33
\$\begingroup\$

Nondetection says it hides the target from all divination spells. Invisibility hides you from normal sight. When combining both effects on one target, are they hidden from true seeing?

\$\endgroup\$
46
\$\begingroup\$

Yes

The beneficiary of a nondetection spell:

  1. Can’t be targeted by any divination magic, and
  2. Can't be perceived through magical scrying sensors.

There are only two spells in the PHB that create magical scrying sensors: clairvoyance and scrying. These are obviously covered by Item 2.

It's reasonable to assume that the remaining 28 spells from the divination school in the PHB, including true seeing, are covered by Item 1. They certainly fall into the category "any divination magic," so the question is, what does it mean to be "targeted" by these spells?

Does the spell have to explicitly refer to a "target" in its spell description? That's only two spells: the cantrip true strike and the 1st level ranger spell hunter's mark. This would be a very short list for a 3rd level spell, and neither of these is really a 'detect'-class spell. We need a broader definition for "targeted" than this.

It might be tempting to equate the target of a spell with the range of a spell; however, at least in the case of divination spells, this yields rather absurd results. Out of the 28 spells, 17 have a range of "Self," while another 4 have a range of "Touch" where the spell description specifies a willing creature. Clearly the recipient of these spells is not the one being "targeted" by them. Otherwise this would imply that a caster under the protection of nondetection, for instance, would not be able to cast spells like comprehend languages or speak with animals on themselves for the duration. That is clearly not the intent of the spell. Furthermore, even if a creature thought this was a desirable effect, they could avoid being "targeted" by 3/4ths of all divination spells simply by not casting them or by declaring that they aren't "willing."

In addition, if we assume that the target of a spell with range "Self" is the caster's own self, and not a creature one is trying to detect, then nondetection would provide no protection from detect evil and good or detect thoughts, which would seem to be exactly the kind of thing for which this spell is intended.

There is even a case to be made from RAW that target is not the same as range. Consider detect thoughts. It has a range of "Self," and it allows the caster to detect creatures they can't otherwise see. Yet the rules for Targets say (PHB 204): "Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature’s thoughts, typically goes unnoticed." So the range of the spell is the caster's self, but the target of the spell is the creature having its thoughts read.

Since "target equals range" leads us to absurdity, I propose a simpler, alternative reading of the spell: the recipient "can't be detected by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors." If they can be detected by other means, fine; but if the only reason they can be detected is because of a divination spell, as is the case with an invisible creature who could be perceived with true seeing but is otherwise hidden, then they remain undetected.

\$\endgroup\$
0
40
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, Nondetection does block the Trueseeing spell. This was addressed in a tweet by Crawford. It does beat True Seeing:

The nondetection spell hides you from divination magic. True seeing is a divination spell.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 13, 2016

\$\endgroup\$
18
\$\begingroup\$

No

Nondetection

For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic. The target can be a willing creature or a place or an object no larger than 10 feet in any dimension. The target can’t be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.

True seeing

This spell gives the willing creature you touch the ability to see things as they actually are. For the duration, the creature has truesight, notices secret doors hidden by magic, and can see into the Ethereal Plane, all out to a range o f 120 feet.

RAW about targets

Targets A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point o f origin for an area o f effect (described below). Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it w as targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature’s thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.

The target of trueseeing is the one that receives it's power, so the first part of nondetection isn't working(can’t be targeted). True seeing is indeed a divination spell, but it grants truesight, that is not a magical scrying sensor. Thus the second part of nondetection doesn't work either.

Truesight

A creature with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceives the original form o f a shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic. Furthermore, the creature can see into the Ethereal Plane.

\$\endgroup\$
5
\$\begingroup\$

Yes and No

I think the issue here is that people are confusing True Seeing with Truesight. Non-detection absolutely does make a creature immune to the True Seeing divination spell. It does not make it immune to the Truesight inherently part of a creature or [up to the DM] the benefits granted to another creature that has been targeted by a True Seeing spell. While a DM allowing Invisibility and Nondetection to work together like this doesn't break the game at all, the interpretation of the wording as such does have ramifications on other similarly worded spells such as Greater Invisibility.

If all similarly worded spells stacked as some would like, Greater Invisibility and Nondetection (4th and 3rd level spells) would give creatures like Empyrean (MM 130) with CR 23 almost no chance against low level adventures in many combat situations and would break entirely the deadly encounter XP and CR balancing tables of DMG on page 82.

It is important to note even the highest rated answer has now been edited to acknowledge that only Truesight granted by a divination spell such as Trueseeing should be considered to fail. Truesight inherent or granted by any other means (such as an item) still works to detect the invisible creature.

Other examples of circumstantial evidence on related matters:

Mind Blank also grants "one willing creature you touch immunity to.. divination spells..." and like Invisibility and Greater Invisibility does not grant immunity to Truesight. Many similar spells also distinguish this explicitly. Most would also agree that having a blank mind and being invisible, despite identical wording, wouldn't make sense to also all grant immunity to Truesight, but certainly would prevent scrying and other such things that Nondetection prevents.

Clairvoyance (222 PHB) also starts with "You create an invisible sensor"... then explicitly states "A creature that can see the sensor (such as a creature benefiting from see invisibility or Truesight) sees a luminous,.." Non-Detection does not remove Truesight from creatures and so creatures with Truesight can see the sensor, however a creature affected by Nondetection can't be seen by the sensor in return.

As a historical precedence (since most who have been around since 2e recognize the lore (and spell list) of 5e as a direct import from 2e): In second edition "Improved Invisibility" and "Spell Immunity: Divination" was a well know exploit. However, even back in 2e, a different spell called "Non-detection" did not protect against true seeing, as it was designed (and still is designed) to protect against scrying and other divination magic that targets the invisible creature. One can compare the wording to see the differences of the intended functions of these spells in 2e then compare to the modern 5e wording to gain historical insight.

Up to the DM ultimately to be the judge on what breaks the game play or not.

\$\endgroup\$
0
2
\$\begingroup\$

In terms of the intent of your question: Absolutely not.

Here is the text of the effects of the spell True Seeing:

This spell gives the willing creature you touch the ability to see things as they actually are. For the duration, the creature has truesight, notices secret doors hidden by magic, and can see into the Ethereal Plane, all out to a range of 120 feet.

Player's Handbook, p. 284

Here is the text of the condition called "Truesight":

A monster with Truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceive the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic. Furthermore, the monster can see into the Ethereal Plane within the same limited range.

Monster Manual, p. 9

Simply put, the spells Non-Detection and True Seeing have no interaction whatsoever. A subject who is enchanted by non-detection is not detectable by scrying magic, magical sensors and the like. None of those are components of the condition that is Truesight which is granted to the recipient of the spell called True Seeing. The creature being viewed is simply standing in plain sight, they are not the target of any kind of spell or magical effect whatsoever outside of their own spells.

There is even an argument to be made that it would be disadvantageous to have the spell invisibility on you while in the presence of such a creature as they would "automatically detect visual illusions", which is what invisibility ostensibly is.

Also: a creature who possessed Truesight would still not be able to use divination magic to detect a creature who was under the protection of Non-Detection. For example: Spells such as alarm, clairvoyance, clairaudience, locate person, etc. The constructs and effects created by these spells do not have the condition truesight, and therefore would still not be able to detect the protected individual, so those things in turn would not be able to transmit that information to the creature with truesight regardless of its own condition.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

To me this is quite clear and answers its self Truesight

  1. if it's the spell then "yes" Non-detection and Invisibility would work for the following reason, you are invisible and you are using a magically enhanced Deviation sight and Non-detection will prevent location, the act of looking at someone with Non-detection cast on them is targeting them with that sight add to this your eyes have literally become "magical scrying sensors" (hopefully you get what i mean). To be fair if the Invisibility is cast second then the truesight might work (DM's Call).

  2. If its not a spell and truesight is an innate ability, there we are stepping on to dicey ground!!! i for one would say that it is always best to leave it up to the DM. Think of it like this, if the party are not challenged, where is the fun in that. if you party is a bunch of murder hobos, i say take them to the edge, throw in a reason for there to be a magic dead zone or something, push them, make them go home with visions of there hard won victory. if your party is a young party let them revel in there cleverness of there plan. D&D is and will always be a realm of possibilities :)

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy