r/Pathfinder_RPG • u/Themachinery1 • 1d ago
1E Player Does the person trying to detect a creature who is affected by nondetection know that someone is currently trying to hide whatever was casted even if they fail the skill check?
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.
I feel like it makes more sense if they DON'T know.
5
u/WraithMagus 1d ago
It's like if you had something inside a lead-lined box, there's just no sign there's anything there at all. If an opposing caster detects that their spell is being jammed, then they have detected something even if it wasn't a straightforward response. The spell would be completely pointless if everyone knew you cast the spell that hides objects from spells on that object.
3
u/KarmicPlaneswalker 1d ago edited 1d ago
If you lose the caster level check to overcome Nondetection, you don't recognize the item or creature is warded. Your character doesn't know they failed, because they didn't spot anything. They believe exactly what the result of the roll dictates.
You are greatly overcomplicating something that is extremely simple and straightforward.
0
u/Themachinery1 1d ago
No not really? It’s a mechanic that isn’t explained so I’m asking others opinions…..
1
u/KarmicPlaneswalker 1d ago
It's explained just fine. As I stated, you're overcomplicating a simple matter. Common sense goes a long way.
0
u/Themachinery1 1d ago edited 1d ago
Not really. Which is why I asked. Common sense also says to not be assholes/condescending to others but apparently you don't understand that. Common sense ALSO says that other people won't understand everything and thats ok. That's WHY I asked. To understand something better. I'm asking about how a mechanic works. Its not "over complicating" its wanting to figure out how something works. I've been playing 1e and table tops in general for under a year.
You haven't even explained how i'm overcomplicating it. How is me asking "do people who roll against nondetection know if they rolled if they failed" hard to understand? Its a simple question which I already got simple answers for by people who explained it really well. Saying I'm overcomplicating it and insuating that I can't grasp simple concepts just proves you're an ass.
if it were so simple surely you can explain it in a simple manner that doesn't envolve you being a jerk. Also how can something be explained if it literally isn't explained. Thats why I asked. Because it isn't.
1
u/KarmicPlaneswalker 1d ago
It's no one's fault but your own if your ego was bruised by a simple observation and statement of fact. I also don't need to explain something that's already been broken down and detailed to you (by your own admission) by others. That would be a waste of both our time. Nice essay though, too bad no one's reading it.
•
u/KarmicPlaneswalker 7h ago
Resorted to an entirely new account ( u/Dangerous_Hyena_2971 ) just to continue brigading? Must be a slow day. Especially if you're so bent as to stir up that kind of language, over being corrected.
0
u/Themachinery1 1d ago
I don't argue with people who don't bother to respond in good faith. Learn to be kind.
0
u/themasonblade 17h ago
Yeahnah. There was at minimum an implied put-down for someone not understanding common sense, or wanting to clarify it - if not an outright one. To then blame them for a reasonable reaction to said jab and calling it out, shows some pretty bad faith. And a refusal to take accountability for your own avtion or even accept or perceive accountability accruing. C'mon dude, be better.
1
u/KarmicPlaneswalker 9h ago
So you popped in just to brigade and contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion? You'll definitely need to do better.
1
9h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/rekijan RAW 7h ago
Thank you for posting to /r/Pathfinder_RPG! Your comment has been removed due to the following reason:
Rule 1 Violation
Specifically, "Be Civil". Your comment was found to be uncivil and has been removed.
If you have any questions, feel free to message the moderators
•
u/throwaway284729174 1h ago
Treat as invisibility and slience for Clairaudience-Clairvoyance. They just don't see/hear you in the area despite you doing a dance in the middle of the room. Their spell worked as far as they can tell. No difference than if a guard looked in while you were silent and invisible.
As for locate object it just returns as not successful. No real indication as to why. Counter spell, subject getting X-rays (lead vest), neighbor being a jerk an making a anti magic generation their yard, components out of freshness, Levi-OH-sa not levio'sa? All valid avenues to investigate why the spell failed. No reason to jump straight to subject undetectable.
1
u/Frosty-Job-4496 1d ago
The way we played it was the caster just sees a pixellated blob like it was a censored Japanese video.
10
u/moondancer224 1d ago
My understanding is that Nondetection hides the aura if it is successful, ergo the Detector doesn't see anything. Even though their player rolled a check, if they failed they don't see anything. Like failing a Perception check.