See Secrets spell

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Jerander

How about in step 3, the paneling hidden by the new wall? Is that hidden for the purposes of See Secrets?

Both the steps with the paneling and a wall given an interesting perspective something being deliberately hidden. It does seem clear that the safe has been hidden and it was deliberate. It's also clear it was done so the safe (and later paneling) could not be seen by others.

A similar, but simpler example, is spilling a liquid on a rug that won't come out, then moving a piece of furniture over it so it can't be seen. The stain has clearly been hidden deliberately.

This is why, outside of a DF setting, I'd allow the spell to give the caster a sense where something is hidden because a lot of hidden things will be of no value to him and make him waste time checking them out (especially in an urban fantasy setting).

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Jerander

How about in step 3, the paneling hidden by the new wall? Is that hidden for the purposes of See Secrets?

Hm. Missed the details there. I'd say that the intent was to remodel rather than hide per se, and thus no, unless you want every case where someone repaints because the old paint was ugly to count as detectable with see secrets.

[Anaraxes]

Repainting _is_ an attempt to hide the old paint. A sufficient broad intent-detector would presumably detect that intent. So you're really talking about more subtle discrimination of object of intent -- how valuable was it, how important that it be hidden, trying to hide the object from unauthorized thieves as opposed to everyone that sees the painted wall, and so on. The intent of the intent matters.

What if, knowing this, I repaint the wall to confuse See Secrets so the spell can't tell that is any more secret than the actual secret door? I intend to hide the same object for the same reasons; only in one case I have a door constructed, and the other case I happen to be applying paint. Intent is the same, only the physical actions differ.

It's going to wind up as a GM judgement call.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Repainting _is_ an attempt to hide the old paint. A sufficient broad intent-detector would presumably detect that intent. So you're really talking about more subtle discrimination of object of intent

Typically you paint over old paint because it's less effort than scraping it off first. I guess the distinction I was thinking of is that you're interested in hiding but preserving, as opposed to hiding because it's easier than destroying. Many of your examples are the latter.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Anthony

When the secret is hidden, or when the user's gaze falls on the item, or in any intervening time if using remove aura.

What if the hider is long dead when the gaze falls on the item? Does the spell go back in time to read his mind when he was alive?


And about the remodeling, whose intent counts? What if the contractors are painting to preserve, but were hired by the absentee owner who wants the room painted to hide?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

What if the hider is long dead when the gaze falls on the item? Does the spell go back in time to read his mind when he was alive?

See secrets is a variant of the history spell; it reveals psychic traces left on the object at the time the object was hidden. A scryguard on the caster prevents leaving traces, a remove aura erases traces, a scryguard on the thing itself prevents detecting traces.

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

And about the remodeling, whose intent counts?

Generally the intent of those doing the work, though for employees it might be the intent they think their employer has (whether or not their belief is correct).

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Anthony

See secrets is a variant of the history spell; it reveals psychic traces left on the object at the time the object was hidden. A scryguard on the caster prevents leaving traces, a remove aura erases traces, a scryguard on the thing itself prevents detecting traces.

I don't think Remove Aura removes the traces, if any. It's a permanent duration (therefore dispellable) spell.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

I don't think Remove Aura removes the traces, if any. It's a permanent duration (therefore dispellable) spell.

Oh right, the incoherent handling of permanent vs instant duration effects in Magic 4th edition; somewhere around half the spells labeled permanent should be instant. If you choose to take that literally, remove aura masks the traces rather than removing them. If you want silly, cast create air, let people in the area breathe in the air, and then counterspell the create air; unlike destroy air, it will actually remove the air from people's lungs and bloodstream...

[BaHalus]

OK, I usually like Krom's notes, but in this case it is not what is in the spell description as his interpretation ignores intent and allows finding lost items, what the description explicitly forbid. His note is essentially his house rule not an application of the spell as written. Defining how indirect intent affect the spell is up to each GM. I would use original intent as reference and only intent of secrecy not aesthetic intent should affect the spell.

The spell described by krom should get a different name and pre-requisites, like 'see details with keen vision in PR chain. This spell would be good to find lost items and probably would be good for art experts and in other stuff where details are important. You could replace the original spell by this new one where intent doesn't matter, but this sure isn't the original intent of this spell. Intent can get complicated eventually, but this spell really is about intent . And , if something is used to intentionally hide something, then the spell should show this. But the spell will not show details about the secret or intent, nor will it grant you X-ray vision.

[Saabre]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Oh right, the incoherent handling of permanent vs instant duration effects in Magic 4th edition; somewhere around half the spells labeled permanent should be instant. If you choose to take that literally, remove aura masks the traces rather than removing them. If you want silly, cast create air, let people in the area breathe in the air, and then counterspell the create air; unlike destroy air, it will actually remove the air from people's lungs and bloodstream...

It's a lot more than half the spells. It's more like 90% of the spells listed with Permanent duration should have been instantaneous.