Will an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location protect an invisible character from being observed by...
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
$begingroup$
Will an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location protect an invisible character from being observed directly with divination magic?
I get that the Amulet would prevent the wearer from being detected by location/scrying type spells, but would it also protect them from being detected in ordinary line-of-sight by somebody with an effect that would allow them to see invisible, like Truesight or wearing a Robe of Eyes?
From the description of the item:
While wearing this amulet, you are hidden from divination magic. You can't be targeted by such magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.
Does being looked at by somebody who can see invisible creatures count as being the "target" of the magic?
dnd-5e magic-items invisibility divination
edited Feb 13 at 20:19
NautArch
62.3k8225413
asked Feb 13 at 17:38
SparemeisterSparemeister
1314
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Will an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location protect an invisible character from being observed directly with divination magic?
I get that the Amulet would prevent the wearer from being detected by location/scrying type spells, but would it also protect them from being detected in ordinary line-of-sight by somebody with an effect that would allow them to see invisible, like Truesight or wearing a Robe of Eyes?
From the description of the item:
While wearing this amulet, you are hidden from divination magic. You can't be targeted by such magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.
Does being looked at by somebody who can see invisible creatures count as being the "target" of the magic?
dnd-5e magic-items invisibility divination
edited Feb 13 at 20:19
NautArch
62.3k8225413
asked Feb 13 at 17:38
SparemeisterSparemeister
1314
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Do Nondetection and Invisibility protect you from True Seeing?
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 17:47
2
$begingroup$
@RyanThompson Not a dupe. OP isn't asking about True Seeing, just True Sight and the Robe of Eyes.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 17:50
$begingroup$
@NautArch Yeah, you're right. Looking at the details of the question, it's not just about diviniation magic (contrary to the title), but also other effects that can see invisible things. Although the question about whether the invisible creature counts as a "target" is answered by the question I linked.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 17:51
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Will an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location protect an invisible character from being observed directly with divination magic?
I get that the Amulet would prevent the wearer from being detected by location/scrying type spells, but would it also protect them from being detected in ordinary line-of-sight by somebody with an effect that would allow them to see invisible, like Truesight or wearing a Robe of Eyes?
From the description of the item:
While wearing this amulet, you are hidden from divination magic. You can't be targeted by such magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.
Does being looked at by somebody who can see invisible creatures count as being the "target" of the magic?
dnd-5e magic-items invisibility divination
edited Feb 13 at 20:19
NautArch
62.3k8225413
asked Feb 13 at 17:38
SparemeisterSparemeister
1314
$endgroup$
Will an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location protect an invisible character from being observed directly with divination magic?
I get that the Amulet would prevent the wearer from being detected by location/scrying type spells, but would it also protect them from being detected in ordinary line-of-sight by somebody with an effect that would allow them to see invisible, like Truesight or wearing a Robe of Eyes?
From the description of the item:
While wearing this amulet, you are hidden from divination magic. You can't be targeted by such magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.
Does being looked at by somebody who can see invisible creatures count as being the "target" of the magic?
dnd-5e magic-items invisibility divination
dnd-5e magic-items invisibility divination
edited Feb 13 at 20:19
NautArch
62.3k8225413
asked Feb 13 at 17:38
SparemeisterSparemeister
1314
edited Feb 13 at 20:19
NautArch
62.3k8225413
asked Feb 13 at 17:38
SparemeisterSparemeister
1314
edited Feb 13 at 20:19
NautArch
62.3k8225413
edited Feb 13 at 20:19
NautArch
62.3k8225413
edited Feb 13 at 20:19
NautArch
62.3k8225413
62.3k8225413
asked Feb 13 at 17:38
SparemeisterSparemeister
1314
asked Feb 13 at 17:38
SparemeisterSparemeister
1314
asked Feb 13 at 17:38
SparemeisterSparemeister
1314
1314
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Do Nondetection and Invisibility protect you from True Seeing?
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 17:47
2
$begingroup$
@RyanThompson Not a dupe. OP isn't asking about True Seeing, just True Sight and the Robe of Eyes.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 17:50
$begingroup$
@NautArch Yeah, you're right. Looking at the details of the question, it's not just about diviniation magic (contrary to the title), but also other effects that can see invisible things. Although the question about whether the invisible creature counts as a "target" is answered by the question I linked.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 17:51
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Do Nondetection and Invisibility protect you from True Seeing?
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 17:47
2
$begingroup$
@RyanThompson Not a dupe. OP isn't asking about True Seeing, just True Sight and the Robe of Eyes.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 17:50
$begingroup$
@NautArch Yeah, you're right. Looking at the details of the question, it's not just about diviniation magic (contrary to the title), but also other effects that can see invisible things. Although the question about whether the invisible creature counts as a "target" is answered by the question I linked.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 17:51
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Do Nondetection and Invisibility protect you from True Seeing?
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 17:47
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Do Nondetection and Invisibility protect you from True Seeing?
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 17:47
2
2
$begingroup$
@RyanThompson Not a dupe. OP isn't asking about True Seeing, just True Sight and the Robe of Eyes.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 17:50
$begingroup$
@RyanThompson Not a dupe. OP isn't asking about True Seeing, just True Sight and the Robe of Eyes.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 17:50
$begingroup$
@NautArch Yeah, you're right. Looking at the details of the question, it's not just about diviniation magic (contrary to the title), but also other effects that can see invisible things. Although the question about whether the invisible creature counts as a "target" is answered by the question I linked.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 17:51
$begingroup$
@NautArch Yeah, you're right. Looking at the details of the question, it's not just about diviniation magic (contrary to the title), but also other effects that can see invisible things. Although the question about whether the invisible creature counts as a "target" is answered by the question I linked.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 17:51
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No, it will not protect from standard True Sight or the Robe of Eyes
The Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location only says that you are:
hidden from divination magic. You can't be targeted by such magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.
Not divination magic or magical scrying sensors
Standard Truesight and the Robe of Eyes just allow you to see Invisible creatures. There is no divination magic involved and neither are Magical Scrying sensors - they are just things that provide the ability to see invisible creatures.
It's all about the source of True Sight/seeing invisible
It would work against True Sight delivered via the spell True Seeing as that is specifically divination magic which the amulet protects against.
If the source of whatever gives a creature the ability to see invisible is directly associated with divination magic or magical scrying, then it would work. But that connection must be explicitly stated in order for it to work.
answered Feb 13 at 17:49
NautArchNautArch
62.3k8225413
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
In previous editions (3.0, 3.5) Robe of Eyes registered as "Moderate divination". Was this changed in 5?
$endgroup$
– Mołot
Feb 14 at 13:35
1
$begingroup$
@Mołot That is correct. See the link to the Robe and it shows the full text of it. In 5e, the robe simply provides the functions described (darkvision, advantage on sight-based perception checks, and the ability to see the ethereal plane and invisible things.)
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 14 at 14:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are protected from divination spells and magical scrying sensors.
Both True Seeing and See Invisibility are divination spells, so they would have no effect.
Senses that are natural (ancient dragon's natural truesight) or granted by items are not considered spells, and thus you are not protected from them (unless the item specifies you are using it to cast the spell, or is based on scrying). Using your example, Robe of Eyes wouldn't be affected by the amulet.
answered Feb 13 at 17:47
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
4,044640
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"Senses that are granted by items are not considered spells, and thus you are not protected from them"
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 13 at 18:07
$begingroup$
His question is not specific to True Sight or Robe of Eyes. Those were both examples he gave that grant the ability to see invisible individuals, and asked if things like these bypass the Amulet.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 13 at 20:24
$begingroup$
Amulet description says you are hidden from divination magic, not you are hidden from divination spells. How is "are not considered spells" relevant to the question and amulet?
$endgroup$
– Mołot
Feb 14 at 13:38
$begingroup$
Because in 5e, spells are the only form of magic that has a mechanical tie to a magical school. Natural senses, environmental effects, and item-based magic do not have school associations in 5e.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 14 at 16:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Looking at someone counts as "targeting" them (according to Jeremy Crawford)
Going purely by the rules as written, it's not clear whether protection against targeting by divination spells would protect you from spells that the caster casts on their self that then grant new senses, such as see invisibility or true seeing. However, Jeremy Crawford has clarified on Twitter1 that in such cases, you are still protected:
The nondetection spell hides you from divination magic. True seeing is a divination spell.
The nondetection spell grants a similar benefit to the Amulet:
The target can't be targeted by any divination magic
So JC's ruling should apply to the Amulet as well. This means that divination spells like true seeing will not enable a creature to see you, even if they don't explicitly "target" you.
Senses and abilities not based on divination magic function normally
As the other answers have covered adequately, the Amulet offers no protection against senses and abilities that are not based on divination magic. This includes the Robe of Eyes, unless your DM rules that this magic item is divination-based, which would not be unreasonable. It also includes creatures with a natural ability to see invisible things.
1 Note: JC's Tweets are no longer considered official rulings. I can't find this particular ruling in the Sage Advice Compendium, so it can be considered semi-official at best, hence the parenthetical qualifier in the heading.
answered Feb 13 at 18:12
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
11.8k24090
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Why do you think it's reasonable for a DM to say that the Robe of Eyes is divination magic anymoreso than having True Sight is divination magic?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 18:46
$begingroup$
@NautArch Well, the Robe is explicitly magical, unlike natural truesight. I guess by RAW magic items generally don't have explicit associations with specific schools of magic, although I've heard DMs make ad hoc rulings when players looked at magic items using detect magic (e.g. transmutation for +1 weapons). If I was playing in a game and the DM told me the Robe of Eyes radiated divination magic, I don't think I'd see that as out of the ordinary. So that line was intended as a warning that "your DM may decide differently".
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 18:56
1
$begingroup$
Gotcha. I guess I was just thinking more along the lines that it's not saying you are casting true seeing, so it's not that type of divination magic. It's just granting you an ability that isn't tied to a magical school and tying it to a school so it falls into another category would be a bridge too far for me.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 18:59
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141052%2fwill-an-amulet-of-proof-against-detection-and-location-protect-an-invisible-char%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No, it will not protect from standard True Sight or the Robe of Eyes
The Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location only says that you are:
hidden from divination magic. You can't be targeted by such magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.
Not divination magic or magical scrying sensors
Standard Truesight and the Robe of Eyes just allow you to see Invisible creatures. There is no divination magic involved and neither are Magical Scrying sensors - they are just things that provide the ability to see invisible creatures.
It's all about the source of True Sight/seeing invisible
It would work against True Sight delivered via the spell True Seeing as that is specifically divination magic which the amulet protects against.
If the source of whatever gives a creature the ability to see invisible is directly associated with divination magic or magical scrying, then it would work. But that connection must be explicitly stated in order for it to work.
answered Feb 13 at 17:49
NautArchNautArch
62.3k8225413
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
In previous editions (3.0, 3.5) Robe of Eyes registered as "Moderate divination". Was this changed in 5?
$endgroup$
– Mołot
Feb 14 at 13:35
1
$begingroup$
@Mołot That is correct. See the link to the Robe and it shows the full text of it. In 5e, the robe simply provides the functions described (darkvision, advantage on sight-based perception checks, and the ability to see the ethereal plane and invisible things.)
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 14 at 14:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, it will not protect from standard True Sight or the Robe of Eyes
The Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location only says that you are:
hidden from divination magic. You can't be targeted by such magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.
Not divination magic or magical scrying sensors
Standard Truesight and the Robe of Eyes just allow you to see Invisible creatures. There is no divination magic involved and neither are Magical Scrying sensors - they are just things that provide the ability to see invisible creatures.
It's all about the source of True Sight/seeing invisible
It would work against True Sight delivered via the spell True Seeing as that is specifically divination magic which the amulet protects against.
If the source of whatever gives a creature the ability to see invisible is directly associated with divination magic or magical scrying, then it would work. But that connection must be explicitly stated in order for it to work.
answered Feb 13 at 17:49
NautArchNautArch
62.3k8225413
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
In previous editions (3.0, 3.5) Robe of Eyes registered as "Moderate divination". Was this changed in 5?
$endgroup$
– Mołot
Feb 14 at 13:35
1
$begingroup$
@Mołot That is correct. See the link to the Robe and it shows the full text of it. In 5e, the robe simply provides the functions described (darkvision, advantage on sight-based perception checks, and the ability to see the ethereal plane and invisible things.)
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 14 at 14:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, it will not protect from standard True Sight or the Robe of Eyes
The Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location only says that you are:
hidden from divination magic. You can't be targeted by such magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.
Not divination magic or magical scrying sensors
Standard Truesight and the Robe of Eyes just allow you to see Invisible creatures. There is no divination magic involved and neither are Magical Scrying sensors - they are just things that provide the ability to see invisible creatures.
It's all about the source of True Sight/seeing invisible
It would work against True Sight delivered via the spell True Seeing as that is specifically divination magic which the amulet protects against.
If the source of whatever gives a creature the ability to see invisible is directly associated with divination magic or magical scrying, then it would work. But that connection must be explicitly stated in order for it to work.
answered Feb 13 at 17:49
NautArchNautArch
62.3k8225413
$endgroup$
No, it will not protect from standard True Sight or the Robe of Eyes
The Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location only says that you are:
hidden from divination magic. You can't be targeted by such magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.
Not divination magic or magical scrying sensors
Standard Truesight and the Robe of Eyes just allow you to see Invisible creatures. There is no divination magic involved and neither are Magical Scrying sensors - they are just things that provide the ability to see invisible creatures.
It's all about the source of True Sight/seeing invisible
It would work against True Sight delivered via the spell True Seeing as that is specifically divination magic which the amulet protects against.
If the source of whatever gives a creature the ability to see invisible is directly associated with divination magic or magical scrying, then it would work. But that connection must be explicitly stated in order for it to work.
answered Feb 13 at 17:49
NautArchNautArch
62.3k8225413
edited Feb 14 at 14:18
answered Feb 13 at 17:49
NautArchNautArch
62.3k8225413
answered Feb 13 at 17:49
NautArchNautArch
62.3k8225413
answered Feb 13 at 17:49
NautArchNautArch
62.3k8225413
62.3k8225413
$begingroup$
In previous editions (3.0, 3.5) Robe of Eyes registered as "Moderate divination". Was this changed in 5?
$endgroup$
– Mołot
Feb 14 at 13:35
1
$begingroup$
@Mołot That is correct. See the link to the Robe and it shows the full text of it. In 5e, the robe simply provides the functions described (darkvision, advantage on sight-based perception checks, and the ability to see the ethereal plane and invisible things.)
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 14 at 14:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In previous editions (3.0, 3.5) Robe of Eyes registered as "Moderate divination". Was this changed in 5?
$endgroup$
– Mołot
Feb 14 at 13:35
1
$begingroup$
@Mołot That is correct. See the link to the Robe and it shows the full text of it. In 5e, the robe simply provides the functions described (darkvision, advantage on sight-based perception checks, and the ability to see the ethereal plane and invisible things.)
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 14 at 14:20
$begingroup$
In previous editions (3.0, 3.5) Robe of Eyes registered as "Moderate divination". Was this changed in 5?
$endgroup$
– Mołot
Feb 14 at 13:35
$begingroup$
In previous editions (3.0, 3.5) Robe of Eyes registered as "Moderate divination". Was this changed in 5?
$endgroup$
– Mołot
Feb 14 at 13:35
1
1
$begingroup$
@Mołot That is correct. See the link to the Robe and it shows the full text of it. In 5e, the robe simply provides the functions described (darkvision, advantage on sight-based perception checks, and the ability to see the ethereal plane and invisible things.)
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 14 at 14:20
$begingroup$
@Mołot That is correct. See the link to the Robe and it shows the full text of it. In 5e, the robe simply provides the functions described (darkvision, advantage on sight-based perception checks, and the ability to see the ethereal plane and invisible things.)
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 14 at 14:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are protected from divination spells and magical scrying sensors.
Both True Seeing and See Invisibility are divination spells, so they would have no effect.
Senses that are natural (ancient dragon's natural truesight) or granted by items are not considered spells, and thus you are not protected from them (unless the item specifies you are using it to cast the spell, or is based on scrying). Using your example, Robe of Eyes wouldn't be affected by the amulet.
answered Feb 13 at 17:47
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
4,044640
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"Senses that are granted by items are not considered spells, and thus you are not protected from them"
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 13 at 18:07
$begingroup$
His question is not specific to True Sight or Robe of Eyes. Those were both examples he gave that grant the ability to see invisible individuals, and asked if things like these bypass the Amulet.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 13 at 20:24
$begingroup$
Amulet description says you are hidden from divination magic, not you are hidden from divination spells. How is "are not considered spells" relevant to the question and amulet?
$endgroup$
– Mołot
Feb 14 at 13:38
$begingroup$
Because in 5e, spells are the only form of magic that has a mechanical tie to a magical school. Natural senses, environmental effects, and item-based magic do not have school associations in 5e.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 14 at 16:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are protected from divination spells and magical scrying sensors.
Both True Seeing and See Invisibility are divination spells, so they would have no effect.
Senses that are natural (ancient dragon's natural truesight) or granted by items are not considered spells, and thus you are not protected from them (unless the item specifies you are using it to cast the spell, or is based on scrying). Using your example, Robe of Eyes wouldn't be affected by the amulet.
answered Feb 13 at 17:47
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
4,044640
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"Senses that are granted by items are not considered spells, and thus you are not protected from them"
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 13 at 18:07
$begingroup$
His question is not specific to True Sight or Robe of Eyes. Those were both examples he gave that grant the ability to see invisible individuals, and asked if things like these bypass the Amulet.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 13 at 20:24
$begingroup$
Amulet description says you are hidden from divination magic, not you are hidden from divination spells. How is "are not considered spells" relevant to the question and amulet?
$endgroup$
– Mołot
Feb 14 at 13:38
$begingroup$
Because in 5e, spells are the only form of magic that has a mechanical tie to a magical school. Natural senses, environmental effects, and item-based magic do not have school associations in 5e.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 14 at 16:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are protected from divination spells and magical scrying sensors.
Both True Seeing and See Invisibility are divination spells, so they would have no effect.
Senses that are natural (ancient dragon's natural truesight) or granted by items are not considered spells, and thus you are not protected from them (unless the item specifies you are using it to cast the spell, or is based on scrying). Using your example, Robe of Eyes wouldn't be affected by the amulet.
answered Feb 13 at 17:47
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
4,044640
$endgroup$
You are protected from divination spells and magical scrying sensors.
Both True Seeing and See Invisibility are divination spells, so they would have no effect.
Senses that are natural (ancient dragon's natural truesight) or granted by items are not considered spells, and thus you are not protected from them (unless the item specifies you are using it to cast the spell, or is based on scrying). Using your example, Robe of Eyes wouldn't be affected by the amulet.
answered Feb 13 at 17:47
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
4,044640
edited Feb 13 at 20:20
answered Feb 13 at 17:47
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
4,044640
answered Feb 13 at 17:47
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
4,044640
answered Feb 13 at 17:47
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
4,044640
4,044640
$begingroup$
"Senses that are granted by items are not considered spells, and thus you are not protected from them"
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 13 at 18:07
$begingroup$
His question is not specific to True Sight or Robe of Eyes. Those were both examples he gave that grant the ability to see invisible individuals, and asked if things like these bypass the Amulet.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 13 at 20:24
$begingroup$
Amulet description says you are hidden from divination magic, not you are hidden from divination spells. How is "are not considered spells" relevant to the question and amulet?
$endgroup$
– Mołot
Feb 14 at 13:38
$begingroup$
Because in 5e, spells are the only form of magic that has a mechanical tie to a magical school. Natural senses, environmental effects, and item-based magic do not have school associations in 5e.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 14 at 16:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"Senses that are granted by items are not considered spells, and thus you are not protected from them"
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 13 at 18:07
$begingroup$
His question is not specific to True Sight or Robe of Eyes. Those were both examples he gave that grant the ability to see invisible individuals, and asked if things like these bypass the Amulet.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 13 at 20:24
$begingroup$
Amulet description says you are hidden from divination magic, not you are hidden from divination spells. How is "are not considered spells" relevant to the question and amulet?
$endgroup$
– Mołot
Feb 14 at 13:38
$begingroup$
Because in 5e, spells are the only form of magic that has a mechanical tie to a magical school. Natural senses, environmental effects, and item-based magic do not have school associations in 5e.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 14 at 16:31
$begingroup$
"Senses that are granted by items are not considered spells, and thus you are not protected from them"
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 13 at 18:07
$begingroup$
"Senses that are granted by items are not considered spells, and thus you are not protected from them"
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 13 at 18:07
$begingroup$
His question is not specific to True Sight or Robe of Eyes. Those were both examples he gave that grant the ability to see invisible individuals, and asked if things like these bypass the Amulet.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 13 at 20:24
$begingroup$
His question is not specific to True Sight or Robe of Eyes. Those were both examples he gave that grant the ability to see invisible individuals, and asked if things like these bypass the Amulet.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 13 at 20:24
$begingroup$
Amulet description says you are hidden from divination magic, not you are hidden from divination spells. How is "are not considered spells" relevant to the question and amulet?
$endgroup$
– Mołot
Feb 14 at 13:38
$begingroup$
Amulet description says you are hidden from divination magic, not you are hidden from divination spells. How is "are not considered spells" relevant to the question and amulet?
$endgroup$
– Mołot
Feb 14 at 13:38
$begingroup$
Because in 5e, spells are the only form of magic that has a mechanical tie to a magical school. Natural senses, environmental effects, and item-based magic do not have school associations in 5e.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 14 at 16:31
$begingroup$
Because in 5e, spells are the only form of magic that has a mechanical tie to a magical school. Natural senses, environmental effects, and item-based magic do not have school associations in 5e.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
Feb 14 at 16:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Looking at someone counts as "targeting" them (according to Jeremy Crawford)
Going purely by the rules as written, it's not clear whether protection against targeting by divination spells would protect you from spells that the caster casts on their self that then grant new senses, such as see invisibility or true seeing. However, Jeremy Crawford has clarified on Twitter1 that in such cases, you are still protected:
The nondetection spell hides you from divination magic. True seeing is a divination spell.
The nondetection spell grants a similar benefit to the Amulet:
The target can't be targeted by any divination magic
So JC's ruling should apply to the Amulet as well. This means that divination spells like true seeing will not enable a creature to see you, even if they don't explicitly "target" you.
Senses and abilities not based on divination magic function normally
As the other answers have covered adequately, the Amulet offers no protection against senses and abilities that are not based on divination magic. This includes the Robe of Eyes, unless your DM rules that this magic item is divination-based, which would not be unreasonable. It also includes creatures with a natural ability to see invisible things.
1 Note: JC's Tweets are no longer considered official rulings. I can't find this particular ruling in the Sage Advice Compendium, so it can be considered semi-official at best, hence the parenthetical qualifier in the heading.
answered Feb 13 at 18:12
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
11.8k24090
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Why do you think it's reasonable for a DM to say that the Robe of Eyes is divination magic anymoreso than having True Sight is divination magic?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 18:46
$begingroup$
@NautArch Well, the Robe is explicitly magical, unlike natural truesight. I guess by RAW magic items generally don't have explicit associations with specific schools of magic, although I've heard DMs make ad hoc rulings when players looked at magic items using detect magic (e.g. transmutation for +1 weapons). If I was playing in a game and the DM told me the Robe of Eyes radiated divination magic, I don't think I'd see that as out of the ordinary. So that line was intended as a warning that "your DM may decide differently".
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 18:56
1
$begingroup$
Gotcha. I guess I was just thinking more along the lines that it's not saying you are casting true seeing, so it's not that type of divination magic. It's just granting you an ability that isn't tied to a magical school and tying it to a school so it falls into another category would be a bridge too far for me.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 18:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Looking at someone counts as "targeting" them (according to Jeremy Crawford)
Going purely by the rules as written, it's not clear whether protection against targeting by divination spells would protect you from spells that the caster casts on their self that then grant new senses, such as see invisibility or true seeing. However, Jeremy Crawford has clarified on Twitter1 that in such cases, you are still protected:
The nondetection spell hides you from divination magic. True seeing is a divination spell.
The nondetection spell grants a similar benefit to the Amulet:
The target can't be targeted by any divination magic
So JC's ruling should apply to the Amulet as well. This means that divination spells like true seeing will not enable a creature to see you, even if they don't explicitly "target" you.
Senses and abilities not based on divination magic function normally
As the other answers have covered adequately, the Amulet offers no protection against senses and abilities that are not based on divination magic. This includes the Robe of Eyes, unless your DM rules that this magic item is divination-based, which would not be unreasonable. It also includes creatures with a natural ability to see invisible things.
1 Note: JC's Tweets are no longer considered official rulings. I can't find this particular ruling in the Sage Advice Compendium, so it can be considered semi-official at best, hence the parenthetical qualifier in the heading.
answered Feb 13 at 18:12
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
11.8k24090
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Why do you think it's reasonable for a DM to say that the Robe of Eyes is divination magic anymoreso than having True Sight is divination magic?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 18:46
$begingroup$
@NautArch Well, the Robe is explicitly magical, unlike natural truesight. I guess by RAW magic items generally don't have explicit associations with specific schools of magic, although I've heard DMs make ad hoc rulings when players looked at magic items using detect magic (e.g. transmutation for +1 weapons). If I was playing in a game and the DM told me the Robe of Eyes radiated divination magic, I don't think I'd see that as out of the ordinary. So that line was intended as a warning that "your DM may decide differently".
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 18:56
1
$begingroup$
Gotcha. I guess I was just thinking more along the lines that it's not saying you are casting true seeing, so it's not that type of divination magic. It's just granting you an ability that isn't tied to a magical school and tying it to a school so it falls into another category would be a bridge too far for me.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 18:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Looking at someone counts as "targeting" them (according to Jeremy Crawford)
Going purely by the rules as written, it's not clear whether protection against targeting by divination spells would protect you from spells that the caster casts on their self that then grant new senses, such as see invisibility or true seeing. However, Jeremy Crawford has clarified on Twitter1 that in such cases, you are still protected:
The nondetection spell hides you from divination magic. True seeing is a divination spell.
The nondetection spell grants a similar benefit to the Amulet:
The target can't be targeted by any divination magic
So JC's ruling should apply to the Amulet as well. This means that divination spells like true seeing will not enable a creature to see you, even if they don't explicitly "target" you.
Senses and abilities not based on divination magic function normally
As the other answers have covered adequately, the Amulet offers no protection against senses and abilities that are not based on divination magic. This includes the Robe of Eyes, unless your DM rules that this magic item is divination-based, which would not be unreasonable. It also includes creatures with a natural ability to see invisible things.
1 Note: JC's Tweets are no longer considered official rulings. I can't find this particular ruling in the Sage Advice Compendium, so it can be considered semi-official at best, hence the parenthetical qualifier in the heading.
answered Feb 13 at 18:12
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
11.8k24090
$endgroup$
Looking at someone counts as "targeting" them (according to Jeremy Crawford)
Going purely by the rules as written, it's not clear whether protection against targeting by divination spells would protect you from spells that the caster casts on their self that then grant new senses, such as see invisibility or true seeing. However, Jeremy Crawford has clarified on Twitter1 that in such cases, you are still protected:
The nondetection spell hides you from divination magic. True seeing is a divination spell.
The nondetection spell grants a similar benefit to the Amulet:
The target can't be targeted by any divination magic
So JC's ruling should apply to the Amulet as well. This means that divination spells like true seeing will not enable a creature to see you, even if they don't explicitly "target" you.
Senses and abilities not based on divination magic function normally
As the other answers have covered adequately, the Amulet offers no protection against senses and abilities that are not based on divination magic. This includes the Robe of Eyes, unless your DM rules that this magic item is divination-based, which would not be unreasonable. It also includes creatures with a natural ability to see invisible things.
1 Note: JC's Tweets are no longer considered official rulings. I can't find this particular ruling in the Sage Advice Compendium, so it can be considered semi-official at best, hence the parenthetical qualifier in the heading.
answered Feb 13 at 18:12
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
11.8k24090
answered Feb 13 at 18:12
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
11.8k24090
answered Feb 13 at 18:12
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
11.8k24090
answered Feb 13 at 18:12
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
11.8k24090
11.8k24090
3
$begingroup$
Why do you think it's reasonable for a DM to say that the Robe of Eyes is divination magic anymoreso than having True Sight is divination magic?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 18:46
$begingroup$
@NautArch Well, the Robe is explicitly magical, unlike natural truesight. I guess by RAW magic items generally don't have explicit associations with specific schools of magic, although I've heard DMs make ad hoc rulings when players looked at magic items using detect magic (e.g. transmutation for +1 weapons). If I was playing in a game and the DM told me the Robe of Eyes radiated divination magic, I don't think I'd see that as out of the ordinary. So that line was intended as a warning that "your DM may decide differently".
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 18:56
1
$begingroup$
Gotcha. I guess I was just thinking more along the lines that it's not saying you are casting true seeing, so it's not that type of divination magic. It's just granting you an ability that isn't tied to a magical school and tying it to a school so it falls into another category would be a bridge too far for me.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 18:59
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
Why do you think it's reasonable for a DM to say that the Robe of Eyes is divination magic anymoreso than having True Sight is divination magic?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 18:46
$begingroup$
@NautArch Well, the Robe is explicitly magical, unlike natural truesight. I guess by RAW magic items generally don't have explicit associations with specific schools of magic, although I've heard DMs make ad hoc rulings when players looked at magic items using detect magic (e.g. transmutation for +1 weapons). If I was playing in a game and the DM told me the Robe of Eyes radiated divination magic, I don't think I'd see that as out of the ordinary. So that line was intended as a warning that "your DM may decide differently".
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 18:56
1
$begingroup$
Gotcha. I guess I was just thinking more along the lines that it's not saying you are casting true seeing, so it's not that type of divination magic. It's just granting you an ability that isn't tied to a magical school and tying it to a school so it falls into another category would be a bridge too far for me.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 18:59
3
3
$begingroup$
Why do you think it's reasonable for a DM to say that the Robe of Eyes is divination magic anymoreso than having True Sight is divination magic?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 18:46
$begingroup$
Why do you think it's reasonable for a DM to say that the Robe of Eyes is divination magic anymoreso than having True Sight is divination magic?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 18:46
$begingroup$
@NautArch Well, the Robe is explicitly magical, unlike natural truesight. I guess by RAW magic items generally don't have explicit associations with specific schools of magic, although I've heard DMs make ad hoc rulings when players looked at magic items using detect magic (e.g. transmutation for +1 weapons). If I was playing in a game and the DM told me the Robe of Eyes radiated divination magic, I don't think I'd see that as out of the ordinary. So that line was intended as a warning that "your DM may decide differently".
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 18:56
$begingroup$
@NautArch Well, the Robe is explicitly magical, unlike natural truesight. I guess by RAW magic items generally don't have explicit associations with specific schools of magic, although I've heard DMs make ad hoc rulings when players looked at magic items using detect magic (e.g. transmutation for +1 weapons). If I was playing in a game and the DM told me the Robe of Eyes radiated divination magic, I don't think I'd see that as out of the ordinary. So that line was intended as a warning that "your DM may decide differently".
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 18:56
1
1
$begingroup$
Gotcha. I guess I was just thinking more along the lines that it's not saying you are casting true seeing, so it's not that type of divination magic. It's just granting you an ability that isn't tied to a magical school and tying it to a school so it falls into another category would be a bridge too far for me.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 18:59
$begingroup$
Gotcha. I guess I was just thinking more along the lines that it's not saying you are casting true seeing, so it's not that type of divination magic. It's just granting you an ability that isn't tied to a magical school and tying it to a school so it falls into another category would be a bridge too far for me.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 18:59
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141052%2fwill-an-amulet-of-proof-against-detection-and-location-protect-an-invisible-char%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Do Nondetection and Invisibility protect you from True Seeing?
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 17:47
2
$begingroup$
@RyanThompson Not a dupe. OP isn't asking about True Seeing, just True Sight and the Robe of Eyes.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Feb 13 at 17:50
$begingroup$
@NautArch Yeah, you're right. Looking at the details of the question, it's not just about diviniation magic (contrary to the title), but also other effects that can see invisible things. Although the question about whether the invisible creature counts as a "target" is answered by the question I linked.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 13 at 17:51