Question on invisibility - how would you handle?

[petespahn]

A mage casts invisibility on himself. A rival mage casts detect magic. Would the invisible mage's magical items glow, thereby revealing his position?

(for the record, I would say no, because it defeats the spirit of the invisibility spell and effectively nerfs the detect invisible spell, but I thought it was an interesting question to pose...)

[greyarea]

I'd probably allow it, letting the PC use Detect Magic like Faerie Fire in this case. Attacking the mage with just his glowing magical items would require a -3 to hit at least, though.

[Dyson Logos]

That's always been an issue for me. Because by the book the caster of detect magic would see a glow around the invisible person (not just their magic items) because they are under the influence of a spell. It renders detect invisible into a spell that is specifically aimed at things that are invisible due to being astral, ethereal, out of phase, or invisible because of non-magical means (such as being hidden in shadows).

[Blood axe]

Id say no. He cant see the glow or detect the magic, because it is now invisible.

[Koren n'Rhys]

I'd say no as it circumvents the point of both the Invisibility and Detect Invisibility spells if they can be effectively neutralized by a 1st level Detect Magic. That's just powergaming the letter of the law rather than the intent.

[elf23]

A middle ground might be to allow detect magic to notice that there was some magical influence in the area, but not to pinpoint it exactly. I think that's what I'd rule if I was put on the spot.

[SyntheticGod8]

I would agree with Dyson that, while the auras of magic items held by an Invisible mage might not be visible under Detect Magic, the person is under the effect of a spell. However, this doesn't mean that the Invisible mage has been conclusively detected. All that would be seen is an indistinct aura (of the Illusion school if you wanted to be specific) in a 5' diameter area (height is up to you). Knowing what's in there is impossible without more magic or using other senses (like touch). Hitting whatever's there with a melee or missile weapon would entail at least a -4 penalty to-hit and targeting it with a spell like Ray of Enfeeblement or Hold Person would be impossible, since there is no visible target.

Using Detect Invisible would make the target appear either as normal or as translucent (DM's choice). Either way, there's no penalty to fight them or target them and the mage knows that he's spotted an Invisible creature. The Invisible creature might still be Hiding in Shadows, of course.

I've had a similar problem with Darkvision. One my players argues that, since Darkvision works on the infrared spectrum, that footprints and invisible creatures would be visible in total darkness. I personally don't think footprints would stay hot enough or be detectable for more than a few moments before they're too muddled to be sure they're footprints. As for Invisibility, I allowed him to detect a warm 5' area with no visible source. Point is, Darkvision is meant to simply be an advantage that lets a creature with it to function in complete darkness, albeit in a crude, rudimentary way (he can make out objects, obstacles, creatures, but no detail). Similarly, Detect Magic is meant to detect the presence of magical auras, to give a clue that things aren't what they appear, not to negate all forms of illusion by allowing form or pin-point accuracy.

[Dyson Logos]

Regarding Invisibility & Darkvision / Infravision - My call is the spell affects not just the human visible spectrum, but also the elf and dwarf-visible spectrums.

Also, remember that Detect Invisibility has a lot of uses that people don't note - like that it works for non-magical invisibility including things like hiding in shadows.