• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sula

  1. I'm going to go ahead and say' date=' "No, Demon Hunters cannot detect Nathrezim unless they have been able to identify that person as a Nathrezim before." If that doesn't make sense, you, as a demon hunter, must be a witness to the transformation of that individual from a mortal shell to their Nathrezim body, or vice a versa.[/color']





    thread solved, folks. pack your shit.

  2. 5sFcIXg.jpg


    You don't need to get upset because I'm going by what the spells say. You should really relax and.. I dunno' date=' read?


    I gave you the relevant bits.




    You mean you've butchered the spell into something you like, disregarding the rest?


    *vaguely relevant, nearly trivial bits






    u mad bruh

  3. l8ceZF.png

    Your stance is based on half of a sentence, not the actual spell description. You don't need to parrot "divination" any longer, really. If you'd actually go by what the spell description says, you'd KNOW that true seeing is one of the spells that AREN'T affected by nondetection, despite being a divination spell.




    lets try again though.



    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.


    true seeing

    The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things.




    Alright, you with me so far?


    Notice how in the true seeing section, the subject 'sees' through darkness etc etc etc? Well he's not making any divination attempts at anything, the subject automatically perceives the world as it really is.


    See this? I'm going with what the spell tells me. You? Nah.

  4. At this point, I just want to believe that you're blatantly trying to troll me.



    Throughout the entire debate you've been doing nothing but acting condescendingly and providing no meaningful rebuttals to defend your stance on the subject.


    Also parroting the same word over and over while outright ignoring anything your opposition has to present doesn't make your opinion on the subject right.




    You go by what you think is correct but as you had mentioned earlier, there's difference what you perceive, and fact.

  5. True Sight is a divination spell.


    Nondetection protects against divination spells. The spells listed in "such as" are giving examples' date=' as they are divination spells.


    Until you find the part where it says in True Sight it is unaffected by Nondetection, your argument is entirely invalid, regardless of what you want to believe.


    Sorry, but that's how it is in D&D and RPG. We take the wording as it is, and unless something specifically says otherwise, we typically don't make assumptions.


    Eagerly awaiting the moment that you provide the citation that says Trueseeing is unaffected by Nondetection.





    I'm not making any assumptions, though. By applying cold logic to what the spell description stated, in my previous post, I deliberately took time in order to bring everything out each spell separetely and in detail so that the difference between the three examples and true sight would be apparent.



    But seeing as you chose not to heed to my logic and instead cling onto "divination" part, I actually took some time in order to find a finite solution for this.


    Here's an article written by Skip Williams, co-creator of D&D 3rd edition.







    though we're still in the dark about nathrezim vs demon hunters

  6. Also' date=' uh. it's pretty much debateable if nondetection wards off true sight since some rule out anything besides the divination spells given in the spell description while others just allow protection from ALL divination spells, which in my opinion seems like giving the spell too much credit.



    there is no debate.


    there is a difference between what you perceive, and fact.


    from an RPG/D&D standpoint, no, nondetection does not grant 100% protection against divination spells. it is an opposed caster level check.




    true sight is a divination spell. it is a divination attempt.



    There indeed is a difference in what you perceive and fact.




    "The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells."



    detect evil

    "You can sense the presence of evil. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject."



    "Clairaudience/clairvoyance creates an invisible magical sensor at a specific location that enables you to hear or see (your choice) almost as if you were there."


    locate object

    "You sense the direction of a well-known or clearly visualized object."



    and then true sight

    You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are.



    What do the three other have in common that true sight doesnt? They're all aimed at a certain location or person. True sight is bestowed upon someone and the certain someone just gazes at the world, seeing it as it is, the certain someone does not have to attempt anything, shit's just revealed to him.



    It's nice that you've managed to bring out the divination part that nondetection helps against but you seem to have bluntly ignored the important part of the spell description.



    also i probably shouldnt have said "wards off", as nondetection most certainly doesn't prevent divination spells from locating you 100%.




    oh no!!

    seems like there is a debate after all.

  7. I, uh, fully understand that he uses magic to possess it. I even brought up the quote from wowwiki which states that his magic is even employed to keep the body from decaying. I wasn't aware that casting a spell, spell-like effect or using a supernatural ability leaves some magical residue that divination picks up like cum-stains under an ultraviolet light.


    Also, uh. it's pretty much debateable if nondetection wards off true sight since some rule out anything besides the divination spells given in the spell description while others just allow protection from ALL divination spells, which in my opinion seems like giving the spell too much credit.

  8. Do you have anything to confirm what you're stating so far?


    Because demon hunter's Spectral Sight doesn't seem to qualify as True Sight, instead the two seem as completely different types of divination-type spells/abilities.


    And the way that Balnazzar lets Dathrohan know that he'll be inhabiting his body after consuming his soul seems to be further proving my theory on possession, which would then work against your theory of a magical disguise.


    Plus this sentence "Balnazzar killed him and possessed his corpse, his powerful magic protecting the former Paladin's body from decay.", on Saidan Dathrohan's wowwiki page, in my opinion, further suggests that we're still dealing with the host's original body.



    Though, the question is, wouldn't nathrezim and other demons just be able to evade detection from spectral sight, while under the effect of magical disguises, by employing warding spells?




    though all in all, we're gonna need a GM on this one.

  9. I really don't think that Demon Hunters would be able to detect Nathrezim via True Sight as Nathrezim aren't disguised by the means of regular magic at all.


    At least that's how I've understood their ability to possess things.







    also to salmon that asked me yesterday if they can temporarily leave the bodies that they've occupied.