Sesame Street Magical Halloween Adventure is a delightful children's television special featuring the beloved characters from the long-running educational show, Sesame Street. In this special, the residents of Sesame Street embark on a magical journey on Halloween night, encountering various fun and spooky adventures along the way. The special begins with the iconic Big Bird helping his friend, Little Bird, overcome her fear of monsters. They meet up with the other Sesame Street characters, including Elmo, Cookie Monster, Bert and Ernie, Grover, and Oscar the Grouch, who are all dressed up in costumes and ready for an exciting night of trick-or-treating. As they make their way through the neighborhood, the Sesame Street gang stumbles upon a mysterious Halloween party, where they are greeted by Count von Count, a friendly vampire who loves to count everything. Count von Count invites them to join him in a song about counting pumpkins, adding a fun and educational element to the Halloween adventure.

"Invisibility" & "Nondetection" Vs "See Invisibility" - Query for Players and DM's alike

The Wording of "Nondetection" states "a creature is difficut to detect by divination spells such as Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Locate Object and Detect spells" a player in my group insists that since "See Invisibility" is a Divination spell, that it would have to make the required Caster Level Check to see an Invisible creature.
They put emphisis on the "such as" element of the wording and insist this is the only way among mundane hiding a character has to magically avoid being seen by "See Invisibility" at lower levels.

What would other people think in this scenario?, the dynamics of Invisibility (such as Greater Invisibility, etc) and/or See Invisibility (such as True Seeing, etc) could be changed to other spells but the arguement is almost the same.

I'd appreciate some input people, thanks.
Ciao.

"Such as" in this case works a qualifier. If nondetection worked against all divination spells, it would say so. See invisibility affects the caster, and the caster only, just like true strike.

I think it is a valid use of non-detection, as a side note in earlier editions 'see invisibility' was 'detect invisibility' and the wording for non-detection was the same.

divinations that gather information about the location of the subject should be affected, scrying, see invisibility and the various detect spells, seem to be prime candidates.

personally I think 'nondetection''s primary purpose is to stay undetected, can't really imagine it not working for see invisibility.

A 3rd lvl spell a decently expensive material component to use on a regular basis and a casterlevel check to penetrate the spell's protection, I think denying it would kill the use of the spell.

I agree with Remco for the most part. And would like to add that most of the time in cases of spell vs. spell on effects, most of the time me and the gamers I've been involved with are inclined to say the higher level spell will trump the lower-level spell. For instance, true-seeing would trump non-detection in this scenario.

I don't know, See Invisibility is Divination. Darkvision is Transmutation.
See Invis is not just a modification of yourself to have the properties of seeing invisible objects (like Darkvision is to see in the dark),
but a spell continually divining your perceived surroundings.

That said, I can see the other interpretation as well. Paizo feedback would be good.

It seems like if it IS meant to essentially cover all Divinations, the wording should more strongly suggest that, i.e.
"If the warded creature or object would be targeted, or detected by, any divination effect, the caster of the divination must succeed on a caster level check. "

. THIS COULD PROBABLY BE CLEARED UP IN THE NEXT PRINTING/ ERRATA.

@isaac: that sounds pretty reasonable and a good approach, but then again: what about Protection from Evil?

Prot.from evil is broken as all get-out, even if every game I've been in has used it RAW.

Thanks for the insight people, its appreciated.

I allowed it in my game but as people have stated, the Higher Level spells trump the lower level spells, and Nondetection does have an expensive material component - and the caster level of a "See Invisibility" potion is on average 3rd if bought from the store, etc which means its pretty effective against non-spellcasters with its low caster level.

The Caster Level DC requirement makes the scenario a fair bet since the Nondetection doesnt automatically foil these effects but it does require a Caster Level test to be made against the spell.

The reason this whole thread arose is from the party Rogue possessing a 'Ring Of Invisibility' and had an 'Amulet Of Proof Against Detection and Location' and he asked me how both worked together against an enemy character using 'See Invisibility' (in potion form) to see the oncoming Rogue, the listed Caster Level DC of the Amulet is DC 19 and the potions caster level was 3rd, which meant the enemy had to roll a 16 to see the oncoming Rogue.

I allowed the Nondetection to function against the See Invisibility since it isnt a Transmutation effect and isnt a 'Glitterdust' effect or whatnot which would still find the hidden character.

Needless to say, Nondetection is quite a useful tool against various forms of Divination outwith that and essential to a well prepared character.

Thanks for the input everyone.

The reason this whole thread arose is from the party Rogue possessing a 'Ring Of Invisibility' and had an 'Amulet Of Proof Against Detection and Location' and he asked me how both worked together against an enemy character using 'See Invisibility' (in potion form) to see the oncoming Rogue, the listed Caster Level DC of the Amulet is DC 19 and the potions caster level was 3rd, which meant the enemy had to roll a 16 to see the oncoming Rogue.

I agree with your interpretation of the rules (I've always used Nondetection in the same way, too), however. See Invisibility cannot be put into a potion.

See Invisibility has 'Range: Personal, Target: You'.

And the Magic Item Creation rules states that:

"Creating Potions:
(. )
The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions."

(it's the middle paragraph)

This is the reason why Shield potions do not exist, too.

I think it is a valid use of non-detection, as a side note in earlier editions 'see invisibility' was 'detect invisibility' and the wording for non-detection was the same.

If the spell had its name changed, it is just because of this kind of problem !!

See Invisibility is not a Detect spell (well non longer) and thus is not ocncerned by Non Detection.

I agree with Wraitstrike, spells with range personal, target you, can not be made into potions. you'll need a wand or scroll and some UMD ranks for that

Clairvoyance/clairaudience is not specifically a 'detect' spell either. Since see invisibility is a divination spell I think the logic is inescapable. Non-detection would prevent the invisible person from being detected.

Of course, someone also mentioned that you can't have a see invisiblity potion, which is also correct. :-)

I think it is a valid use of non-detection, as a side note in earlier editions 'see invisibility' was 'detect invisibility' and the wording for non-detection was the same.

If the spell had its name changed, it is just because of this kind of problem !!

See Invisibility is not a Detect spell (well non longer) and thus is not ocncerned by Non Detection.

non-detection does not limit itself to those spells specifically named, not as I read it anyway, it gives a few examples.

What I get from that is that it protects against divination spells that enable a caster to locate the enchanted creature or an object on his person.

I do not see a particular fault in this logic, nor a reason why it should be different, it certainly does not make the spell overpowered.

I tend to be one of those who belive that See Invisibility and True Seeing are spells that PASSIVELY effect the users perception. Non-Detection is somethign that prevents an ACTIVE scrying or divination on the subject.

And that is why an invisible rogue should also try to be stealthy and not rely simply on the invisibility spell.

In modern terms, Non-Detection stops the installations alarms from going off and turning the spotlight on the area, but doesn't prevent someone with Nightvision Goggles from seeing him.

I agree with Wraitstrike, spells with range personal, target you, can not be made into potions. you'll need a wand or scroll and some UMD ranks for that

Wraithstrike and me are two different people.

I agree with Wraitstrike, spells with range personal, target you, can not be made into potions. you'll need a wand or scroll and some UMD ranks for that

Wraithstrike and me are two different people.

yar, sorry mate, lack of sleep and all that :-)

I think it is a valid use of non-detection, as a side note in earlier editions 'see invisibility' was 'detect invisibility' and the wording for non-detection was the same.

If the spell had its name changed, it is just because of this kind of problem !!

See Invisibility is not a Detect spell (well non longer) and thus is not ocncerned by Non Detection.

I'm not trying to state difinitively whether Nondetection works on See Invisibility, but the name was (IMO) not changed because of this. It was changed because it does not work like all the other detect spells work (sense presence, locate areas and know strongest, pinpoint all sources.) - it simply lets you see invisible things, without a range limit.

My opinion? Given the caster level check, I think it's reasonable for it to work on See Invis, but it *is* a different sort of spell than all the others listed - it doesn't probe outwards. Probably just for simplicity though. If it works on See Invis, I could see it working on True Seeing as well.

A valid point regarding the 'See Invisibility' potion, it was a very old adventure (The Vault Of Larin Karr) and whoever wrote it for whatever reason equipped the NPC with a potion of 'See Invisibility'.

But since See Invisibility is classed as a Divination school spell it technically still counts as a Divination through it reveals Invisible or Etheral creatures continually. Dont get me wrong, Nondetection wont help you against 'Glitterdust' and suchlike used to expose a invisible character but the Caster Level check is in my opinion game balancing because it stops Non-Detection being a 'trump' card spell vs divinations because it allows a character to possibly avoid being seen, theres never a guarantee with the spell and the creature under 'Nondetection' doesnt know that the Nondetection spell failed.

At no point did I ever argue that the Darkvision spell or the ability didnt work against it, of course it would - its a transmutation effect after all, and a natural (Ex) ability for most races. That assumes the creature using Nondetection isnt Invisible of course.

For all intensive purposes I still see it as valid in this case, even against creatures that possess the natural ability to 'See Invisibility'.

When someone uses for example, True Seeing, their caster level is going to be very significant for one, so they will likely beat the Caster Level DC to overcome Nondetection (the caster level DC for 'Nondetection' is higher if a spellcaster uses it on themselves directly through magic, not items). Not to mention the 'Nondetection' has a significant material component cost that further cements its credability in cases like this from what I can see.

Item to block Detect Magic?

Are there any existing magic items for PFRPG (3pp products are fine, so long as they are PFRPG compatible) which when worn block a Detect Magic spell?

I'm thinking of a cloak that blocks detection as if the wearer were surrounded by a thin sheet of lead (or 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, or 3 feet of wood or dirt, if you prefer.) A ring, amulet or whatever would be okay, but a cloak seemed best given that this will in effect be a "cloaking device."

I don't want to reinvent the wheel if someone's already done this, nor am I sure how I'd build it given that [Nystul's] Undetectable Aura is not part of the Core Rules.

Also, if the effect is continual rather than command word activated, could the item's properties be determined magically, or would trial and error be needed (not that it'd be hard to figure out that way if you had the slightest suspicion the item was magical.)

anything with a permanent non-detection spell on it could accomplish this.

anything with a permanent non-detection spell on it could accomplish this.

That would only make the item itself undetectable; I want something that will shield the wearer and everything on his person from Detect Magic.

But yeah, Nondetection would be the basis for creating such an item. I misremembered the spell parameters and thought it was only good for blocking scrying.

Are there any existing magic items for PFRPG (3pp products are fine, so long as they are PFRPG compatible) which when worn block a Detect Magic spell?

I'm thinking of a cloak that blocks detection as if the wearer were surrounded by a thin sheet of lead (or 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, or 3 feet of wood or dirt, if you prefer.) A ring, amulet or whatever would be okay, but a cloak seemed best given that this will in effect be a "cloaking device."

I don't want to reinvent the wheel if someone's already done this, nor am I sure how I'd build it given that [Nystul's] Undetectable Aura is not part of the Core Rules.

Also, if the effect is continual rather than command word activated, could the item's properties be determined magically, or would trial and error be needed (not that it'd be hard to figure out that way if you had the slightest suspicion the item was magical.)

Aura moderate abjuration; CL 8th

Slot neck; Price 35,000 gp; Weight —

This silver amulet protects the wearer from scrying and magical location just as a nondetection spell does. If a divination spell is attempted against the wearer, the caster of the divination must succeed on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against a DC of 19 (as if the wearer had cast nondetection on herself ).

Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, nondetection; Cost 17,500 gp

anything with a permanent non-detection spell on it could accomplish this.

That would only make the item itself undetectable; I want something that will shield the wearer and everything on his person from Detect Magic.

But yeah, Nondetection would be the basis for creating such an item. I misremembered the spell parameters and thought it was only good for blocking scrying.

I meant a continuous nondetection effect not an item with nondetection cast on it.

anything with a permanent non-detection spell on it could accomplish this.

That would only make the item itself undetectable; I want something that will shield the wearer and everything on his person from Detect Magic.

But yeah, Nondetection would be the basis for creating such an item. I misremembered the spell parameters and thought it was only good for blocking scrying.

Nope it is also good vs the "detect" spells. Here is the link for the spell

Specifically this line in the spell:

"If cast on a creature, nondetection wards the creature's gear as well as the creature itself."

Ah, okay. Yep, I'm an idiot. The Amulet of PADAL will do exactly what I wanted.

No worries, has happened to me also in the past.

nor am I sure how I'd build it given that [Nystul's] Undetectable Aura is not part of the Core Rules.

Actually, it is still there. It's just part of Magic Aura now. Combining the two spells does make sense, given how little use they tended to see among PCs.

If you are able to build custom items, this is probably a cheaper solution, as Magic Aura is only a first level spell. It only defeats detect spells, so even Identify can beat it.

Magic Aura only affects one item, so if the character themselves is magical or have active spells on them, it might not work. In an item, there would probably also be an additional cost for affecting multiple items and a discount for the long duration of the base spell.

Ok so partly related how much would any of the dm's out there charge for an item that could cast mind blank once a day? Or would you even allow such an item in your game?

While I have had such an item in my games before, it was never a purchasable one.

Ok so partly related how much would any of the dm's out there charge for an item that could cast mind blank once a day? Or would you even allow such an item in your game?

By RAW it is 216,000 to 240,000 GP (depends on if you want them to have to remember to say a command word before it turns on, or if it is continuous). But with the art of magic item pricing, I am not 100% sure myself. My best guess at this moment is that is not a bad price (since it is a pretty good item if you want to hide from something), but I would need more time to think on it.

edit: taking another look at it, that almost looks like artifact range. The only book item I could find, in my quick search, that was around that price is a staff of power.. So, I am not 100% sure on pricing.

Ok so partly related how much would any of the dm's out there charge for an item that could cast mind blank once a day? Or would you even allow such an item in your game?

Spell level*caster level*2000gp/5 = 8*15*2000/5=48K

(divide by 5 is for one use per day)

The problem would be the will save which is only 22 and quite low for that level of play. 10 + spell level + minimum intelligence bonus to cast that level spell = 10 + 8 + 4 (intelligence 18).

So you probably want a staff which is the same price but for 10 charges and they use your actual int bonus and feat bonuses to the spell DC.

Ok so partly related how much would any of the dm's out there charge for an item that could cast mind blank once a day? Or would you even allow such an item in your game?

(15 x 8 x 2000) / 2 = 120,000gp as per magic item creation for a continuous 8th level spell effect with a 24-hr or greater duration on the base spell and no costly material component. I would require it to be head slot, otherwise it would be 240,000gp base price for no body slot (like Awesome Octarine d20 Ioun Stone).

Ok so partly related how much would any of the dm's out there charge for an item that could cast mind blank once a day? Or would you even allow such an item in your game?

Spell level*caster level*2000gp/5 = 8*15*2000/5=48K

The problem would be the will save which is only 22 and quite low for that level of play. 10 + spell level + minimum intelligence bonus to cast that level spell = 10 + 8 + 4 (intelligence 18).

So you probably want a staff which is the same price but for 10 charges and they use your actual int bonus and feat bonuses to the spell DC.

I looked at that pricing, but since the spell lasts 24 hours I would be more tempted to make the "once per day" thing irrelevant unless you are just forcing them to decided on who in the party wants to be blanked. Personally I would just make it effect the wearer and raise the price.

If you wanted to, you could make one for as low as 6000 as a single use item that offers mind blank.

As for the saving throw, since it is harmless, and does not offer one to people trying to divine info about you, that is not a big issue. It is a pretty powerful level 8 spell for not being found.

for those who do not have their books, here is the spell:

School abjuration; Level sorcerer/wizard 8

Casting Time 1 standard action

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Target one creature

Duration 24 hours

Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)

The subject is protected from all devices and spells that gather information about the target through divination magic (such as detect evil, locate creature, scry, and see invisible). This spell also grants a +8 resistance bonus on saving throws against all mind-affecting spells and effects. Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to gain information about the target. In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn't detected. Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all.

D&D 5E Curse of Strahd and Paladin's Divine Sense

RAW I understand that the DM can never EVER put in front of you a disguised fiend or undead, which could be fine in Forgotten Realms but weird in Ravenloft, IMHO.

A simple Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location (you are hidden from divination magic and scrying) would stop the detection in my world. Some people may argue that a paladin's divine sense is not technically labeled divination magic, so it's just my ruling.

5Shilling

Explorer

In previous versions Strahd managed to keep his vampirism fairly secret (somehow!) In Curse of Strahd most Barovians know that he is a vampire, he is just too powerful for them to do anything about it. So Divine Sense won't tell the Paladin anything about Strahd that everyone doesn't already know.

Fanaelialae

Legend

The power states: "you know the location of any celestial, fiend or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover"

RAW I understand that the DM can never EVER put in front of you a disguised fiend or undead, which could be fine in Forgotten Realms but weird in Ravenloft, IMHO.

Given that even with a 20 Charisma a paladin only has 6 uses a day, it seems unlikely that the PCs are using it on every NPC they meet. If they are, sprinkle in a few extra red herring NPCs.

The way I would handle a paladin detecting Strahd is to have the evil nearly overwhelm his senses, as if a dark and malevolent god was manifest before him. Strahd is a domain lord after all, so I wouldn't have him detect merely as a "common" undead.

GX.Sigma

Adventurer

BloodAsp

First Post

To clarify, I am the paladin in question and I'd like to add a consideration: if your master is, say, running an adventure where a vampire is hiding in a village and killing townspeople, what stops the paladin from just gathering the villagers and using detect evil? It would make sense on Faerun, but on Ravenloft it's a bit meh.
To elaborate, since there are as of now no rules about it, how would you handle it?

Warmaster Horus

Explorer

GX.Sigma

Adventurer

To clarify, I am the paladin in question and I'd like to add a consideration: if your master is, say, running an adventure where a vampire is hiding in a village and killing townspeople, what stops the paladin from just gathering the villagers and using detect evil? It would make sense on Faerun, but on Ravenloft it's a bit meh.
To elaborate, since there are as of now no rules about it, how would you handle it?

I'd allow it, seeing as how that's the whole point of that ability. A vampire is easily detectable by other means (sunlight hypersensitivity, skin color, fangs, lack of normal biofunctions, no alibi for the night of the murder, keeps a coffin in his house, etc.), so I don't think it would really break the game.

BloodAsp

First Post

Lillika

Explorer

5e doesn't have as many rules for every situation as other edition may have had. It is a much more DM's opinion on this. So first off, I think they left Curse of Strahd to be in the hands of the GM for how to handle specific situations.
Second, having pretty read it. It is very clear to the adventures that Strahd is a vampire, if that is the question, they can pretty much get this from the opening event in the town. As for paladins being able to tell who is a vampire with their ability, as the module goes, I don't see this changing anything. But, due to the very flexible nature of DnD and 5e for that matter, whatever the DM and hopefully the players feel the most comfortable with go with it.

BloodAsp

First Post

5e doesn't have as many rules for every situation as other edition may have had. It is a much more DM's opinion on this. So first off, I think they left Curse of Strahd to be in the hands of the GM for how to handle specific situations.
Second, having pretty read it. It is very clear to the adventures that Strahd is a vampire, if that is the question, they can pretty much get this from the opening event in the town. As for paladins being able to tell who is a vampire with their ability, as the module goes, I don't see this changing anything. But, due to the very flexible nature of DnD and 5e for that matter, whatever the DM and hopefully the players feel the most comfortable with go with it.

Count von Count invites them to join him in a song about counting pumpkins, adding a fun and educational element to the Halloween adventure. Next, the gang discovers a haunted house, where they come face to face with a mischievous ghost named Harvey. Harvey takes them on a wacky and comical tour of the haunted house, filled with funny surprises and plenty of giggles.

Despite their initial fear, the Sesame Street characters learn that ghosts can be friendly and not something to be scared of. Throughout the special, there are catchy musical numbers and memorable moments that capture the spirit of Halloween. From the energetic dancing of Elmo and friends to the hilarious antics of Cookie Monster trying to resist eating all the Halloween treats, the Sesame Street Magical Halloween Adventure keeps young viewers engaged and entertained. The special also emphasizes important lessons and values, such as overcoming fears, friendship, and teamwork. The Sesame Street characters work together to solve problems and help each other, reinforcing positive messages for children. Ultimately, Sesame Street Magical Halloween Adventure wraps up with a heartwarming ending, reminding viewers that Halloween is a time for fun, creativity, and imagination. It teaches children about the joy of celebrating together, embracing differences, and understanding that not everything spooky is scary. Overall, this special is a delightful Halloween treat for young audiences, combining the educational and entertaining elements that Sesame Street is known for. It encourages children to embrace the spirit of Halloween while learning important lessons along the way. Through engaging storytelling, memorable characters, and catchy songs, Sesame Street Magical Halloween Adventure brings the magic of Halloween to life for children around the world..

Reviews for "Discover the Delight of Halloween with Sesame Street's Magical Adventure"

1. Jane - 2 stars - I was really disappointed with "Sesame Street Magical Halloween Adventure". The concept was promising, but the execution fell short. The animation quality was subpar, and the storyline was disjointed. It felt rushed and lacked the charm and educational value that Sesame Street is known for. Overall, it was a forgettable Halloween special that left me wanting more.

2. Mark - 1 star - As a longtime fan of Sesame Street, I had high expectations for "Magical Halloween Adventure", but unfortunately, it did not live up to them. The characters felt out of place, and the dialogue seemed forced and unnatural. The plot was incoherent and difficult to follow, making it hard to engage with the story. Additionally, the animation style was outdated and failed to capture the magic of Halloween. It's safe to say that this special missed the mark for me.

3. Sarah - 2 stars - "Sesame Street Magical Halloween Adventure" was a disappointment for me. Although the characters were familiar and beloved, the humor and wit that I associate with Sesame Street were lacking. The jokes felt forced and aimed at a much younger audience, leaving me feeling bored and uninterested. The plot was predictable and did not offer any surprises or interesting twists. Overall, it was a lackluster Halloween special that failed to capture the essence of Sesame Street.

Join Big Bird and Friends on a Halloween Journey like No Other