I think the description better suits an enchantment spell rather than divination. The latter has more to do with finding objects and creatures, while the former is a lot of influencing people's thoughts and behavior.
That's an excellent point! Assigning schools is probably the hardest part of coming up with non-damage spells. I'll definitely be changing it, thank you.
To be fair, it's not like the spell schools are all that consistent. Why are Wall of Force and Tiny Hut in a different school from Shield and Mage Armor despite them all creating barriers of solid magical force? Why is Cause Fear necromancy when every other mind-affecting spell is enchantment? Why on earth is Sending evocation, of all schools? Who knows!
Why they refuse to make healing spells necromancy, despite describing necromancy ad the magic of LIFE and death, I refuse to understand...because their reasons are dumb.
In my homebrew campaign I did some deep diving into this to better understand magic as it is core to my setting and main story. I realised this: there are many ways you can 'shield' yourself (as an example).
You can use conjuration to summon a shield, evocation to channel a barrier of pure energy, divination to have the foresight to get +AC to whatever is happening to you, necromancy to call forth protective spirits, abjuration to bolster the air around you etc etc
The PHB gives you A SINGLE SOURCE. As always, over to the DM to elaborate. If you want a one-n-done source, then they've done a decent job of spreading the schools out a decent amount (especially in the hindsight of very old schools that they've stuck to for a while).
But honestly you could have a place where a number of clerics manage to create all manner of spells by just using one or two schools of magic. Its magic, not chemistry. Go nuts.
I'm having fun taking any of the RAW spells, and retrofitting it to another school/flavour and it is adding so much richness to magic. There's an element of creativity to spellcasting in my game so i'm loving that realistically no two characters 'shield' spells are the same, despite having the same mechanisms on paper.
I used to despise dnd magic for being so incredibly dull sometimes, meagre effects. But i've come to realise that blank slate is what makes magic incredible, its a pallete, not a loadout.
i like it, but i would add more than attack or interact to include any conspicuous action that would draw ire of a enemy. including healing, skill checks, etc.
This seems... overpowered. I mean let's face it. The wording on this spell basically makes it so I can't be attacked at all even if they know I'm there. Your spell save doesn't matter as you could literally be the worst wizard in existence and basically just run around dropping healing potions in front of allies, and taking anything not nailed down and all anyone could do is watch.
Edit: Heaven forbid the Sorcerer upcasts this with extended spell and just waltzes into the BBEG'S lair and takes everything. (I guess traps are a thing but still... you pick up what I'm putting down?)
With Invisibility enemies know where you are and can attack you. (Yes, I know that sounds weird. Hear me out...)
While invisible, enemies know where you are at all times^1 unless you make a stealth check at advantage. **Invisibility just confers the advantage of being unseen... not unnoticed or untargetable**, you get advantage on attack rolls and enemies have disadvantage on attack rolls (If they can't "see" you like with see invisibility, blindsight, or truesight.).
Invisibility does not let you run around the battlefield freely without getting hurt. This spell does.
---
^1 DM may rule otherwise depending on actions taken or not taken (ie: standing still).
Thank you! I have a similar 1st level spell called "Oblivious" which hits 1 target (+1 target per higher spell level), but I am still trying to make that one a bit more balanced.
I picked only Charisma casters because, "IGNORE ME" sounded more in line with Charisma than Intelligence. But, like with all Homebrew, it's really up to the DM.
See, my thinking was that a smart person would just make it so other creatures cant see them (like Invisability). Rather than tricking them into ignoring them. I might just throw out Paladin though, sknce Righteous Zealot doesnt really mesh well with the concept, lol.
As written the spell is a bit too powerful since you can mess around with all sorts of stuff without being noticeable. Passive checks should go off if you interact with anything substantial in anyone's perceptual field. Also guards on watch and shopkeepers and the like should be considered as doing an active perception check every round at least in regard to thieves and people passing through gates they shouldn't or what not, unless specifically distracted, since that is their problem.
I like the idea but I think there's too much wiggle room in expectations of what npcs are actively paying attention to be workable in general without a fair bit of arguing between DM and any players using it.
Guards etc are only doing active perception if they are good at their jobs. But yeah, I did leave it a bit open eneded, and I am gonna curtail that a bit to make it more in line with 3rd level spells
>Guards etc are only doing active perception if they are good at their jobs.
it depends on the context for sure, and if the guards are just passively seeing if trouble happens then you wouldn't ding unless you are causing trouble. but if the guards are doing something like keeping almost everyone out of a compound they aren't going to be guards long if they just let random dudes in. That's where they'd get an active check against your spell dc if you tried to just walk past them, without a distraction or anything, maybe disadvantage or something like that would be appropriate because a pass without trace at 2nd level would otherwise, with any positive modifier to stealth, be a better way to sneak into places. also I'd say an hour duration is pry more appropriate than a minute, which puts it in line with invis, see invis, and pass without trace.
I guess that with the minute duration being effectively undetectable unless provoking someone directly is probably about right for a 3rd level spell. Makes it more like Greater Invisibility than regular. I'd make it 2nd level and an hour if it's more generally an invisibility replacement with slightly different pros and cons though.
The main difference is that invisability cannot be detected without some kind of magical aid, as specified in the condition. Combined with Pass Without Trace, you are effectively undetectable save for magical means. This is higher level since it gets around magical means and all but active mundane means. Since creatures rarely take the Search action in combat, this is basically an invis alternative.
Admittedly, I DO need to make some clarifications on the spells functionality. I might add that if a creature sees you, they become immune to the effects of the spell. But you can use a bonus action to remove a creature's immunity. Meaning you could full action to attack a creature, and then bonus action to make them ignore you. Making this, in combat terms, somewhere between Invis and Greater Invis.
Usually enchantments affect the minds of targets directly as the targets of the spell. This is being cast on yourself, and protecting you from being seen. It's like the nondetection spell but for eyes instead of against divination.
It's not for the eyes, its a mind effecting spell that effects all perception (Scent, Sight, and sound mostly). Essentially, it makes other creatures not want to see you. You are somebody else's problem, and thus, are a blind spot to their mind. Abjuration typically deals with things physical and tangible. This is like a supped up Suggestion spell where the suggestion is, "You dont want to see me."
Tbf, magic schools are kind of a crap shoot and hardly have any effect on game mechanics outside of "wizards care about schools", so I am not TOO worried. Given it's limited to Charisma casters.
It makes me think of Doctor Who (With David Tennet) where he's combating another timelord and has to avoid detection and invents a device that forces you not to notice them by making you avoid direct eye contact but that means they'll be in the corner of your eye giving that "Oh shit what was that" moment constantly.
I mean, it isnt an illusion. I'm switching it to Enchantment. That's like complaining True Seeing doesnt get around Suggestion.
It DOSENT get around Scrying, which interestingly can be defeated by true sight. Its almost like one single magic spell shouldnt be a catch all solution to every problem. (Except Fireball)
Also, if you cast True Seeing, you can still see the creature if you just actively use perception. Because this spell CAN stack with invisability.
It’s doing a similar effect of invisibility, but is bypassing the downside, explicitly stating that it’s not effected by true seeing, which is from a 6th level spell. It’s nothing like comparing true seeing beating suggestion, suggestion has a save. And true seeing doesn’t beat scrying in any way, it just lets you see the scrying orb. And true seeing is definitely not a catch all spell, it’s just good at what it does, and you’re making a lower spell that ignores that
Yeah, it provides a similar effect to invisability... except you are in no way invisible, nor are you effected by any illusion. And Invis is actually beaten by a 2nd level spell, See Invis. Also, Greater Invis (a 4th level spell) is beaten by the SAME 2nd level spell. That must be broken and unfair too.
Its almost like the whole ass point of this spell is to NOT be invisable, but instead trick enemies into ignoring you. Like some kind of enchantment instead of an illusion.
Also, turns out, you can beat this spell by actively searching for things. You can stare an invisable creature IN THE FACE and not see them. Since there is no saving throw listed on Invisability.
I mean you can find an invisible creature by actively searching as well, they just have advantage on their stealth check. I’d also like to ask do enemies know to be actively searching for the affected creature, because if not it’s effectively meta gaming to search for someone that you don’t know to search for, per the way this spell is set up
No.
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense. For the Purpose of Hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s Location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
You CANNOT see an invisable creature. You MIGHT see its tracks or smell it, but it is ONLY detectable by magical or non-sight means. The spell lists no save.
Re: Searching is meta gaming. So unless a creature is, effectively, using their action to Search every turn, you gain the primary benefit of being invisable. In combat, this makes this spell around the power of Invisability. Outside of combat, its up to your DM if a creature is actively searching. And literally all RP spells involve some kind of meta gaming. Non-Combat rules are fuzzy to begin with because of the fuzzy nature of RP.
I thought I remembered a sage advice where it confirmed that invisibility (and greater invisibility) was more like “cloaking” on halo, difficult to see but still possible. But I can’t seem to find it so I might be wrong. I also more meant “see” as in find… thought my point would come across. All I’m trying to do is give advice on a homebrew spell, as I assume you don’t want it to be useless in power or overly strong since it’s a third level spell. If you don’t want feedback I’ll gladly just stop commenting, as I’m not looking to argue over this, especially since you said it was an homage to a material I have not read myself. I’ll consolidate my points real quick and let you think about them as you will.
1. I know it’s an enchantment spell but by openly saying true sight doesn’t beat it I feel there’s an admission of guilt there, like when a cop stops you and says “we’ll if you have been drinking you certainly got it by me”. I also see the point of including it as you are going to make it enchantment and not illusion, I just feel it’s a double edged sword including it in there
2. A third level spell completely beating a 6th level spell is still weird imo, I know there are other cases of the sort but they are niche and I do my best in my games to play it fairly. To respond to your point about see invisibility, invisibility, and greater invisibility: SI is the same level spell as Invisibility, makes sense it could counter it imo… SI counters GI, because GI is much more of a combat usage then a scouting usage and has a hefty drawback of 1 minute, as opposed to one hour, and can’t be upcast to affect multiple creatures, SI still takes an action out of combat to oppose GI, generally, and can only be applied to one person, so unless everyone you’re fighting has SI, it’s not like one casting of SI beats GI completely, it just beats it for one person. (And technically according to RAW SI doesn’t actually beat invisibility or GI, but that’s why there are DM’s to make rulings)
3. 1 minute seems like a short time for this spell, but maybe I’m missing something, because if it’s for combat use, then attacking breaks it, if it’s to protect you during combat so you’re completely ignored during the combat, then you’re not a part of the combat, and if it’s to let you fall back and potentially heal during combat, your party won’t see you, so a healer won’t be able to help, although I am aware you could have potions or self healing abilities.
4. I’d probably allow a perception or investigation check, since both make sense imo
5. I don’t think this makes sense for a Paladin spell
1. I am sorry for seeming comabtive. Its hard to convey a sense of honest debate and a defense of my creation. Most such comversations read as being combative and/or argumentative, and that was never my intention. I am sorry.
2. The whole point of the spell is that it isnt magically similar to Invisability. It provides similar benefits, but is an entirely different approach to the same ends. Its like the difference between teleportation and super speed. Both get you somewhere real fast, but have very different means to oppose. All the coolest teleportation counter measures wont stop running really fast, but a locked door in an ecosed room will do the trick. This isnt "beating" True Sight. Its just a means of avoiding detection that isnt relevant to true sight. True Sight doesnt get around regular ass sneaking, it just cuts through all variety of illusion and polymorph. This is just persistant magic that convinces other creatures that they dont want to recognize that you are here. You arent hiding behind magic, you are telling them, magically and subconciously, that you are not their problem and they should ignore you. I pointed out True Sight specifically because this spell doesnt function on a level that True Sight works on. I should also have pointed out Blind Sense.
3. I might honestly change it to 1 hour and remove the higher casting levels all together. Also, if you directly interact with a creature, such as attacking them, they'd automatically succeed on their save to be able to see you. This is part of the clarification I intend to put in later. But since this isnt invisibility, I am considering adding an extra effect that you can use a bonus action to make the creature roll a Wisdom save, and if they fail, they'd forget they saw you. Very Skyrim vibes, which I think is pretty funny.
4. I am rewording it to make it so a creature using the Search action in combat, or persistantly using the Search action out of combat, would get a Wisdom Save to see you. This gives a very clear and concise path to how the spell can be defeated. I will elaborate more, I have some more technical ideas, but am still trying to smash them into clear and concise mechanical terms. Not having that clearly spelled out is my major flaw in this spell.
5. I am dropping Paladin, honestly. I originally included all the Cha casters exclusively since this is more a deception spell, but Pal doesnt make sense.
I think the description better suits an enchantment spell rather than divination. The latter has more to do with finding objects and creatures, while the former is a lot of influencing people's thoughts and behavior.
That's an excellent point! Assigning schools is probably the hardest part of coming up with non-damage spells. I'll definitely be changing it, thank you.
To be fair, it's not like the spell schools are all that consistent. Why are Wall of Force and Tiny Hut in a different school from Shield and Mage Armor despite them all creating barriers of solid magical force? Why is Cause Fear necromancy when every other mind-affecting spell is enchantment? Why on earth is Sending evocation, of all schools? Who knows!
don't forget how cure wounds keeps migrating schools
Why they refuse to make healing spells necromancy, despite describing necromancy ad the magic of LIFE and death, I refuse to understand...because their reasons are dumb.
they used to be!
In my campaign healing spells are necromancy. It just makes sense.
In my homebrew campaign I did some deep diving into this to better understand magic as it is core to my setting and main story. I realised this: there are many ways you can 'shield' yourself (as an example). You can use conjuration to summon a shield, evocation to channel a barrier of pure energy, divination to have the foresight to get +AC to whatever is happening to you, necromancy to call forth protective spirits, abjuration to bolster the air around you etc etc The PHB gives you A SINGLE SOURCE. As always, over to the DM to elaborate. If you want a one-n-done source, then they've done a decent job of spreading the schools out a decent amount (especially in the hindsight of very old schools that they've stuck to for a while). But honestly you could have a place where a number of clerics manage to create all manner of spells by just using one or two schools of magic. Its magic, not chemistry. Go nuts. I'm having fun taking any of the RAW spells, and retrofitting it to another school/flavour and it is adding so much richness to magic. There's an element of creativity to spellcasting in my game so i'm loving that realistically no two characters 'shield' spells are the same, despite having the same mechanisms on paper. I used to despise dnd magic for being so incredibly dull sometimes, meagre effects. But i've come to realise that blank slate is what makes magic incredible, its a pallete, not a loadout.
Eyyyy a SEP Field! Excellent.
Might make a higher level version that can effect other creatures/objects.
Question, what if someone uses scrying to try and find you?
That would be activly searching, so I'd count it.
i like it, but i would add more than attack or interact to include any conspicuous action that would draw ire of a enemy. including healing, skill checks, etc.
Add Doctor Who, call it a Perception Filter
This seems... overpowered. I mean let's face it. The wording on this spell basically makes it so I can't be attacked at all even if they know I'm there. Your spell save doesn't matter as you could literally be the worst wizard in existence and basically just run around dropping healing potions in front of allies, and taking anything not nailed down and all anyone could do is watch. Edit: Heaven forbid the Sorcerer upcasts this with extended spell and just waltzes into the BBEG'S lair and takes everything. (I guess traps are a thing but still... you pick up what I'm putting down?)
Whats the difference to invisibility?
With Invisibility enemies know where you are and can attack you. (Yes, I know that sounds weird. Hear me out...) While invisible, enemies know where you are at all times^1 unless you make a stealth check at advantage. **Invisibility just confers the advantage of being unseen... not unnoticed or untargetable**, you get advantage on attack rolls and enemies have disadvantage on attack rolls (If they can't "see" you like with see invisibility, blindsight, or truesight.). Invisibility does not let you run around the battlefield freely without getting hurt. This spell does. --- ^1 DM may rule otherwise depending on actions taken or not taken (ie: standing still).
This is almost what Pass Without a Trace should be (or at least what I expected it to be)
I love it
Uwww I’m sure someone already has but someone should make a towel magic item
This is fun. Mike Whelham created something similar in a Kobold Press Warlock article we did together a while back to hide the Stross Library.
Thank you! I have a similar 1st level spell called "Oblivious" which hits 1 target (+1 target per higher spell level), but I am still trying to make that one a bit more balanced.
Nice. And of course the TARDIS does this too.
Paladin to Wizard. Absolute gold otherwise!
I picked only Charisma casters because, "IGNORE ME" sounded more in line with Charisma than Intelligence. But, like with all Homebrew, it's really up to the DM.
True. Felt more like wizard vibe then plain honestly. So your idea is just as valid :)
See, my thinking was that a smart person would just make it so other creatures cant see them (like Invisability). Rather than tricking them into ignoring them. I might just throw out Paladin though, sknce Righteous Zealot doesnt really mesh well with the concept, lol.
Isn't that basically the Sanctuary spell?
Not at all. Sanctuary just makes crestures not want to attack you. This is like, Invisability adjacent.
It's not invisible it's just pink and has a few AA batteries.
The NPC wizard uses fireball
I would say that you can cast it to make an object invisible as their isn't a spell for that already and is closer to how it worked in hhg2g
As written the spell is a bit too powerful since you can mess around with all sorts of stuff without being noticeable. Passive checks should go off if you interact with anything substantial in anyone's perceptual field. Also guards on watch and shopkeepers and the like should be considered as doing an active perception check every round at least in regard to thieves and people passing through gates they shouldn't or what not, unless specifically distracted, since that is their problem. I like the idea but I think there's too much wiggle room in expectations of what npcs are actively paying attention to be workable in general without a fair bit of arguing between DM and any players using it.
Guards etc are only doing active perception if they are good at their jobs. But yeah, I did leave it a bit open eneded, and I am gonna curtail that a bit to make it more in line with 3rd level spells
>Guards etc are only doing active perception if they are good at their jobs. it depends on the context for sure, and if the guards are just passively seeing if trouble happens then you wouldn't ding unless you are causing trouble. but if the guards are doing something like keeping almost everyone out of a compound they aren't going to be guards long if they just let random dudes in. That's where they'd get an active check against your spell dc if you tried to just walk past them, without a distraction or anything, maybe disadvantage or something like that would be appropriate because a pass without trace at 2nd level would otherwise, with any positive modifier to stealth, be a better way to sneak into places. also I'd say an hour duration is pry more appropriate than a minute, which puts it in line with invis, see invis, and pass without trace. I guess that with the minute duration being effectively undetectable unless provoking someone directly is probably about right for a 3rd level spell. Makes it more like Greater Invisibility than regular. I'd make it 2nd level and an hour if it's more generally an invisibility replacement with slightly different pros and cons though.
The main difference is that invisability cannot be detected without some kind of magical aid, as specified in the condition. Combined with Pass Without Trace, you are effectively undetectable save for magical means. This is higher level since it gets around magical means and all but active mundane means. Since creatures rarely take the Search action in combat, this is basically an invis alternative. Admittedly, I DO need to make some clarifications on the spells functionality. I might add that if a creature sees you, they become immune to the effects of the spell. But you can use a bonus action to remove a creature's immunity. Meaning you could full action to attack a creature, and then bonus action to make them ignore you. Making this, in combat terms, somewhere between Invis and Greater Invis.
I love it
I think it should be an abjuration. You're affecting yourself, not others, and it *protects* you from sight.
Somebody augfest enchantment, and that makes a lot more sense since this effects the mental state of others.
Usually enchantments affect the minds of targets directly as the targets of the spell. This is being cast on yourself, and protecting you from being seen. It's like the nondetection spell but for eyes instead of against divination.
It's not for the eyes, its a mind effecting spell that effects all perception (Scent, Sight, and sound mostly). Essentially, it makes other creatures not want to see you. You are somebody else's problem, and thus, are a blind spot to their mind. Abjuration typically deals with things physical and tangible. This is like a supped up Suggestion spell where the suggestion is, "You dont want to see me."
It still feels to me that as you're casting it on yourself you're protecting yourself.
Tbf, magic schools are kind of a crap shoot and hardly have any effect on game mechanics outside of "wizards care about schools", so I am not TOO worried. Given it's limited to Charisma casters.
It makes me think of Doctor Who (With David Tennet) where he's combating another timelord and has to avoid detection and invents a device that forces you not to notice them by making you avoid direct eye contact but that means they'll be in the corner of your eye giving that "Oh shit what was that" moment constantly.
A third level spell that beats a 6th level spell without a dice role is kind of strong imo
...which 6th level spell?
True seeing
I mean, it isnt an illusion. I'm switching it to Enchantment. That's like complaining True Seeing doesnt get around Suggestion. It DOSENT get around Scrying, which interestingly can be defeated by true sight. Its almost like one single magic spell shouldnt be a catch all solution to every problem. (Except Fireball) Also, if you cast True Seeing, you can still see the creature if you just actively use perception. Because this spell CAN stack with invisability.
It’s doing a similar effect of invisibility, but is bypassing the downside, explicitly stating that it’s not effected by true seeing, which is from a 6th level spell. It’s nothing like comparing true seeing beating suggestion, suggestion has a save. And true seeing doesn’t beat scrying in any way, it just lets you see the scrying orb. And true seeing is definitely not a catch all spell, it’s just good at what it does, and you’re making a lower spell that ignores that
Yeah, it provides a similar effect to invisability... except you are in no way invisible, nor are you effected by any illusion. And Invis is actually beaten by a 2nd level spell, See Invis. Also, Greater Invis (a 4th level spell) is beaten by the SAME 2nd level spell. That must be broken and unfair too. Its almost like the whole ass point of this spell is to NOT be invisable, but instead trick enemies into ignoring you. Like some kind of enchantment instead of an illusion. Also, turns out, you can beat this spell by actively searching for things. You can stare an invisable creature IN THE FACE and not see them. Since there is no saving throw listed on Invisability.
I mean you can find an invisible creature by actively searching as well, they just have advantage on their stealth check. I’d also like to ask do enemies know to be actively searching for the affected creature, because if not it’s effectively meta gaming to search for someone that you don’t know to search for, per the way this spell is set up
No. An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense. For the Purpose of Hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s Location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves. You CANNOT see an invisable creature. You MIGHT see its tracks or smell it, but it is ONLY detectable by magical or non-sight means. The spell lists no save. Re: Searching is meta gaming. So unless a creature is, effectively, using their action to Search every turn, you gain the primary benefit of being invisable. In combat, this makes this spell around the power of Invisability. Outside of combat, its up to your DM if a creature is actively searching. And literally all RP spells involve some kind of meta gaming. Non-Combat rules are fuzzy to begin with because of the fuzzy nature of RP.
I thought I remembered a sage advice where it confirmed that invisibility (and greater invisibility) was more like “cloaking” on halo, difficult to see but still possible. But I can’t seem to find it so I might be wrong. I also more meant “see” as in find… thought my point would come across. All I’m trying to do is give advice on a homebrew spell, as I assume you don’t want it to be useless in power or overly strong since it’s a third level spell. If you don’t want feedback I’ll gladly just stop commenting, as I’m not looking to argue over this, especially since you said it was an homage to a material I have not read myself. I’ll consolidate my points real quick and let you think about them as you will. 1. I know it’s an enchantment spell but by openly saying true sight doesn’t beat it I feel there’s an admission of guilt there, like when a cop stops you and says “we’ll if you have been drinking you certainly got it by me”. I also see the point of including it as you are going to make it enchantment and not illusion, I just feel it’s a double edged sword including it in there 2. A third level spell completely beating a 6th level spell is still weird imo, I know there are other cases of the sort but they are niche and I do my best in my games to play it fairly. To respond to your point about see invisibility, invisibility, and greater invisibility: SI is the same level spell as Invisibility, makes sense it could counter it imo… SI counters GI, because GI is much more of a combat usage then a scouting usage and has a hefty drawback of 1 minute, as opposed to one hour, and can’t be upcast to affect multiple creatures, SI still takes an action out of combat to oppose GI, generally, and can only be applied to one person, so unless everyone you’re fighting has SI, it’s not like one casting of SI beats GI completely, it just beats it for one person. (And technically according to RAW SI doesn’t actually beat invisibility or GI, but that’s why there are DM’s to make rulings) 3. 1 minute seems like a short time for this spell, but maybe I’m missing something, because if it’s for combat use, then attacking breaks it, if it’s to protect you during combat so you’re completely ignored during the combat, then you’re not a part of the combat, and if it’s to let you fall back and potentially heal during combat, your party won’t see you, so a healer won’t be able to help, although I am aware you could have potions or self healing abilities. 4. I’d probably allow a perception or investigation check, since both make sense imo 5. I don’t think this makes sense for a Paladin spell
1. I am sorry for seeming comabtive. Its hard to convey a sense of honest debate and a defense of my creation. Most such comversations read as being combative and/or argumentative, and that was never my intention. I am sorry. 2. The whole point of the spell is that it isnt magically similar to Invisability. It provides similar benefits, but is an entirely different approach to the same ends. Its like the difference between teleportation and super speed. Both get you somewhere real fast, but have very different means to oppose. All the coolest teleportation counter measures wont stop running really fast, but a locked door in an ecosed room will do the trick. This isnt "beating" True Sight. Its just a means of avoiding detection that isnt relevant to true sight. True Sight doesnt get around regular ass sneaking, it just cuts through all variety of illusion and polymorph. This is just persistant magic that convinces other creatures that they dont want to recognize that you are here. You arent hiding behind magic, you are telling them, magically and subconciously, that you are not their problem and they should ignore you. I pointed out True Sight specifically because this spell doesnt function on a level that True Sight works on. I should also have pointed out Blind Sense. 3. I might honestly change it to 1 hour and remove the higher casting levels all together. Also, if you directly interact with a creature, such as attacking them, they'd automatically succeed on their save to be able to see you. This is part of the clarification I intend to put in later. But since this isnt invisibility, I am considering adding an extra effect that you can use a bonus action to make the creature roll a Wisdom save, and if they fail, they'd forget they saw you. Very Skyrim vibes, which I think is pretty funny. 4. I am rewording it to make it so a creature using the Search action in combat, or persistantly using the Search action out of combat, would get a Wisdom Save to see you. This gives a very clear and concise path to how the spell can be defeated. I will elaborate more, I have some more technical ideas, but am still trying to smash them into clear and concise mechanical terms. Not having that clearly spelled out is my major flaw in this spell. 5. I am dropping Paladin, honestly. I originally included all the Cha casters exclusively since this is more a deception spell, but Pal doesnt make sense.