Does non-detection work against true seeing/ detect invisibility?

135 posts / 0 new
Last post
I am inclined to think so from the wording but I am wondering if there there is an official clarification.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Rule 1 of Posting: Read the rule books. Rule 2 of Posting: Before posting, refer to rule 1.
Read this
Et in arcadia ego~Even in paradise I am here Est Sularus Oth Mithas~My Honor Is My Life You, sir, are a liar. Or delusional. I like your style.- Zombie_Babies
Show
The two editions are very different...and make for two different games. In general, 3.0/3.5 is built around more-or-less full freedom in terms of character customization. In contrast, 4.0 is built around balance and ease of play. Honestly, I think WotC should have maintained both lines as parallel games.
(real life friends came up with this not me) The Resident Nonexistant Antichrist Neanderthal Amish Werewolf Jesus Delusion.
Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in....
I think I have to agree with groveborn 10000% on this one
Remember that the forums are here for us to learn new things but that does not mean that you shouldn't do your own basic research first. You are Red/Blue! You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable. *He who fights with honour, knowledge and friendship shall always be victorious over the horde*
Groveborn FTW.
MrJake "This forum is madness!" "No! This. Is. WIZSPACE!!!"
Ye, I had already seen that post, but it's about true strike not true seeing/see invisibility.

Also, I am not looking for an opinion on the matter, I am looking for a link to some sort of official posting.

I think both questions were pretty clear.

There is no magical defense against True Seeing.  There are attacks that will work, such as Disjunction or Dispel Magic, but True Seeing will see through any magical disguise, period.  You could use many non-magical defenses, such as a regular disguise, but there really is absolutely no magical defense.
Rule 1 of Posting: Read the rule books. Rule 2 of Posting: Before posting, refer to rule 1.
This is the wording of nondetection, PHB page 257 (emphasis mine, though it should also be
in the book):

The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells SUCH AS
clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells.



Clairaudience/clairvoyance is a divination (scrying) spell along with arcane eye and prying eyes.
Nondetection thwarts divination (scrying).

Locate object and locate creature are thwarted by nondetection.  Discern location specifically
indicates that it is not thwarted by nondetection.  Only mind blank stops discern location.

Detect spells include any spell with "detect" in the title: detect magic, detect undead, detect
thoughts, etc.  These spells are thwarted by nondetection.

See invisibility, true strike, moment of prescience, foresight, Rary's telepathic bond, tongues,
and true seeing are not detection, location, or scrying divination spells.  Nondetection has no
ability to thwart these divination spells.
I understand the logic of your argument, the thing is that "such as" could be referring to examples of divination spells, and non detection could be referring to the school of divination.

In any case I think the wording is ambiguous at best, that's why I am looking for some sort of official posting on the matter.
In any case I think the wording is ambiguous at best,
 that's why I am looking for some sort of official posting on the matter.



There is none. Trust me. We've all looked/asked/begged for one.
And now that 3.5 is no longer supported, there never will be.
You might consider figuring out where the last Sage
is working (Kobold Quarterly, I think) and see what his opinion is.
This will still not be "official," however.

The wording of Nondetection has caused endless hours of
debate with no "official" response.
Sorry, but you're just going to have to make this call on your own.  Cry



MrJake "This forum is madness!" "No! This. Is. WIZSPACE!!!"
or we can debate it over the course of 18 pages. your call.
Glitterdust Bunnies ftw!
or we can debate it over the course of 18 pages. your call.



Yes, please. Let's talk about meeeeeeeeee!

Ye, I had already seen that post, but it's about true strike not true seeing/see invisibility.



Poopy pants. I hope you cast me and roll a 1.
@ cato

The reason for the link to the true strike thread, i believe, was because we as a community, cannot agree what exactly nondetection does and covers. Some people believe that it only works against the stuff listed after the "such as...." line. Some people think it blocks any divination, no matter whom said divination is cast upon. And some people, myself included, believe it blocks any divination that is attempted against the non-detected creature. So its pretty much pick the interpretation that you like the best.

PS. just for completeness sake, here is why i believe it blocks any divination atempted against the warded creature:


Abjuration
Level: Rgr 4, Sor/Wiz 3, Trickery 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature or object touched
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless,
object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object)
The warded creature or object becomes
difficult to detect by divination spells such
as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and
detect spells. Nondetection also prevents
location by such magic items as crystal balls.
If a divination is attempted against the
warded creature or item
, the caster of the
divination must succeed on a caster level
check (1d20 + caster level) against a DC of
11 + the caster level of the spellcaster who
cast nondetection. If you cast nondetection on
yourself or on an item currently in your
possession, the DC is 15 + your caster level.
If cast on a creature, nondetection wards
the creature’s gear as well as the creature
itself.
Material Component: A pinch of diamond
dust worth 50 gp.

To me, the stuff before the bolded part is just examples of what is blocked. But as I said, thats just my interpretation.
Glitterdust Bunnies ftw!
Another interesting fact ( I can't decide which side if any benefits from this) is that see invisibility used to be called detect invisibility in ad&d, if my memory serves me right. Maybe that can shed some light on the original intent of the spells since they were both conceived then?

Scrying spells, location spells, and detection spells are divination spells whose effects can interact with the subject of nondetection.  Tongues, true seeing, true strike, see invisibility, these divination spells are never cast upon the subject of nondetection, their effects never interact or intersect with the subject of nondetection, and therefore spells like true seeing, true strike, and see invisibility would never be thwarted by nondetection.  That is why "divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells," in other words, "scrying, location, and detection spells," are the only divination spells thwarted by nondetection.

Keep in mind that a person with see invisibility active is not "using" see invisibility on the subject of nondetection.  Nondetection does not thwart a person's eyesight, and see invisibility's spell effect never touches nondetection's spell effect.  The spells never intersect.  Therefore nondetection does not thwart see invisibility.

This is not my interpretation.  It's a matter of reading comprehension.  There's a very real reason why only scrying, location, and detection spells are listed after "such as."  A bit of research is required, looking through the entire PHB, seeing that the spells listed after "such as" are very specific types of divination spells that can interact with the subject of nondetection.  Only scrying, location, and detect spells are listed, and then the crystal ball is specifically mentioned, a device used for scrying.  There is a reason for this, and the reason is that only specific divination spells are thwarted by nondetection, those divination spells that can interact with the subject of nondetection, specifically scrying, location, and detect spells (and magical items that duplicate their effects).

"Such as" is the crucial language that indicates that nondetection does not protect against all divination spells.  If all divination spells were stopped by nondection, then the spell description would not go into specific detail about scrying, detect, and location spells and the crystal ball.

See invisibility might have once been detect invisibility, but it's not detect invisibility anymore, and wouldn't be thwarted by nondetection in the 3.0/3.5 D&D world.  Why?  For two reasons:

1. See invisibility's spell effect never comes into contact with the subject of nondetection.  The spell effects never intersect, so nondetection never has anything to protect against in the case of divination spells such as true seeing, see invisibility, true strike, moment of prescience, tongues, etc.

2. See invisibility is not a detect, location, or scrying spell, and it's only those divination spells that have the ability to interact with nondetection.

I've said this on previous threads, and I'll say it again here: Why assume language that doesn't exist?  If nondetection protected a caster from each and every divination spell in existence, that information would be made clear in the PHB.  "Such as" indicates (and yes, it does indicate this... trust me, I'm an English teacher) that nondetection only thwarts detect, location, or scrying spells or magical items that duplicate those effects (like a crystal ball).

It's totally fine for a DM to change this with a house rule, allowing the subject of nondetection to be protected against divination spells such as true strike, see invisibility, tongues, and true seeing.  As we all know, DM fiat is the one thing that trumps all logic and RAW.  However, in terms of the RAW and the comprehension of the RAW, the above is true.

You can't ignore the fact though that the wording of non detection was the same when see invisibility was detect invisibility, so the intention of the spell was to thwart detect invisibility.

Whether they changed that fact in 3.0 is a subject of debate, it could very well be so, and the change in wording would suggest so as well, the thing is though that other spells like detect undead etc have kept the detect keyword, which kinda contradicts your argument, since they also don't directly target the subjects, and they function is sensory only.

As for the "such as" wording, it could definetely be just an example, since there is no rule suggesting otherwise, and language wise such as could refer to divinations (such as xx  random divinations)
You can't ignore the fact though that the wording of non detection was the same when see invisibility was detect invisibility, so the intention of the spell was to thwart detect invisibility.



I can ignore it because it's no longer relevant.

As for the "such as" wording, it could definetely be just an example, since there is no rule suggesting otherwise, and language wise such as could refer to divinations (such as xx  random divinations)


The list after "such as" is specific, as I indicated in my previous post.  Each of those spells can interact with the subject of nondetection.  See invisibility, true strike, true seeing, tongues, these spells do not interact with the subject of nondetection.  Therefore, only spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance (scrying), locate object (and locate creature), and detect spells (detect magic, detect undead, etc.) are thwarted by nondetection.  See invisibility is not.  Only those divination spells that interact with the subject of nondetection are thwarted by nondetection: scrying, location, and detect spells (and magical items duplicating their effects).  See invisibility does not interact with the subject of nondetection.


I understand your interpretation, and if you want to run things your way, fine.  If you want to know how nondetection works or doesn't work against see invisibility, what I'm saying on this thread is correct.

I've said this on previous threads, and I'll say it again here: Why assume language that doesn't exist?  If nondetection protected a caster from each and every divination spell in existence, that information would be made clear in the PHB.  "Such as" indicates (and yes, it does indicate this... trust me, I'm an English teacher) that nondetection only thwarts detect, location, or scrying spells or magical items that duplicate those effects (like a crystal ball).

Unfortunately, this also means that "scrying" spells cannot be used as a criteria.  Scrying is never mentioned as a defining factor of the effects against which nondetection protects.

If we are to avoid assuming language that doesn't exist, we also cannot assume that the mere mention of a spell which happens to have the "scrying" subschool means that nondetection blocks scrying spells as a whole.  Compare obscure object or mind blank, which identify scrying spells as being subject to their defense.

We can invent criteria like "has the scrying subschool" based on what we believe the evidence to represent, but it's no more technically correct than another invented critera like "allows the caster to see the subject".  If we are not to assume language that doesn't exist, scrying is an invalid criteria.
Each of those spells can interact with the subject of nondetection.  See invisibility, true strike, true seeing, tongues, these spells do not interact with the subject of nondetection.  Therefore, only spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance (scrying), locate object (and locate creature), and detect spells (detect magic, detect undead, etc.) are thwarted by nondetection.  See invisibility is not.  Only those divination spells that interact with the subject of nondetection are thwarted by nondetection: scrying, location, and detect spells (and magical items duplicating their effects).  See invisibility does not interact with the subject of nondetection.

Locate object and the detect spells have the subject in their area, and the scrying spell employed by crystal balls allows the subject a Will save.  Both conditions are fairly concrete signs of interaction.

But while that criteria of interaction holds true for most of the spells, exactly how does clairaudience/clairvoyance interact with the subject of nondetection?

The kraken stirs. And ten billion sushi dinners cry out for vengeance. - Good Omens

Co-Author of the Dreamfane, Euralden Eye, Gajuisan Crawler, Gruesome Lurker, Fulminating Crab, Ironglass Rose, Sheengrass Swarm, Spryjack, Usunag, and Warp Drifter, and author of the Magmal Horror from Force of Nature.

My most popular campaign item; for all your adventuring convenience.
Zauber's Mutable Rod: This rod has a number of useful functions that make it easier to live in the wilderness. It is made of polished wood, with five studlike buttons on one end. Each button produces a different effect when pressed. Unless otherwise noted, the rod’s functions have no limit on the number of times they can be employed. When button 1 is pressed, one end of the rod produces a small flame, equivalent to a candle. When button 2 is pressed, the rod unfolds into a two-person tent, complete with bedrolls and warm blankets. When button 3 is pressed, the rod becomes a one-handed hammer, suitable for pounding pitons into a wall. When button 4 is pressed, the rod becomes a sturdy iron spade. When button 5 is pressed, the rod becomes a wooden bucket able to hold 2 gallons of liquid. Once per day, it can be commanded to fill with fresh water. If the rod is seriously damaged or broken in any of its alternate forms (button 2, 3, 4, or 5), it reverts to its basic rod form and cannot be activated for 24 hours. Moderate conjuration; CL 9th; Craft Rod, minor creation; Price 375 gp; Weight 2 lb.
Unfortunately, this also means that "scrying" spells cannot be used as a criteria.  Scrying is never mentioned as a defining factor of the effects against which nondetection protects.



Spells such as clairvoyance/clairaudience are scrying spells, along with arcane eye, scrying, greater scrying, and prying eyes.  It's not necessary to include the words "scrying spells," as it should be obvious to those who have read page 173 of the PHB how scrying spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance work and that they're foiled by nondetection.

But while that criteria of interaction holds true for most of the spells, exactly how does clairaudience/clairvoyance interact with the subject of nondetection?



Through its scrying sensor, which is explained on page 173 of the PHB.

Scrying spells, location spells, and detection spells are divination spells whose effects can interact with the subject of nondetection.  Tongues, true seeing, true strike, see invisibility, these divination spells are never cast upon the subject of nondetection, their effects never interact or intersect with the subject of nondetection, and therefore spells like true seeing, true strike, and see invisibility would never be thwarted by nondetection.  That is why "divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells," in other words, "scrying, location, and detection spells," are the only divination spells thwarted by nondetection.

Keep in mind that a person with see invisibility active is not "using" see invisibility on the subject of nondetection.  Nondetection does not thwart a person's eyesight, and see invisibility's spell effect never touches nondetection's spell effect.  The spells never intersect.  Therefore nondetection does not thwart see invisibility.

This is not my interpretation.  It's a matter of reading comprehension.  There's a very real reason why only scrying, location, and detection spells are listed after "such as."  A bit of research is required, looking through the entire PHB, seeing that the spells listed after "such as" are very specific types of divination spells that can interact with the subject of nondetection.  Only scrying, location, and detect spells are listed, and then the crystal ball is specifically mentioned, a device used for scrying.  There is a reason for this, and the reason is that only specific divination spells are thwarted by nondetection, those divination spells that can interact with the subject of nondetection, specifically scrying, location, and detect spells (and magical items that duplicate their effects).

"Such as" is the crucial language that indicates that nondetection does not protect against all divination spells.  If all divination spells were stopped by nondection, then the spell description would not go into specific detail about scrying, detect, and location spells and the crystal ball.

See invisibility might have once been detect invisibility, but it's not detect invisibility anymore, and wouldn't be thwarted by nondetection in the 3.0/3.5 D&D world.  Why?  For two reasons:

1. See invisibility's spell effect never comes into contact with the subject of nondetection.  The spell effects never intersect, so nondetection never has anything to protect against in the case of divination spells such as true seeing, see invisibility, true strike, moment of prescience, tongues, etc.

2. See invisibility is not a detect, location, or scrying spell, and it's only those divination spells that have the ability to interact with nondetection.

I've said this on previous threads, and I'll say it again here: Why assume language that doesn't exist?  If nondetection protected a caster from each and every divination spell in existence, that information would be made clear in the PHB.  "Such as" indicates (and yes, it does indicate this... trust me, I'm an English teacher) that nondetection only thwarts detect, location, or scrying spells or magical items that duplicate those effects (like a crystal ball).

It's totally fine for a DM to change this with a house rule, allowing the subject of nondetection to be protected against divination spells such as true strike, see invisibility, tongues, and true seeing.  As we all know, DM fiat is the one thing that trumps all logic and RAW.  However, in terms of the RAW and the comprehension of the RAW, the above is true.





"Hello, thank you for calling the Redundancy Department of Redundancy! How may we be redundant for you today?"

Laughing
"Hello, thank you for calling the Redundancy Department of Redundancy! How may we be redundant for you today?"





I'll assume you understand how nondetection works.  Wink
You can't ignore the fact though that the wording of non detection was the same when see invisibility was detect invisibility, so the intention of the spell was to thwart detect invisibility.



I can ignore it because it's no longer relevant

Well the original intent of the spell is always relevant, since we don't know for sure why the wording was changed with this in mind.

As for the "such as" wording, it could definetely be just an example, since there is no rule suggesting otherwise, and language wise such as could refer to divinations (such as xx  random divinations)


The list after "such as" is specific, as I indicated in my previous post.  Each of those spells can interact with the subject of nondetection.  See invisibility, true strike, true seeing, tongues, these spells do not interact with the subject of nondetection.  Therefore, only spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance (scrying), locate object (and locate creature), and detect spells (detect magic, detect undead, etc.) are thwarted by nondetection.  See invisibility is not.  Only those divination spells that interact with the subject of nondetection are thwarted by nondetection: scrying, location, and detect spells (and magical items duplicating their effects).  See invisibility does not interact with the subject of nondetection.


I understand your interpretation, and if you want to run things your way, fine.  If you want to know how nondetection works or doesn't work against see invisibility, what I'm saying on this thread is correct.




How does detect undead interact with the subject? It interacts with the space the subject is in but not with the subject itself.
In the end you are repeating what you said before while stating you are correct without any extra information.

I am not saying you are incorrect, I am just saying that I have yet to see any conclusive evidence which solidly backs any side.

That's why my main original question since the first post was if there was some official ruling on the matter.


It's not necessary to include the words "scrying spells," as it should be obvious to those who have read page 173 of the PHB how scrying spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance work and that they're foiled by nondetection.

"It should be obvious"; but you want others to avoid assuming language that doesn't exist?  If your point of view is correct, you won't need to ignore your own standards while trying to demonstrate it.
Through its scrying sensor, which is explained on page 173 of the PHB.

The scrying sensor of clairaudience/clairvoyance only allows you to observe, and in no way improves your visual senses.  It also does not target a creature or an object, nor does it project an area.   So what kind of interaction is it performing?

The kraken stirs. And ten billion sushi dinners cry out for vengeance. - Good Omens

Co-Author of the Dreamfane, Euralden Eye, Gajuisan Crawler, Gruesome Lurker, Fulminating Crab, Ironglass Rose, Sheengrass Swarm, Spryjack, Usunag, and Warp Drifter, and author of the Magmal Horror from Force of Nature.

My most popular campaign item; for all your adventuring convenience.
Zauber's Mutable Rod: This rod has a number of useful functions that make it easier to live in the wilderness. It is made of polished wood, with five studlike buttons on one end. Each button produces a different effect when pressed. Unless otherwise noted, the rod’s functions have no limit on the number of times they can be employed. When button 1 is pressed, one end of the rod produces a small flame, equivalent to a candle. When button 2 is pressed, the rod unfolds into a two-person tent, complete with bedrolls and warm blankets. When button 3 is pressed, the rod becomes a one-handed hammer, suitable for pounding pitons into a wall. When button 4 is pressed, the rod becomes a sturdy iron spade. When button 5 is pressed, the rod becomes a wooden bucket able to hold 2 gallons of liquid. Once per day, it can be commanded to fill with fresh water. If the rod is seriously damaged or broken in any of its alternate forms (button 2, 3, 4, or 5), it reverts to its basic rod form and cannot be activated for 24 hours. Moderate conjuration; CL 9th; Craft Rod, minor creation; Price 375 gp; Weight 2 lb.
How does detect undead interact with the subject?


Detect undead's cone-shaped emanation is interracting with the subject of nondetection.  A zombie lying on the ground with nondetection cast upon it would not register as undead, and would perhaps be mistaken for a regular corpse.  That's how.

"It should be obvious"; but you want others to avoid assuming language that doesn't exist?  If your point of view is correct, you won't need to ignore your own standards while trying to demonstrate it.


The language exists on page 173 under scrying.  It's not necessary to repeat that information in nondetection's spell description.

The scrying sensor of clairaudience/clairvoyance only allows you to observe, and in no way improves your visual senses.  It also does not target a creature or an object, nor does it project an area.   So what kind of interaction is it performing?


The scrying sensor scans the area, and anyone with nondetection cast is unable to be observed by the scrying sensor.  A person with nondetection cast does not exist as far as arcane eye, prying eyes, and other scrying spells are concerned.  It says so right on page 173, "Lead sheeting or magical protection (such as antimagic field, mind blank, or nondetection) blocks a scrying spell."


The difference between detect spells and see invisibility is that detect points you with magic the item
while see  enhance your senses so that it doesn't affect you anymore

technically a blind creature could still use detect spells to detect undead or whatever surronding them with magic
while a blind creature casting see invisibility would have no benifit since it doesn't have the sense needed

this is how I see detect spells to interact with the subjects


isn't it mentionned in clairaudience that it is foiled by non detection?
"It should be obvious"; but you want others to avoid assuming language that doesn't exist?  If your point of view is correct, you won't need to ignore your own standards while trying to demonstrate it.


The language exists on page 173 under scrying.  It's not necessary to repeat that information in nondetection's spell description.

The language does exist on that page, but it's not established by nondetection as the reason for clairaudience/clairvoyance being mentioned.  You are assuming that's the reason for its inclusion, and even if it seems logical, it's not a reason described by the spell.

Although scrying spells are indeed blocked by nondetection and certain other magical effects, their subschool is not part of the criteria that nondetection describes for its selections, and failure to adhere to it as a criteria is not grounds for automatic disqualification.
The scrying sensor of clairaudience/clairvoyance only allows you to observe, and in no way improves your visual senses.  It also does not target a creature or an object, nor does it project an area.   So what kind of interaction is it performing?

The scrying sensor scans the area, and anyone with nondetection cast is unable to be observed by the scrying sensor.  A person with nondetection cast does not exist as far as arcane eye, prying eyes, and other scrying spells are concerned.  It says so right on page 173, "Lead sheeting or magical protection (such as antimagic field, mind blank, or nondetection) blocks a scrying spell."

It's a nice quote, but while it establishes that nondetection is one way to block scrying effects, it does not support the idea that observation is a form of interaction.

And since this entire thread is about a non-scrying divination using observation being pitted against nondetection, that's a very important distinction.

The kraken stirs. And ten billion sushi dinners cry out for vengeance. - Good Omens

Co-Author of the Dreamfane, Euralden Eye, Gajuisan Crawler, Gruesome Lurker, Fulminating Crab, Ironglass Rose, Sheengrass Swarm, Spryjack, Usunag, and Warp Drifter, and author of the Magmal Horror from Force of Nature.

My most popular campaign item; for all your adventuring convenience.
Zauber's Mutable Rod: This rod has a number of useful functions that make it easier to live in the wilderness. It is made of polished wood, with five studlike buttons on one end. Each button produces a different effect when pressed. Unless otherwise noted, the rod’s functions have no limit on the number of times they can be employed. When button 1 is pressed, one end of the rod produces a small flame, equivalent to a candle. When button 2 is pressed, the rod unfolds into a two-person tent, complete with bedrolls and warm blankets. When button 3 is pressed, the rod becomes a one-handed hammer, suitable for pounding pitons into a wall. When button 4 is pressed, the rod becomes a sturdy iron spade. When button 5 is pressed, the rod becomes a wooden bucket able to hold 2 gallons of liquid. Once per day, it can be commanded to fill with fresh water. If the rod is seriously damaged or broken in any of its alternate forms (button 2, 3, 4, or 5), it reverts to its basic rod form and cannot be activated for 24 hours. Moderate conjuration; CL 9th; Craft Rod, minor creation; Price 375 gp; Weight 2 lb.
Crust, I mostly agree with you. A spell has to interact with the ND'd creature for ND to have any effect. However I still stand by my belief that it is any interacting divination spell. If I invented a spell that says;

"this spell wards the effected creature from damage caused by melee weapons, such as picks, lances, maces, and orc double axes. If a melee weapon is used against the warded creature...."

would you really argue that it only wards against picks, lances,maces and orc double axes? or melee weapons? I go with melee weapons with the "such as" only denoting examples.

It only really matters when splatbooks are brought into play, as in the PHB only detect, location, and scrying spells actually interact with anyone but the caster. (Unluck comes to mind as a divination that isnt any of those 3 that interacts with something else)

Bottom line: "such as" only means that a list of examples are to follow.
Glitterdust Bunnies ftw!
How does detect undead interact with the subject?


Detect undead's cone-shaped emanation is interracting with the subject of nondetection.  A zombie lying on the ground with nondetection cast upon it would not register as undead, and would perhaps be mistaken for a regular corpse.  That's how.

Well according to the detect description here u are studying an area ur not studying a subject, so how is that considered interacting with undead? I just allows you to see subjects that you would otherwise be unable to, in that area, it does not matter wether the subject is lying on the ground or not, if he is in the area you are studying you are going to see him.

Damned_Slayer, I agree with your assessment whole-heartedly.  Thanks for the help.


Slagger, all scrying spells are blocked by nondetection.  That's the RAW.  The sensor sees/hears/observes the subject, or it doesn't when the subject has nondetection cast.  How you wrap your brain around that is up to you.  See invisibility relies on the the eyes of the person using see invisibility, as Damned_Slayer pointed out.  Scrying magic relies on the sensor, which can be foiled by nondetection as per page 173 of the PHB.  Nondetection cannot foil a peson's eyesight, whether it's enhanced by see invisibility or true seeing.

Spite, "such as" does mean spells like clairaudience/clairvoyance (scrying magic, which is backed up on page 173 of the PHB), locate object (and locate person), and detect spells.  It does not mean "all divination spells."  Those spells are too specific to be ignored.  They're vastly different from see invisibility, true seeing, true strike, moment of prescience...  if those spells were blocked by nondetection, it would be clear in the PHB.

Really, if nondetection blocked all divination spells, these endless threads would never exist, because it would be clear in the PHB, saying "spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, true strike, see invisibility, tongues, locate object, and detect spells" or "all divination spells" or "all spells in the divination school."  At no time is it stated or even suggested that all divination spells are blocked by nondetection, not in any source I've seen, and certainly not in nondetection's spell description.  "Such as" narrows things down.

Cato, when you cast detect undead on a rotting corpse to see if it's a zombie, your cone-shaped emanation sweeps over the corpse.  That's interaction.  That answers your question.  The cone is doing the work, not the eyes of the caster.  Damned_Slayer pointed this out earlier.

Nondetection blocks scrying, locate, and detect spells only.  "Such as" is the key, and it also helps to read the entire PHB before ruling, specifically page 173, where it is confirmed that all scrying spells are blocked by nondetection.  It's not necessary to make that clear in nondetection's spell description if it's already mentioned on page 173.

Slagger, all scrying spells are blocked by nondetection.  That's the RAW.  The sensor sees/hears/observes the subject, or it doesn't when the subject has nondetection cast.

And I didn't disagree with that.
See invisibility relies on the the eyes of the person using see invisibility, as Damned_Slayer pointed out.  Scrying magic relies on the sensor, which can be foiled by nondetection as per page 173 of the PHB.  Nondetection cannot foil a peson's eyesight, whether it's enhanced by see invisibility or true seeing.

That's what I was expecting to hear, and I agree as a personal judgement.  It just doesn't prove that being a scrying spell is why clairaudience/clairvoyance is mentioned in nondetection's text.  It might well be the reason, but it might not, and the potential remains for clairaudience/clairvoyance to be included by some other criteria.

Despite my general agreement with you as a personal judgement call, I can still see the validity of regarding see invisibility as a divination that enables the user to detect invisible beings using their normal sight.  Nondetection does not describe an explicit need for being within the spell's area, or being targeted by the spell, and there's nothing inherently inconsistent about the mere idea of a spell being effective against preventing magically empowered perception.

Really, if nondetection blocked all divination spells, these endless threads would never exist, because it would be clear in the PHB, saying "spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, true strike, see invisibility, tongues, locate object, and detect spells" or "all divination spells" or "all spells in the divination school."

It's certainly a valid possibility, and I can understand the view that you think it would say "all divination spells" or some equivalent if that was the effect intended.
Nondetection blocks scrying, locate, and detect spells only.  "Such as" is the key, and it also helps to read the entire PHB before ruling, specifically page 173, where it is confirmed that all scrying spells are blocked by nondetection.  It's not necessary to make that clear in nondetection's spell description if it's already mentioned on page 173.

So, for your view, it's not all divination spells that are affected, and it's not necessary to make clear in nondetection's text the point of scrying being blocked because it's mentioned elsewhere in the PHB.

By that reasoning, why is clairaudience/clairvoyance being mentioned?  It's not there as an example of all divination spells, and it's clearly not necessary for establishing that scrying spells are blocked.  What is the purpose of its inclusion?

Now, at the risk of muddying the waters, I'm also going to throw prying eyes out there for consideration.  It's divination, but not part of the scrying subschool.  Like see invisibility, it can be thwarted by illusions, darkness, and whatnot, but its greater version includes a true seeing effect.  Can it be affected by nondetection?

The kraken stirs. And ten billion sushi dinners cry out for vengeance. - Good Omens

Co-Author of the Dreamfane, Euralden Eye, Gajuisan Crawler, Gruesome Lurker, Fulminating Crab, Ironglass Rose, Sheengrass Swarm, Spryjack, Usunag, and Warp Drifter, and author of the Magmal Horror from Force of Nature.

My most popular campaign item; for all your adventuring convenience.
Zauber's Mutable Rod: This rod has a number of useful functions that make it easier to live in the wilderness. It is made of polished wood, with five studlike buttons on one end. Each button produces a different effect when pressed. Unless otherwise noted, the rod’s functions have no limit on the number of times they can be employed. When button 1 is pressed, one end of the rod produces a small flame, equivalent to a candle. When button 2 is pressed, the rod unfolds into a two-person tent, complete with bedrolls and warm blankets. When button 3 is pressed, the rod becomes a one-handed hammer, suitable for pounding pitons into a wall. When button 4 is pressed, the rod becomes a sturdy iron spade. When button 5 is pressed, the rod becomes a wooden bucket able to hold 2 gallons of liquid. Once per day, it can be commanded to fill with fresh water. If the rod is seriously damaged or broken in any of its alternate forms (button 2, 3, 4, or 5), it reverts to its basic rod form and cannot be activated for 24 hours. Moderate conjuration; CL 9th; Craft Rod, minor creation; Price 375 gp; Weight 2 lb.
...why is clairaudience/clairvoyance being mentioned?  It's not there as an example of all divination spells, and it's clearly not necessary for establishing that scrying spells are blocked.  What is the purpose of its inclusion?


Divination spells like clairvoyance/clairaudience, divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, divination spells similar to clairvoyance/clairaudience, divination spells that resemble clairvoyance/clairaudience are scrying spells like, such as, including, for example, etc. arcane eye and scrying.  See invisibility is not like clairaudience/clairvoyance.  They're both divination spells, but they're as different from each other as lightning bolt and contingency (both evocation spells) are different from each other.

Now, at the risk of muddying the waters, I'm also going to throw prying eyes out there for consideration.  It's divination, but not part of the scrying subschool.  Like see invisibility, it can be thwarted by illusions, darkness, and whatnot, but its greater version includes a true seeing effect.  Can it be affected by nondetection?


This is a very good point.  I think I might have mistakenly stated earlier that prying eyes is a scrying spell.  Looking again, I see that it's not, and therefore prying eyes would NOT be thwarted by nondetection.  Prying eyes is like a roving video camera that records everything, and the magical "eyes" are not "scrying sensors."  That's clear in the PHB.  Prying eyes would not be thwarted by nondetection.
...why is clairaudience/clairvoyance being mentioned?  It's not there as an example of all divination spells, and it's clearly not necessary for establishing that scrying spells are blocked.  What is the purpose of its inclusion?


Divination spells like clairvoyance/clairaudience, divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, divination spells similar to clairvoyance/clairaudience, divination spells that resemble clairvoyance/clairaudience are scrying spells like, such as, including, for example, etc. arcane eye and scrying.

The inclusion of clairaudience/clairvoyance is not necessary for demonstrating that spells of the scrying subschool are blocked by nondetection.  You provided that lack of necessity as an explanation for why the scrying subschool isn't mentioned in nondetection.

So, if lack of necessity is a valid grounds for exclusion, why is clairaudience/clairvoyance being mentioned?

The kraken stirs. And ten billion sushi dinners cry out for vengeance. - Good Omens

Co-Author of the Dreamfane, Euralden Eye, Gajuisan Crawler, Gruesome Lurker, Fulminating Crab, Ironglass Rose, Sheengrass Swarm, Spryjack, Usunag, and Warp Drifter, and author of the Magmal Horror from Force of Nature.

My most popular campaign item; for all your adventuring convenience.
Zauber's Mutable Rod: This rod has a number of useful functions that make it easier to live in the wilderness. It is made of polished wood, with five studlike buttons on one end. Each button produces a different effect when pressed. Unless otherwise noted, the rod’s functions have no limit on the number of times they can be employed. When button 1 is pressed, one end of the rod produces a small flame, equivalent to a candle. When button 2 is pressed, the rod unfolds into a two-person tent, complete with bedrolls and warm blankets. When button 3 is pressed, the rod becomes a one-handed hammer, suitable for pounding pitons into a wall. When button 4 is pressed, the rod becomes a sturdy iron spade. When button 5 is pressed, the rod becomes a wooden bucket able to hold 2 gallons of liquid. Once per day, it can be commanded to fill with fresh water. If the rod is seriously damaged or broken in any of its alternate forms (button 2, 3, 4, or 5), it reverts to its basic rod form and cannot be activated for 24 hours. Moderate conjuration; CL 9th; Craft Rod, minor creation; Price 375 gp; Weight 2 lb.
The inclusion of clairaudience/clairvoyance is not necessary for demonstrating that spells of the scrying subschool are blocked by nondetection.  You provided that lack of necessity as an explanation for why the scrying subschool isn't mentioned in nondetection.

So, if lack of necessity is a valid grounds for exclusion, why is clairaudience/clairvoyance being mentioned?



I don't know why Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams did what they did.  They could have said "scrying spells," but they chose to say "divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells," which is not "all divination spells." 

Divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance are divination (scrying) spells, and scrying spells are thwarted by nondetection as per PHB page 173. 

Divination spells such as locate creature include locate object and perhaps discern location, though discern location is not thwarted by nondetection as per PHB page 222, "Nothing short of a mind blank spell or the direct intervention of a deity keeps you from learning the exact location of a single individual or object." 

Divination spells such as detect spells include every divination spell with "detect" in its title: detect undead, detect magic, detect evil, etc.

Concerning unluck, it is neither a scrying, locate, or detect spell, so it is not thwarted by nondetection.  Unluck might interact with the subject of nondetection, but it is not scrying, locating, or detecting the subject, and it would not be stopped by nondetection.
seriously?  Ducks totally beat both. 

There is no way to settle this argument.  Defere to your DM.
Rule 1 of Posting: Read the rule books. Rule 2 of Posting: Before posting, refer to rule 1.
Slight subject change - Groveborn I don't like having to scroll left and right to view posts, chill out on the overly large posts.
                                        -thank you
Slight subject change - Groveborn I don't like having to scroll left and right to view posts, chill out on the overly large posts.
                                        -thanbk you


Not really something I had control over.  It didn't auto-wrap as it should have. I blame faulty software.
Rule 1 of Posting: Read the rule books. Rule 2 of Posting: Before posting, refer to rule 1.
Slight subject change - Groveborn I don't like having to scroll left and right to view posts, chill out on the overly large posts.
                                        -thanbk you


Not really something I had control over.  It didn't auto-wrap as it should have. I blame faulty software.

I keep having it jam extra spacing in when I quote things, which also seems to be a wrapping problem.

The kraken stirs. And ten billion sushi dinners cry out for vengeance. - Good Omens

Co-Author of the Dreamfane, Euralden Eye, Gajuisan Crawler, Gruesome Lurker, Fulminating Crab, Ironglass Rose, Sheengrass Swarm, Spryjack, Usunag, and Warp Drifter, and author of the Magmal Horror from Force of Nature.

My most popular campaign item; for all your adventuring convenience.
Zauber's Mutable Rod: This rod has a number of useful functions that make it easier to live in the wilderness. It is made of polished wood, with five studlike buttons on one end. Each button produces a different effect when pressed. Unless otherwise noted, the rod’s functions have no limit on the number of times they can be employed. When button 1 is pressed, one end of the rod produces a small flame, equivalent to a candle. When button 2 is pressed, the rod unfolds into a two-person tent, complete with bedrolls and warm blankets. When button 3 is pressed, the rod becomes a one-handed hammer, suitable for pounding pitons into a wall. When button 4 is pressed, the rod becomes a sturdy iron spade. When button 5 is pressed, the rod becomes a wooden bucket able to hold 2 gallons of liquid. Once per day, it can be commanded to fill with fresh water. If the rod is seriously damaged or broken in any of its alternate forms (button 2, 3, 4, or 5), it reverts to its basic rod form and cannot be activated for 24 hours. Moderate conjuration; CL 9th; Craft Rod, minor creation; Price 375 gp; Weight 2 lb.
"Cato, when you cast detect undead on a rotting corpse to see if it's a zombie, your cone-shaped emanation sweeps over the corpse.  That's interaction.  That answers your question.  The cone is doing the work, not the eyes of the caster.  Damned_Slayer pointed this out earlier."

Yes there is a cone over the corpse, but I don't see how it interacts with the corpse, it detects that it is undead, but that is from an aura emanating from the corpse (read detect evil description since it refers you to it)

So in that area, you can just view the corpse for what it is, it is not mentioned in any text that it interacts with the subject in any way.
@ cato


This is why I said you should just roll with however you choose to interpret nondetection working. We, as a community do not, and probably never will, agree on how it works.

Glitterdust Bunnies ftw!