If you go back and read through the thread, there is a complication due to how these things are written. See Invisibility targets self, giving the caster a special power. The spell does not target other creatures and it is not a magical scrying sensor. So one valid interpretation, and the one that is technically the most correct if we disregard intent, is that see Invisibility "beats" nondetection.
If you go back and read through the thread, there is a complication due to how these things are written. See Invisibility targets self, giving the caster a special power. The spell does not target other creatures and it is not a magical scrying sensor. So one valid interpretation, and the one that is technically the most correct if we disregard intent, is that see Invisibility "beats" nondetection.
Targeting is not strictly tied to range, it's essentially refers to those affected by the spell's magic. For nondetection's duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic, which see invisibility is.
If you go back and read through the thread, there is a complication due to how these things are written. See Invisibility targets self, giving the caster a special power. The spell does not target other creatures and it is not a magical scrying sensor. So one valid interpretation, and the one that is technically the most correct if we disregard intent, is that see Invisibility "beats" nondetection.
Targeting is not strictly tied to range, it's essentially refers to those affected by the spell's magic. For nondetection's duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic, which see invisibility is.
I disagree with all of this. Targeting is not the same as just affecting a creature or object or point with magic. It is more specific than that. It is intentionally singling out and directly aiming at someone or something or someplace. For example, by rule, you need a clear path to it:
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
Contrast this to rules for area of effect, such as:
Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once. . . .
Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts. . . .
A spell's effect expands in straight lines from the point of origin. If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area.
These rules in combination show that it is possible to affect an untargetable creature with magic. Unfortunately, the authors have used the word "target" in a few places in error, such as in the spell description for Fireball, and that causes confusion.
Next, while it's true that nondetection hides a target from divination magic, the see invisibility spell does not attempt to target or even affect that creature. See invisibility's spell effect affects some other creature and essentially gives that creature a special sense. He might then use that sense to perceive the creature hidden by nondetection and by RAW that should work (although obviously this was not intended to work this way).
Detect Poison and Disease and Detect Magic are both open to debate because they are listed differently in D&DBeyond than they are in the PHB -- both of which are "official" sources I believe. In D&DBeyond, they have a defined area of effect (30 foot sphere) which radiates outward from the "self" location, as indicated by the parentheses next to the range entry. This indicates a spell effect where divination magic fills up that space and nondetection would successfully block this spell effect. However, if we use the PHB version of the spell, the spell effect only affects "self" and, again, it essentially gives that creature a special sense. He might then use that sense to perceive the creature hidden by nondetection and by RAW that should work (again, obviously not intentional). The D&DBeyond versions of these spells are likely the intended versions since they both have phrasing such as "the spell can penetrate most barriers".
Detect Thoughts is a little different. It works the same way as See Invisibility by essentially giving a creature a special sense. In this case, the word "target" is used throughout the spell description -- but these are not describing the spell's effect, they are describing how to use the newly acquired special sense. The special sense "targets" creatures, but not with magic -- just as a selection mechanic. But, in addition to this, there is a second option for how to use the spell which is mechanically different. You can "detect the presence of" thinking creatures. Because this feature also includes that phrasing of "the spell can penetrate barriers", this "detection" ability IS an area of effect radiating outward from the "self" location just like those other "detect" spells. This spell effect would be blocked by nondetection -- but the first option of the direct mind reading would not be blocked by it.
I disagree with all of this. Targeting is not the same as just affecting a creature or object or point with magic. It is more specific than that. It is intentionally singling out and directly aiming at someone or something or someplace. For example, by rule, you need a clear path to it:
It's more complex than range like i said, but essentially a target is affected by the spell's magic. They even refer to creature who does not know it was targeted by a spell at all due to more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, and Detect Thoughts despite being Self range affect other targets and call them as such.
Just like many area of effect spells, such as Fireball despite targeting a point of origin within range, effectively also target creatures affected by it and call them as such.
RAW with nondetection you hide a target that you touch from divination magic and see invisibility is divination magic, it's that simple.
Targets: 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). Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.
It's more complex than range like i said, but essentially a target is affected by the spell's magic.
This is false. Targeting a creature means that you actively and specifically select that creature. Indiscriminate effects created by an area of effect does not target creatures unless the spell description explicitly says otherwise, such as in the Fireball spell.
and Detect Thoughts despite being Self range affect other targets and call them as such.
No. Detect Thoughts was explained in detail in my previous post. When you cast the spell and as your action on each turn, you have two options:
1. You can use the ability that the spell grants you (target: self) to learn the surface thoughts of a creature that you can see or to probe deeper into that creature's mind. You are not targeting that creature with divination magic in that case -- you are using a special sense or ability granted to you by the spell.
2. You can detect the presence of thinking creatures you can't see. This portion of the spell includes phrasing that "the spell can penetrate barriers", so when you are using this second option, you are interacting with an area of effect of divination magic. But in this case you are not targeting any creatures.
So, in both cases, nondetection is bypassed according to the RAW.
RAW with nondetection you hide a target that you touch from divination magic and see invisibility is divination magic, it's that simple.
Not only is it not that simple, but that's also false.
See invisibility does not target other creatures and it doesn't even create an area of effect (even though that doesn't actually matter since nondetection does not block areas of effect). See invisibility beats nondetection according to the RAW.
Not only is it not that simple, but that's also false.
It can be that simple. If your own understanding of divination magic, spell range and target leads you to different conclusion it's own you but RAW can easily be read and interpretated as such based on what's written below. If you can see an invisible creature with the help of divination magic, it's not really hidden from it as it should by Nondetection.
Nondetection: For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic.
Why. Why would you hide yourself from being able to divine things? Why would a spell that blocks you from being able to divine things be called "Nondetection?" Why would such a spell even exist?
Who knows why a player would do something like that? That's up to the player. Maybe the target of nondetection is not a spellcaster, for example. The name was likely chosen and the spell likely exists for another purpose -- to hide from divination magic so that an enemy cannot use it against you in a hostile way.
In 5e, the main benefit of hiding is that you cannot be targeted. But hidden creatures can still be affected indiscriminately by areas of effect.
If instead the spell was meant to make the target immune from the effects of divination magic, the authors would have used the word immune.
Not only is it not that simple, but that's also false.
It can be that simple. If your own understanding of divination magic, spell range and target leads you to different conclusion it's own you but RAW can easily be read and interpretated as such based on what's written below. If you can see an invisible creature with the help of divination magic, it's not really hidden from it as it should by Nondetection.
Nondetection: For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic.
See Invisibility: 2nd level divination
You know better than this. Sure, there is a good chance that this was the intent, but that's not the same as examining how it actually works mechanically according to the RAW. You've been around the RAW forum enough that I know that you know the difference.
Not only is it not that simple, but that's also false.
It can be that simple. If your own understanding of divination magic, spell range and target leads you to different conclusion it's own you but RAW can easily be read and interpretated as such based on what's written below. If you can see an invisible creature with the help of divination magic, it's not really hidden from it as it should by Nondetection.
Nondetection: For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic.
See Invisibility: 2nd level divination
I have no idea why this thread is active again, but all you've demonstrated here is that you can't cast See Invisibility on someone who's under the effect of Nondetection.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"The target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors."
What is complicated about this?
The spell would be useless unless it works as it obviously says it does.
If you go back and read through the thread, there is a complication due to how these things are written. See Invisibility targets self, giving the caster a special power. The spell does not target other creatures and it is not a magical scrying sensor. So one valid interpretation, and the one that is technically the most correct if we disregard intent, is that see Invisibility "beats" nondetection.
Targeting is not strictly tied to range, it's essentially refers to those affected by the spell's magic. For nondetection's duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic, which see invisibility is.
Self range spells like Detect Poison and Disease, Detect Magic, and Detect Thoughts can target other things, the latter even reference targeting creature in it's effect description.
For those interested in more advices on the subject check out Sage Advice - Targeting Revisited (youtube.com) Dragontalk podcast.
I disagree with all of this. Targeting is not the same as just affecting a creature or object or point with magic. It is more specific than that. It is intentionally singling out and directly aiming at someone or something or someplace. For example, by rule, you need a clear path to it:
Contrast this to rules for area of effect, such as:
These rules in combination show that it is possible to affect an untargetable creature with magic. Unfortunately, the authors have used the word "target" in a few places in error, such as in the spell description for Fireball, and that causes confusion.
Next, while it's true that nondetection hides a target from divination magic, the see invisibility spell does not attempt to target or even affect that creature. See invisibility's spell effect affects some other creature and essentially gives that creature a special sense. He might then use that sense to perceive the creature hidden by nondetection and by RAW that should work (although obviously this was not intended to work this way).
Detect Poison and Disease and Detect Magic are both open to debate because they are listed differently in D&DBeyond than they are in the PHB -- both of which are "official" sources I believe. In D&DBeyond, they have a defined area of effect (30 foot sphere) which radiates outward from the "self" location, as indicated by the parentheses next to the range entry. This indicates a spell effect where divination magic fills up that space and nondetection would successfully block this spell effect. However, if we use the PHB version of the spell, the spell effect only affects "self" and, again, it essentially gives that creature a special sense. He might then use that sense to perceive the creature hidden by nondetection and by RAW that should work (again, obviously not intentional). The D&DBeyond versions of these spells are likely the intended versions since they both have phrasing such as "the spell can penetrate most barriers".
Detect Thoughts is a little different. It works the same way as See Invisibility by essentially giving a creature a special sense. In this case, the word "target" is used throughout the spell description -- but these are not describing the spell's effect, they are describing how to use the newly acquired special sense. The special sense "targets" creatures, but not with magic -- just as a selection mechanic. But, in addition to this, there is a second option for how to use the spell which is mechanically different. You can "detect the presence of" thinking creatures. Because this feature also includes that phrasing of "the spell can penetrate barriers", this "detection" ability IS an area of effect radiating outward from the "self" location just like those other "detect" spells. This spell effect would be blocked by nondetection -- but the first option of the direct mind reading would not be blocked by it.
It's more complex than range like i said, but essentially a target is affected by the spell's magic. They even refer to creature who does not know it was targeted by a spell at all due to more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, and Detect Thoughts despite being Self range affect other targets and call them as such.
Just like many area of effect spells, such as Fireball despite targeting a point of origin within range, effectively also target creatures affected by it and call them as such.
RAW with nondetection you hide a target that you touch from divination magic and see invisibility is divination magic, it's that simple.
This is false. Targeting a creature means that you actively and specifically select that creature. Indiscriminate effects created by an area of effect does not target creatures unless the spell description explicitly says otherwise, such as in the Fireball spell.
No. Detect Thoughts was explained in detail in my previous post. When you cast the spell and as your action on each turn, you have two options:
1. You can use the ability that the spell grants you (target: self) to learn the surface thoughts of a creature that you can see or to probe deeper into that creature's mind. You are not targeting that creature with divination magic in that case -- you are using a special sense or ability granted to you by the spell.
2. You can detect the presence of thinking creatures you can't see. This portion of the spell includes phrasing that "the spell can penetrate barriers", so when you are using this second option, you are interacting with an area of effect of divination magic. But in this case you are not targeting any creatures.
So, in both cases, nondetection is bypassed according to the RAW.
Not only is it not that simple, but that's also false.
See invisibility does not target other creatures and it doesn't even create an area of effect (even though that doesn't actually matter since nondetection does not block areas of effect). See invisibility beats nondetection according to the RAW.
It can be that simple. If your own understanding of divination magic, spell range and target leads you to different conclusion it's own you but RAW can easily be read and interpretated as such based on what's written below. If you can see an invisible creature with the help of divination magic, it's not really hidden from it as it should by Nondetection.
Who knows why a player would do something like that? That's up to the player. Maybe the target of nondetection is not a spellcaster, for example. The name was likely chosen and the spell likely exists for another purpose -- to hide from divination magic so that an enemy cannot use it against you in a hostile way.
In 5e, the main benefit of hiding is that you cannot be targeted. But hidden creatures can still be affected indiscriminately by areas of effect.
If instead the spell was meant to make the target immune from the effects of divination magic, the authors would have used the word immune.
You know better than this. Sure, there is a good chance that this was the intent, but that's not the same as examining how it actually works mechanically according to the RAW. You've been around the RAW forum enough that I know that you know the difference.
I know the difference, iIf it's intended or not is not the question but if it's RAW and it is per quote above.
I have no idea why this thread is active again, but all you've demonstrated here is that you can't cast See Invisibility on someone who's under the effect of Nondetection.