaving out the area of effect of the spell from the Range block was supposed to have some meaning that they forgot to include or which was lost in the editing process? Personally, I'd ascribe it to the work being a team effort and stylistic differences between the different writers.
Either way, it just comes down to a DM decision on how they want to run it. Personally, I'd allow Non-detection to prevent Detect Magic from functioning on that creature. Interpreting See Invisibility would depend on how I decided to interpret the first sentence of Nondetection. (which I haven't decided yet :) ).
But it's supposed to mean something -- it shouldn't just be a stylistic difference. For spells like Burning Hands or the Spirit Guardians spell that you mentioned, it is clear that the magic has a point of origin (the target) and then it spreads out to create a magical effect that fills up a nearby space within the environment, which is the size and shape defined in parentheses next to the range. That's the defined area of effect created by the spell which actually causes the nearby area to change in some way such that creatures and objects within the area are affected by it. In the cases of Burning hands and Spirit Guardians, the spell description goes on to describe precisely what happens to creatures and objects who are affected by this AOE if they are located within it at a certain moment (One time for Burning Hands, which has an instantaneous effect. For spirit guardians, which creates an ongoing effect, creatures are affected when entering the area for the first time in a turn or any time that they start their own turn within the area). In contrast, a spell such as See Invisibility only affects the spellcaster. There is no area of effect created by the casting of the spell that can affect other creatures or objects. We need to be able to rely on such things to determine how each spell actually works.
So, the point is, how did this change for Detect Magic between the written book and what appears on D&D Beyond? The only answer is that someone literally changed it when copying the spell over from the book to the online platform, and yet I am not aware of any official errata for the spell. I find this to be quite problematic -- it makes it very difficult for players and DMs to know what is going on with the officially published materials.
I think this interpretation is the correct one. The range:self divination spells are turning you into a magical scrying sensor. The only difference between a spell like detect magic or see invisibility, and something like arcane eye or scrying, is that the sensor is in your head rather than disembodied. Incidentally, "scrying" doesn't only mean seeing the future, but also just uncovering hidden information, according to dictionary.com.
I think you guys are using the word "target" in two different ways with different meanings.
"Target" as a noun means anyone who the spell affects, regardless of whether they were being targeted by the spell.
"Target" as a verb points to the location or object that the caster is aiming the spell at.
So, it's quite possible for a caster to hit a target (noun) that she did not target (verb).
---------
Quote From brolcz:
The range:self divination spells are turning you into a magical scrying sensor.
----------
Spells only do what they say they do in 5e. Most of the divination spells with a Range of self do not say this and therefore do not do this.
The only spells mentioned so far in this thread which qualify as magical scrying sensors are Scrying and Clairvoyance. In both cases the spell description specifically uses the word "sensor".
----------
Quote from brolcz:
I think you guys are using the word "target" in two different ways with different meanings.
"Target" as a noun means anyone who the spell affects, regardless of whether they were being targeted by the spell.
"Target" as a verb points to the location or object that the caster is aiming the spell at.
So, it's quite possible for a caster to hit a target (noun) that she did not target (verb).
----------
No, the word "target" should not mean that first thing. Creatures that are affected by the magical effect of an AOE are not being selectively targeted, they are being indiscriminately and indirectly affected by the environment. In most cases the game uses terms such as "affected creatures" to describe such creatures. Yes, it's true that there are a few places where this usage of "target" pops up here and there, such as in the Fireball description. But, a vast majority of the time the term is not used that way and therefore these few cases are most likely just the result of mistakes and inconsistencies from the writers. Sure, that can't really be proven -- it's just an overall sense that I get from reading through lots of text found all throughout the game.
Elaborating on some comments from an earlier post:
Out of curiosity, I went through every spell in a hardcopy version of the PHB, specifically looking at spells with a Range of self. There are 82 such spells. Many of these are simply listed as "Range: self" with no associated area of effect listed alongside the specified range. Many others have a specific size and shape in parentheses next to the specified range, indicating the area of effect that is affected by the casting of the spell.
For each of these 82 spells, I noted the Range entry and compared it to the corresponding entry for the same spell listed within D&D Beyond.
It turns out that there are exactly 7 spells that have a discrepancy between the hardcopy and the D&D Beyond versions of the spell with respect to the Range entry. These are:
Crusader's Mantle: PHB -- "Range: self", DDB -- "Range: self (30' sphere)"
Detect Evil and Good: PHB -- "Range: self", DDB -- "Range: self (30' sphere)"
Detect Magic: PHB -- "Range: self", DDB -- "Range: self (30' sphere)"
Detect Poison and Disease: PHB -- "Range: self", DDB -- "Range: self (30' sphere)"
Gust of Wind: PHB -- "Range: self (60' Line)", DDB -- "Range: self"
Holy Aura: PHB -- "Range: self", DDB -- "Range: self (30' sphere)"
Speak With Plants: PHB -- "Range: self (30' sphere)", DDB -- "Range: self"
Note that five of these are inconsistent in one direction and the other two are inconsistent in the other direction. The vast majority of spells with a range of self have the same entry in both versions of the spell.
Unless someone is able to explain these changes via errata, my own conclusion is that these inconsistencies are simply the result of sloppiness and mistakes made while creating the online version of each spell. But it's hard to say for sure. But the problem remains -- for spells that are impacted by this such as Detect Magic the DM must now decide which version of these spells will exist in their world, since, as mentioned before, the presence or absence of a defined area of effect entry alongside the specified range fundamentally determines how the spell functions with respect to how it interacts with and affects the nearby environment and all creatures and objects within that environment.
I think the 30' radius was removed from Speak with Plants because it doesn't move with the caster. Speak with Plants affects plants within 30' when the spell is cast but you can continue to speak with them. So the spell is self but it doesn't have an ongoing 30' radius.
It may also have been removed from Gust of Wind because, although the caster remains the source of the gust, they can change the direction of the gust as a bonus action on each turn. So, it is a 60' line but could be a different 60' line on each turn.
All the rest of the spells have a 30' radius that moves with the caster which is described in the spell text rather than on the Range line. Since there is no specific statement made anywhere that the different formatting has some rules meaning - I'd just chalk it up to editing or style differences. The D&D rules aren't a legal document, they are guidelines for playing a game that they admit up front can be played differently at every table and that a DM makes the decisions for how their table runs.
These discussions might only become relevant when a DM and their players differ on how they interpret the rules and one or the other is unhappy or dissatisfied. RAW discussions can then sometimes shed some light on how to play it.
similar question - does Nondetection protect you against Detect Invisibility
that is a very closed minded interpretation of the spell - THE DETECT MAGIC spell has a TARGET of SELF (or the CASTER) NOT what it is divining; just like Non Detect ion has a TARGET of SELF - the Non-detection wards the caster against the DIVINATION ability granted by DETECT MAGIC - OPEN YOUR MIND
A creature under the effect of nondetection can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors, including see invisibility and any other spells from the divination school.