So as a DM I've always wondered if detect magic could foil players stealthing. An example would be a player has a Cloak of Elven Kind and they roll like a 25 on their stealth check thanks to the cloak. If a mage casts detect magic, would that person in stealth be revealed by the magic aura of the cloak? The creature is still "visible" by logic of not being invisible, just hard to notice. It feels akin to being affected by Faerie Fire. You have an aura around you because of your magic item(s) but I don't know if that would result in an automatic failure on stealth (at least visually).
I understand you could just impose disadvantage on the stealth or advantage to perception see them but was curious what other people thought. Any help on the topic would be helpful!
Assuming the Detect Magic spell isn't blocked, for example, because the player is hidden behind a thin layer of wood, Detect Magic should still detect the Cloak of Elvenkind.
You would sense that there is some magic behind the layer of wood, but you wouldn't be able to see the aura of the object or the school of magic.
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.
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.
But if there isn't anything to block vision, their aura would be visible thus breaking their stealth? I only ask because I have a player that has been using a cloak of elven kind to make stealth checks kinda anywhere. Because of the chameleon nature of the cloak, I let them. But was curious if detect magic counters it in a way.
But if there isn't anything to block vision, their aura would be visible thus breaking their stealth? I only ask because I have a player that has been using a cloak of elven kind to make stealth checks kinda anywhere. Because of the chameleon nature of the cloak, I let them. But was curious if detect magic counters it in a way.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding the scenario or example (sorry...), but if there's nothing blocking vision (like total cover or totally obscured), where is the player hiding?
You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, even with the Cloak of Elvenkind.
EDIT: ok, maybe the player wants to sneak up an enemy or something? With Detect Magic, you'll at least sense the presence of magic around you, and then "you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic".
But if there isn't anything to block vision, their aura would be visible thus breaking their stealth? I only ask because I have a player that has been using a cloak of elven kind to make stealth checks kinda anywhere. Because of the chameleon nature of the cloak, I let them. But was curious if detect magic counters it in a way.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding the scenario or example (sorry...), but if there's nothing blocking vision (like total cover or totally obscured), where is the player hiding?
The classic "hide in shadows" situation, where they'd be visible if the lighting were better.
Hiding in the bushes, where they're not thick enough to fully block sight, but something can still be missed.
But if you read the item description, it's really meant to just provide advantage to stealth checks that you can already make. It's not designed to allow a player to just "make stealth checks kinda anywhere". It doesn't make it so that you can now hide somewhere that you couldn't hide before.
Then there's the question of why is the mage thinking to cast Detect Magic in the first place? If the creature is hidden, how does the mage know that there's any reason to look for someone? That would be situational.
Lastly, there's the question of how does Detect Magic actually work, which has been debated quite a bit. As written, you wouldn't actually be able to see the aura unless you can see the object, so if the creature and its cloak are hidden behind something then you wouldn't see the aura. So, the question in the original post doesn't quite work.
But if there isn't anything to block vision, their aura would be visible thus breaking their stealth? I only ask because I have a player that has been using a cloak of elven kind to make stealth checks kinda anywhere. Because of the chameleon nature of the cloak, I let them. But was curious if detect magic counters it in a way.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding the scenario or example (sorry...), but if there's nothing blocking vision (like total cover or totally obscured), where is the player hiding?
The classic "hide in shadows" situation, where they'd be visible if the lighting were better.
Hiding in the bushes, where they're not thick enough to fully block sight, but something can still be missed.
Hiding in a crowd.
Etc.
Ok, ok, thanks! I realized that might have been the scenario or situation and edited my answer, but my mind immediately thought of some kind of cover between creatures when reading the OP.
For the examples you were describing, Detect Magic will definitely sense the presence of the magic item. Then, depending on whether you can see the object or not, you could use an action to see the object's aura.
I also agree with @up2ng about why the mage might think it's necessary to cast the spell. But, well, it's a valid scenario either way. Maybe the mage is just bored in his laboratory.
If the caster were scanning in the right area, he would get magic detected in the cone. He would not see any aura as detect magic states:
"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."
Since a hidden creature is not visible, no aura, no school of magic. The caster just knows there is magic withing 30 feet of him, any magic on himself or one of his friends would also give the same results.
"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."
If a creature using a spell or magic item to be invisible moves within 30 feet of you, you would know automatically due to the first sentence. However, because they aren't visible, you can't see where they are. All you truly know is that Detect Magic is picking something up and you can't tell what.
"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."
If a creature using a spell or magic item to be invisible moves within 30 feet of you, you would know automatically due to the first sentence. However, because they aren't visible, you can't see where they are. All you truly know is that Detect Magic is picking something up and you can't tell what.
And if said invisible creature were to openly walk in front of a person with detect magic up, would not the faint aura be visible thus betraying the invisible creatures exact position?
Nope. The post that you quoted in your reply already explains it. The spell description requires that the creature or object be visible in order to see the aura.
"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."
If a creature using a spell or magic item to be invisible moves within 30 feet of you, you would know automatically due to the first sentence. However, because they aren't visible, you can't see where they are. All you truly know is that Detect Magic is picking something up and you can't tell what.
And if said invisible creature were to openly walk in front of a person with detect magic up, would not the faint aura be visible thus betraying the invisible creatures exact position?
Detect magic won't show you the faint aura of an invisible creature (*), because you need to be able to see the creature or object: "you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creatureor object in the area that bears magic".
(*) even if the invisible creature is holding a magical item, because anything the target is wearing or carrying is also invisible.
The only potential ambiguity regarding "any visible creature" is if a non-invisible creature is simply hiding in an area of darkness. You can't currently see that creature, but I believe the intent is that you would see the aura in that case . . . and that also relies on certain interpretations for how darkness works as well. That ruling could easily go either way.
Yeah, it's a bit of a specific scenario I have planned coming up eventually. Basically, powerful mage who knows said "cloak user" personally is expecting them and with some x-ray vision given by The Eye and Hand of Vecna he sees them coming but would notice the absence of said "cloak user". He's waiting in a room devoid of much furniture so I guess the whole point is mute since there's nothing to hide behind besides shadows (which he can see through). Their stealth is always so stupidly high that I normally just assume they could hide even when there's nothing to hide behind or around, especially thanks to chameleon like nature to the cloak. i.e. hiding in shadows, under snow, or in an enemy's blind spot
The takeaway here is that I should just be asking "What are you hiding behind?" more often. I just worry my players will lose some fun in it when I have to ask every time they hide as a bonus action on their turn after attacking. I've heard before that the heat of a battle is distracting enough to hide their presence since enemies can't focus on everyone in a fight at once. But when you have a +10 and advantage to stealth you practically can hide from anything. Especially when you get the rouge feat that makes every roll lower than a 10 a 10.
I don't know, I guess I was just curious if detect magic can in a way counter someone who always rolls higher than a 20 on stealth's. Thanks for all the inputs everyone!
Hiding has always been a topic of endless debate and discussion, and 2024 will be interesting to follow due to the new rules about Hiding and the Invisibility condition :D
That said, the following threads might be useful for you @ZeroG585:
Detect magic allows you to sense magic in 30' (which will work) and then use your action to detect auras around visible targets. Even in the 2014 rules, it is not clear whether a hiding creature is visible, and 2024 explicitly says that it isn't.
Detect magic would not show the aura even if they took the action because the spell’s description states “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.” You can only see an aura around a “visible creature or object.” If the PC can’t already see the cloak because the wearer is either invisible or fully obscured then they can’t see the aura at all.
And what about a 2014 ranger with HiPS? Obviously if they have no magic the spell wouldn’t detect them but the cloak would initially boost their check but then be detectable and the aura visible?
Strange, I do not believe that I stated anywhere that the very creature or object that is invisible would suddenly not longer be invisible by use of a Detect Magic spell.
What I did state was the magic effect aura of the casted spell ( in this case invisibility ) would be the detected and visible effect of the magic in use, and if said visible effect aura by way of Detect Magic is clearly and plainly in the very direct front of the detecting creature, and is not behind or using any form of obfuscation, then just the faint visible aura would only give the still invisible creature or object(s) position/location away when the search action is taken. It is the faint magical aura that would be surrounding the creature or object that would be visible and also detectable, but the effect of the invisibility would remain until the creature that is itself invisible breaks the condition.
The current rules, unless the invisible creature also is successfully hiding then you pretty much know the exact position of them anyway due to other means, like sound, smell, tracks in the dirt etc. so detect magic would t be needed. But in the example of a hidden creature that is also invisible, as others have already stated it wouldn’t work as the creature needs to be visible.
So as a DM I've always wondered if detect magic could foil players stealthing. An example would be a player has a Cloak of Elven Kind and they roll like a 25 on their stealth check thanks to the cloak. If a mage casts detect magic, would that person in stealth be revealed by the magic aura of the cloak? The creature is still "visible" by logic of not being invisible, just hard to notice. It feels akin to being affected by Faerie Fire. You have an aura around you because of your magic item(s) but I don't know if that would result in an automatic failure on stealth (at least visually).
I understand you could just impose disadvantage on the stealth or advantage to perception see them but was curious what other people thought. Any help on the topic would be helpful!
Assuming the Detect Magic spell isn't blocked, for example, because the player is hidden behind a thin layer of wood, Detect Magic should still detect the Cloak of Elvenkind.
You would sense that there is some magic behind the layer of wood, but you wouldn't be able to see the aura of the object or the school of magic.
But if there isn't anything to block vision, their aura would be visible thus breaking their stealth? I only ask because I have a player that has been using a cloak of elven kind to make stealth checks kinda anywhere. Because of the chameleon nature of the cloak, I let them. But was curious if detect magic counters it in a way.
Detect magic doesn't let you see the magic without taking an action, and even then it's a "faint aura".
It's DM's call, but I don't think it invalidates stealth. It might make the DC of the check to spot them easier.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding the scenario or example (sorry...), but if there's nothing blocking vision (like total cover or totally obscured), where is the player hiding?
You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, even with the Cloak of Elvenkind.
EDIT: ok, maybe the player wants to sneak up an enemy or something? With Detect Magic, you'll at least sense the presence of magic around you, and then "you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic".
The classic "hide in shadows" situation, where they'd be visible if the lighting were better.
Hiding in the bushes, where they're not thick enough to fully block sight, but something can still be missed.
Hiding in a crowd.
Etc.
But if you read the item description, it's really meant to just provide advantage to stealth checks that you can already make. It's not designed to allow a player to just "make stealth checks kinda anywhere". It doesn't make it so that you can now hide somewhere that you couldn't hide before.
Then there's the question of why is the mage thinking to cast Detect Magic in the first place? If the creature is hidden, how does the mage know that there's any reason to look for someone? That would be situational.
Lastly, there's the question of how does Detect Magic actually work, which has been debated quite a bit. As written, you wouldn't actually be able to see the aura unless you can see the object, so if the creature and its cloak are hidden behind something then you wouldn't see the aura. So, the question in the original post doesn't quite work.
Ok, ok, thanks! I realized that might have been the scenario or situation and edited my answer, but my mind immediately thought of some kind of cover between creatures when reading the OP.
For the examples you were describing, Detect Magic will definitely sense the presence of the magic item. Then, depending on whether you can see the object or not, you could use an action to see the object's aura.
I also agree with @up2ng about why the mage might think it's necessary to cast the spell. But, well, it's a valid scenario either way. Maybe the mage is just bored in his laboratory.
If the caster were scanning in the right area, he would get magic detected in the cone. He would not see any aura as detect magic states:
"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."
Since a hidden creature is not visible, no aura, no school of magic. The caster just knows there is magic withing 30 feet of him, any magic on himself or one of his friends would also give the same results.
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.
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."
If a creature using a spell or magic item to be invisible moves within 30 feet of you, you would know automatically due to the first sentence. However, because they aren't visible, you can't see where they are. All you truly know is that Detect Magic is picking something up and you can't tell what.
Nope. The post that you quoted in your reply already explains it. The spell description requires that the creature or object be visible in order to see the aura.
Detect magic won't show you the faint aura of an invisible creature (*), because you need to be able to see the creature or object: "you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic".
(*) even if the invisible creature is holding a magical item, because anything the target is wearing or carrying is also invisible.
The See Invisibility is more appropriate for that.
The only potential ambiguity regarding "any visible creature" is if a non-invisible creature is simply hiding in an area of darkness. You can't currently see that creature, but I believe the intent is that you would see the aura in that case . . . and that also relies on certain interpretations for how darkness works as well. That ruling could easily go either way.
Yeah, it's a bit of a specific scenario I have planned coming up eventually. Basically, powerful mage who knows said "cloak user" personally is expecting them and with some x-ray vision given by The Eye and Hand of Vecna he sees them coming but would notice the absence of said "cloak user". He's waiting in a room devoid of much furniture so I guess the whole point is mute since there's nothing to hide behind besides shadows (which he can see through). Their stealth is always so stupidly high that I normally just assume they could hide even when there's nothing to hide behind or around, especially thanks to chameleon like nature to the cloak. i.e. hiding in shadows, under snow, or in an enemy's blind spot
The takeaway here is that I should just be asking "What are you hiding behind?" more often. I just worry my players will lose some fun in it when I have to ask every time they hide as a bonus action on their turn after attacking. I've heard before that the heat of a battle is distracting enough to hide their presence since enemies can't focus on everyone in a fight at once. But when you have a +10 and advantage to stealth you practically can hide from anything. Especially when you get the rouge feat that makes every roll lower than a 10 a 10.
I don't know, I guess I was just curious if detect magic can in a way counter someone who always rolls higher than a 20 on stealth's. Thanks for all the inputs everyone!
Hiding has always been a topic of endless debate and discussion, and 2024 will be interesting to follow due to the new rules about Hiding and the Invisibility condition :D
That said, the following threads might be useful for you @ZeroG585:
Detect magic allows you to sense magic in 30' (which will work) and then use your action to detect auras around visible targets. Even in the 2014 rules, it is not clear whether a hiding creature is visible, and 2024 explicitly says that it isn't.
Detect magic would not show the aura even if they took the action because the spell’s description states “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.” You can only see an aura around a “visible creature or object.” If the PC can’t already see the cloak because the wearer is either invisible or fully obscured then they can’t see the aura at all.
And what about a 2014 ranger with HiPS? Obviously if they have no magic the spell wouldn’t detect them but the cloak would initially boost their check but then be detectable and the aura visible?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The current rules, unless the invisible creature also is successfully hiding then you pretty much know the exact position of them anyway due to other means, like sound, smell, tracks in the dirt etc. so detect magic would t be needed.
But in the example of a hidden creature that is also invisible, as others have already stated it wouldn’t work as the creature needs to be visible.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?