PDA

View Full Version : Avoiding True sight



Asheram
2009-06-26, 06:37 PM
As the title say, is there any magical way to trump True Sight?

I'd fill it out with some flavor text, but I wouldn't know what to say.
I know that True sight doesn't work with mundane disguises, but still, is there a way to magically avoiding it without having to dip into the Epic books?

Keld Denar
2009-06-26, 06:43 PM
Stay 120+ feet away?

Also, mundane Disguise and Hide checks work vs TS.

Its hotly debated whether or not Mind Blank protects against True Sight. There is a lot of debate back and forth that a 6th level spell shouldn't trump an 8th level spell even with TS's absolute statement and whatnot.

Then there is the balance issue. A character with Superior Invisibility (only pierced by True Sight) and Mind Blank (debatably fools True Sight) would be completely unlocatable in most circumstances.

Asheram
2009-06-26, 06:57 PM
Stay 120+ feet away?

Also, mundane Disguise and Hide checks work vs TS.

Its hotly debated whether or not Mind Blank protects against True Sight. There is a lot of debate back and forth that a 6th level spell shouldn't trump an 8th level spell even with TS's absolute statement and whatnot.

Then there is the balance issue. A character with Superior Invisibility (only pierced by True Sight) and Mind Blank (debatably fools True Sight) would be completely unlocatable in most circumstances.

I don't mind much about the balance issues... It just bugs me that there is such an "absolute detection" spell and no loopholes... Especially when this is a L6 spell as you say.. (L5 for clerics)
I guess a clear way to avoid it would be the Seed:Ward from the epic handbook, but that is too overkill for me...

Guancyto
2009-06-26, 07:00 PM
Well, a lot of the potential casters of TS don't have very good Spot modifiers.

So yeah, plain old Hide and Disguise.

Lamech
2009-06-26, 07:07 PM
Mind blank (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mindBlank.htm). Say it with me folks mind blank. Its got one of those absolute statements in it. I would not allow this if I was DM.

erikun
2009-06-26, 07:20 PM
How does Mind Blank protect from True Seeing? The spell says that it "protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects" as well as "information gathering by divination". It also protects against scrying, such that "the spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected."

True Seeing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueseeing.htm) does not try reading the mind, it does not try to gather information through divination (like Augury), and it isn't scrying. It simply "see all things as they actually are," and Mind Blank doesn't give invisibility.

Now, there are a few ways to bypass True Seeing. Plain old vision is still impaired, so fog (magical or not) will block sight. So does stuff like Wall of Iron. Wall of Force can be seen through, but True Seeing still doesn't give line-of-sight. (You can't cast a spell at someone on the other side of a Wall of Force, reguardless of how well you can spot them.) I would rule that an Anti-Magic Field would "block" the True Seeing, so you would remain invisible standing on the other side of an AMF, and the TSer wouldn't know the difference.

And while not a counter, Gaze attacks (such as from a Medusa) are a great stopgag against a True Seer. :smalltongue:

Yora
2009-06-26, 07:24 PM
Which makes completely no sense. Arcane eye explicitly states that you see things exactly as if you were standing there and seeing things with your own eyes. And as it's not a spell that reads minds or detects the presence or absence of intelligent minds, even a mind blank spell shouldn't counter it.
Some spells maybe would reveal that one of the persons you see in the room apperently has no mind at all, but that's all the spell is suppossed to do.

Regarding the initial question: Monty Python did an educational tranining video on this. ^^

Fitz10019
2009-06-26, 07:35 PM
And while not a counter, Gaze attacks (such as from a Medusa) are a great stopgag against a True Seer. :smalltongue:

Hah, that's great! You carry a permanently invisible medusa head, with a visible and quite fashionable leather strap-handle.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-26, 07:38 PM
Be an orc who relies on a Hat of Disguise for clothing.

Yukitsu
2009-06-26, 07:43 PM
Cast blindness on him?

erikun
2009-06-26, 07:50 PM
^ And Yukitsu comes up with the obvious answer that everyone else passed over.


Arcane eye explicitly states that you see things exactly as if you were standing there and seeing things with your own eyes.
Arcane Eye (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/arcaneEye.htm) is specifically a scrying (remote viewing) spell, and thus specifically affected by Mind Blank. True Seeing is not a scrying spell, and would not be affected. A technicality, I'm sure, but it's RAI as I read it.


Hah, that's great! You carry a permanently invisible medusa head, with a visible and quite fashionable leather strap-handle.
Better yet, take a cue from the Aegis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis) and stick an invisible medusa head onto your shield. Good luck trying to fight you with True Seeing then!

Or just be an invisible medusa yourself. Either way works. :smallamused:

Talic
2009-06-26, 07:52 PM
Obscuring Mist.
Anything that blocks LOE.

Keld Denar
2009-06-26, 07:56 PM
Best way to mess with people who have True Sight? Open up your copy of Cityscape and find the Invisible Spell feat. Guess what it does? It makes a spells effect invisible. "How does that help me?" you ask? Well, you can't see an invisible spell effect, can you? Nope. So it wouldn't restrict your vision in any way, would it? Nope. It wouldn't even block line of sight, would it? Nope.

Now, cast an Invisible Fog Cloud. Or an Invisible Deeper Darkness.

For you, and all of your non-True Seeing friends, the day is clear and the sun is shining. You can see for miles and miles. Anyone with True Sight trying to look at you, though, sees only murky fog or inpenetrable darkness. Sucks to be them...

Yukitsu
2009-06-26, 07:57 PM
I prefer putting that on Simulacrums, actually.

Guy with true sight: "Is that a snowman attacking us?"
Party: "What snowman?"

*Edit

I like creating water using shades to make fake water that's invisibly frozen into ice, shaved into snow, made into a snowman, crafted into an invisible simulacrum while I have shadow casting, actually. That does basically what the OP wants, so long as you don't mind your fighting representation having half the normal class levels.

Talic
2009-06-26, 07:58 PM
Best way to mess with people who have True Sight? Open up your copy of Cityscape and find the Invisible Spell feat. Guess what it does? It makes a spells effect invisible. "How does that help me?" you ask? Well, you can't see an invisible spell effect, can you? Nope. So it wouldn't restrict your vision in any way, would it? Nope. It wouldn't even block line of sight, would it? Nope.

Now, cast an Invisible Fog Cloud. Or an Invisible Deeper Darkness.

For you, and all of your non-True Seeing friends, the day is clear and the sun is shining. You can see for miles and miles. Anyone with True Sight trying to look at you, though, sees only murky fog or inpenetrable darkness. Sucks to be them...
Fog cloud would work. Darkness wouldn't, since the effect which lets you see the darkness lets you see through it.

Would work for See Invisibility though.

Kyeudo
2009-06-26, 08:00 PM
How does Mind Blank protect from True Seeing? The spell says that it "protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects" as well as "information gathering by divination". It also protects against scrying, such that "the spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected."

True Seeing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueseeing.htm) does not try reading the mind, it does not try to gather information through divination (like Augury), and it isn't scrying. It simply "see all things as they actually are," and Mind Blank doesn't give invisibility.


You are forgetting the one point that allows Mind Blank to come up in these arguements. True Seeing is itself a divination. Anything that you get from the spell that you can't normally see is information gathered by a divination.

I personally wouldn't rule it to work, but by the RAW Mind Blank tells True Seeing to go cry in a corner.

Yukitsu
2009-06-26, 08:02 PM
I'd argue that the information gathering is done via sight, and that the illusion is edited out by true sight by itself does nothing to gather information. It merely prevents confounds from interfering with a method that you already have.

Keld Denar
2009-06-26, 08:08 PM
Really, with MB and TS, its an Unstoppable Force/Immovable Object arguement. Both include absolute statements which include the other effect. One blocks all Divinations which gather information (True Sight gathers optical information) and the other pierces ALL magical deceptions, regardless of nature.

If you plan on encountering either, talk to your DM first, since its better to have that debate and come to a conclusion out of the game than to sit around the game table and argue about it endlessly.

erikun
2009-06-26, 08:23 PM
Ah! I think I see the conflict now.

Mind you, I read True Seeing as "seeing through illusions" and any information gained is a sideaffect, not part of the spell itself - hence, I didn't see how Mind Blank would help. I can see how people would interpret it differently, though.

Then again, I'm the kind of DM who would allow someone to attempt Pun-Punification, only to point out the critical misinterpretation on the character's part. (Really? You think a lowly 9th level spell gives you control over something with Divine Ranks?) Of course, I'm also the DM who would throw invisible medusae at PCs with permanent True Seeing. :smallbiggrin:

Jack_Simth
2009-06-26, 08:32 PM
As a DM? Say Nondetection works. Puts things back to a game of dice; the guy with True Seeing rolls his caster level check against a DC based on the caster level of the Nondetection effect. Simple, not particularly heavy-handed, and Nondetection's material costs are on par with True Sight's material costs.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-26, 08:50 PM
If you really want to mess with someone using True Seeing, I recommend using Invisible Spell with Whiteout (Frostburn). There's no saving throw and no SR to target them. Their visibility is limited to 5 feet, and even then they're taking a -4 penalty to Spot.

Without True Seeing, they're just inside a breeze.

Lamech
2009-06-26, 10:59 PM
Use polymorph any object on some pebbles or ants or somesuch. Make them into dragons or whatever. Guess what you see. The true form. Teeheehee...
DM: Okay you enter the room. Do you have true seeing?
Hapless PC: Yes
DM: You see three pebbles. Roll initiative..
PC: Why? 23 Umm... I inspect the pebbles.
DM: They full attack you. You die.
PC: ... I hate you.

Asheram
2009-06-27, 03:39 AM
All interesting ideas... but I was thinking of alter self, invisibility, polymporph, shapeshange... Where it's kind of the point to become... well... unnoticable or easily ignorable.

True Seeing just kills these options.

J.Gellert
2009-06-27, 04:28 AM
Homebrew a level 7 spell that specifically defeats True Seeing. Call it False Sight or something, probably Abjuration or Illusion. No one is going to be preparing it routinely anyway, so it's likely going to be mostly an NPC spell.

And don't tell your players about it until they defeat the user and get his spellbook.

Killer Angel
2009-06-27, 04:30 AM
Really, with MB and TS, its an Unstoppable Force/Immovable Object arguement. Both include absolute statements which include the other effect. One blocks all Divinations which gather information (True Sight gathers optical information) and the other pierces ALL magical deceptions, regardless of nature.



Well, MB "protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects".
TS is a spell of Divination school.
MB is 8th level, TS is a 6th level.
Then again, "Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to affect the subject’s mind or to gain information about it"

By RAW, I don't think TS had a chance against MB.

TS would pierce through my invisibility... if there wasn't active MB, which blocks the divination. The combination of 2 spells protects me from your TS.

Killer Angel
2009-06-27, 05:12 AM
All interesting ideas... but I was thinking of alter self, invisibility, polymporph, shapeshange... Where it's kind of the point to become... well... unnoticable or easily ignorable.

True Seeing just kills these options.


Sadly, yes.
TS is a very powerful spells, made exactly to see through the spells you'd listed (and through darkness, etc).
This is why you need someone else to protect you from TS.
At low levels, the easiest available solution, is non-detection... but the caster of TS, had a solid chance to made the ST.

Eldariel
2009-06-27, 05:18 AM
Then there is the balance issue. A character with Superior Invisibility (only pierced by True Sight) and Mind Blank (debatably fools True Sight) would be completely unlocatable in most circumstances.

This isn't entirely true; Epic Spot-checks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#spot) penetrate invisibility. Superior doesn't even grant any kind of benefit against them (although in name of fairness, I'd allow a character under Superior Invisibility to always count as an inanimate living object). DC60 to locate a character under Superior Invisibility.


Now, there are a few ways to bypass True Seeing. Plain old vision is still impaired, so fog (magical or not) will block sight. So does stuff like Wall of Iron. Wall of Force can be seen through, but True Seeing still doesn't give line-of-sight. (You can't cast a spell at someone on the other side of a Wall of Force, reguardless of how well you can spot them.) I would rule that an Anti-Magic Field would "block" the True Seeing, so you would remain invisible standing on the other side of an AMF, and the TSer wouldn't know the difference.

This cannot work by the rules though, since Anti-Magic Field does not block line of sight or line of effect; spells work fine through it, only the area under AMF is unable to be affected. If a spell ends in an AMF, it's suppressed until the AMF ends, but going through one is no problem.

Also, this brings up a bigger problem; if you make True Seeing possible/easy to negate, you may end up in a situation, where the best invisibility is better than best detection, which essentially means it's possible for basically any character to be completely undetectable when it suits their purposes, which sucks for playing purposes.

Best detection should always trump best protection, or at least provide reasonably doable means to do so.

Gaiyamato
2009-06-27, 05:38 AM
Personally I find invisibility more broken and anoying that TS.
I allow TS to be unstoppable and sometimes even make it a lower level spell.

I sometimes also extend TS to give huge bonuses to see through disguises.

The only time I don't do this is if the PCs are not trying to do stupid and/or broken stuff with invisibility etc.

That said Mind blank quite clearly states any divination spells used to gather information etc. etc.
Saying that that does not stop FS is just playing semantics.

ALL Divination spells essentially do not work on the character, though the spells do still work.

Hence why I often ban mind blank. lol.

BobVosh
2009-06-27, 05:39 AM
Well, MB "protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects".
TS is a spell of Divination school.
MB is 8th level, TS is a 6th level.
Then again, "Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to affect the subject’s mind or to gain information about it"

By RAW, I don't think TS had a chance against MB.

TS would pierce through my invisibility... if there wasn't active MB, which blocks the divination. The combination of 2 spells protects me from your TS.

Does "it" mean "mind" or "subject." You aren't using TS to read thier mind. Just my take on it.

True seeing sees through transmutation effects? Why? (polymorph/alter self) Seeing the world as it is implies seeing a human turn dragon as a dragon. Because he IS a dragon. Otherwise TS will be funny againist a lot of FR gods.

*ps* Keld, you are awesome for this:

Best way to mess with people who have True Sight? Open up your copy of Cityscape and find the Invisible Spell feat. Guess what it does? It makes a spells effect invisible. "How does that help me?" you ask? Well, you can't see an invisible spell effect, can you? Nope. So it wouldn't restrict your vision in any way, would it? Nope. It wouldn't even block line of sight, would it? Nope.

Now, cast an Invisible Fog Cloud. Or an Invisible Deeper Darkness.

Well, mostly awesome. Deeper darkness doesn't work.

Killer Angel
2009-06-27, 05:45 AM
Also, this brings up a bigger problem; if you make True Seeing possible/easy to negate, you may end up in a situation, where the best invisibility is better than best detection, which essentially means it's possible for basically any character to be completely undetectable when it suits their purposes, which sucks for playing purposes.

Best detection should always trump best protection, or at least provide reasonably doable means to do so.

This problem exists both ways: you shouldn't have a character that, thanks to a single 6th level spell, is absolutely sure to overcome every magical defense. For every detection or protection, there should always be a countermeasure.
TS must be easy to negate? absolutely not.
Possible to negate? Yes, and an 8th level spell is not an easy thing (imo)

Eldariel
2009-06-27, 05:46 AM
Does "it" mean "mind" or "subject." You aren't using TS to read thier mind. Just my take on it.

True seeing sees through transmutation effects? Why? (polymorph/alter self) Seeing the world as it is implies seeing a human turn dragon as a dragon. Because he IS a dragon. Otherwise TS will be funny againist a lot of FR gods.

True Seeing sees through non-permanent transformations with the original creature still in the "core" of the effect; Polymorph doesn't change your type or such so True Seeing reveals what the creature is like without the magical cloak.

Polymorph Any Object is a bit hairier question, but as it gives you the new types and can be permanent, but fact remains it's still a magical change (and a Polymorph-effect, doesn't even grant new Con's HP to my knowledge) that can be dispelled and all that so it's reasonable that PAO is treated as a "magical disguise" with regards to True Seeing too.


This problem exists both ways: you shouldn't have a character that, thanks to a single 6th level spell, is absolutely sure to overcome every magical defense. For every detection or protection, there should always be a countermeasure.
TS must be easy to negate? absolutely not.
Possible to negate? Yes, and an 8th level spell is not an easy thing (imo)

We get into problems with the present pool of effects then though. Because once we state Mind Blank wins out vs. True Seeing, we're in a position where a character with Mind Blank and Superior Invisibility is completely impervious to all detection.

Since both are very acquirable effects, we end up with a world where every character with access to 8th level magic is completely undetectable. And that leads to all sorts of problems 'cause anything can happen anywhere and nobody can do anything about it as there's no way to locate the creature responsible.


Now, of course, there's Metafaculty, but even then, it's a 9th level Psionic Power; with worlds that don't even use Psionic rules, it kinda sucks that the only way to actually find people is to use Psionics.

Now, if you gave True Seeing some CL check vs. the "anti-True Seeing" effect (much like Nondetection vs. Scrying), things could be doable.

Killer Angel
2009-06-27, 05:49 AM
Does "it" mean "mind" or "subject." You aren't using TS to read thier mind. Just my take on it.


Ah, I see...
Yes, the point could be debatable. I read "it" as the subject.

Killer Angel
2009-06-27, 05:52 AM
We get into problems with the present pool of effects then though. Because once we state Mind Blank wins out vs. True Seeing, we're in a position where a character with Mind Blank and Superior Invisibility is completely impervious to all detection.


Yes, but if I'm facing someone that i cannot see with my TS, I can use a limited wish to cancel the MB spell (the LW don't try to gain information, so it works). At that point, my TS will pierce your invisibility.

BobVosh
2009-06-27, 05:56 AM
True Seeing sees through non-permanent transformations with the original creature still in the "core" of the effect; Polymorph doesn't change your type or such so True Seeing reveals what the creature is like without the magical cloak.

Oh ya. Duh. I knew that, but this is what I get for posting at work (srd is blocked.)

Meh. Stupid wizards with thier stupid pronouns.

Murdim
2009-06-27, 05:58 AM
True seeing sees through transmutation effects? Why? (polymorph/alter self) Seeing the world as it is implies seeing a human turn dragon as a dragon. Because he IS a dragon. Otherwise TS will be funny againist a lot of FR gods.Because the rules say so. I never understood this either.

Eldariel
2009-06-27, 05:59 AM
Yes, but if I'm facing someone that i cannot see with my TS, I can use a limited wish to cancel the MB spell (the LW don't try to gain information, so it works). At that point, my TS will pierce your invisibility.

I don't think Limited Wish can do that. You'd be beating a level 8 specific spell with a level 7 general spell with no listed use to that effect. You could make for a case for Wish, but as you have no way to target it, I don't think that's going to work either.

Since there's no way to know anything about the creatures in question including his whereabouts and looks, let alone name, you'd pretty much need to Wish "I wish the guy who killed the King of Whatever and blew up the castle loses the benefits of his Mind Blank with regards to me", which sounds more like not to work.


And even if he does, in case he's not present, your True Seeing does you no good and his next casting of Mind Blank makes this Wish worthless anyways.

Killer Angel
2009-06-27, 06:15 AM
I don't think Limited Wish can do that. You'd be beating a level 8 specific spell with a level 7 general spell with no listed use to that effect. You could make for a case for Wish, but as you have no way to target it, I don't think that's going to work either.


Well, you can always make a listen check and strike the area with a greater disp. magic :smallbiggrin:
I understand your point, but mine should be also clear: every move should have a counter, the same that in Poker there's no sure victorious point 100%.

Oslecamo
2009-06-27, 06:25 AM
I understand your point, but mine should be also clear: every move should have a counter, the same that in Poker there's no sure victorious point 100%.

False. There's a combination in Poker that wins with 100% possibility, the royal flush. You win no matter what your oponents have.

As for TS, just throw a greater dispel magic at them. In case you didn't notice, TS is the highest anti-illusion spell available. If it can't counter an illusion effect, then nothing can.

And hey, it's not like you simply cannot conjure a stone wall and hide behind it.

Saph
2009-06-27, 06:37 AM
Eldariel is spot-on here. The best anti-invisibility should beat the best invisibility. Otherwise you get invisibility which is impossible to counter, which leads to horrible gameplay.

• If True Seeing beats Mind Blank/Invis, then both characters are on equal terms. They can both see each other.
• If Mind Blank/Sup Invis beats True Seeing, then the first guy is almost guaranteed to win. So the second guy casts Mind Blank/Sup Invis too. Now no-one can see each other and you get several hours of both sides stumbling around trying to hit an undetectable target. Fun fun fun. (Note: something almost identical to this actually happened in a recent game on this site. Both players ended up conceding the match.)

The "every move should have a counter" argument makes no sense because True Seeing is supposed to be the counter to Invisibility. Invisibility, when it works, is a massive advantage; it should not be possible to get it to work with 100% (or anywhere near 100%) reliability.

- Saph

Asheram
2009-06-27, 06:38 AM
As for TS, just throw a greater dispel magic at them. In case you didn't notice, TS is the highest anti-illusion spell available. If it can't counter an illusion effect, then nothing can.

You're missing the point.
You're right in that "TS is the highest anti-illusion spell available." But it's a L5 spell. Is it really right that all the spells above that should just take off their hats and bow before this upstart?
Isn't there Some way to avoid it without actually having to attack the user of the TS spell? (which means that the transformation loses its point anyhow)

Eldariel
2009-06-27, 06:39 AM
Well, you can always make a listen check and strike the area with a greater disp. magic :smallbiggrin:
I understand your point, but mine should be also clear: every move should have a counter, the same that in Poker there's no sure victorious point 100%.

I can see that, but it seems like you forget that Invisibility is not necessary for any plan to come to fruition anyways. The only thing that's being beat here is a component of other plans, rather than a goal itself.

Everything should have a counter, yes, and True Seeing has this counter of not trying to stealthily approach it. That's not the only way to do things. If something has True Seeing, why shouldn't it beat Invisibility + Mind Blank? I mean, Mind Blank already blocks all Divinations; if you make it beat True Seeing, suddenly you're making Mind Blank unbeatable.

On the other hand, True Seeing is already beaten by just hiding behind objects or Ex hiding in general, not to mention "not trying to use invisibility". If True Seeing made you invulnerable, then I agree, there'd need to be a way to beat it but it's not an offender, it's a counter. Invisibility is the thing that's broken if it can't be countered; if True Seeing can't be countered, life is merely normal. Basically, True Seeing ensures that nobody can 100% hide from everything; you shouldn't take that away from it.


It's much like Resurrecting in D&D (which is a bit botched up actually); there's no way to permanently kill anything or anyone. Everything from Unnaming to Imprisonment can be undone.

The whole deal kinda sucks; the only way to "permanently" destroy anything is to kill the damn thing and imprison the soul and hold onto the soulgem yourself. Once you lose its possession? The creature can be restored to life again.

This is a case of the "ultimate form of magic" going the wrong way; here magic reverses the natural order of things by effectively making the standard result of death "resurrection" rather than "permanent death".

Let's not make Invisibility the same; taking invisibility and anti-invisibility to the extreme should result in anti-invisibility winning out since the natural state is lack of invisibility. Magic should be able to trump mundane means of doing something, but there needs to be magic to trump that magic with the "natural result" winning out lest we want to fuxx0r the world up.


In D&D as it stands, everyone of sufficient power is effectively immortal. That's ****ed up.


EDIT: Wow! Überninja'd by Saph. Not only were you faster, you also were far more concise.

Oslecamo
2009-06-27, 07:46 AM
You're missing the point.
You're right in that "TS is the highest anti-illusion spell available." But it's a L5 spell. Is it really right that all the spells above that should just take off their hats and bow before this upstart?
Isn't there Some way to avoid it without actually having to attack the user of the TS spell? (which means that the transformation loses its point anyhow)

You're the one missing the point. Let's supose that there are several levels of TS, each one only able to counter inv effects of the same level.

Lv10 wizard: I can cast TS lv1!
LV 12 BBEG: rofl I can cast inv lv 6, so your TS doesn't affect me. Good luck trying to win!

It's pointless to have counters if they don't cost less resources than the thing you're trying to counter.

And like Saph pointed out, inv gives you a BRUTAL advantage in almost any situation. Can't be targeted at all at best, 50% miss chance at worst. TS on the other hand doesn't give you a damn advantage if your oponent isn't trying to fool you with illusions. That ubercharge or that killing fog won't hurt a little less because you have TS on you.

So yes, it's perfectly fine that TS can counter every illusion effect out there, because otherwise casters end up even more powerfull(as only a caster of their level or higher will be able to even target them), and we really don't need that.

Eldariel
2009-06-27, 07:48 AM
You're the one missing the point. Let's supose that there are several levels of TS, each one only able to counter inv effects of the same level.

Lv10 wizard: I can cast TS lv1!
LV 12 BBEG: rofl I can cast inv lv 6, so your TS doesn't affect me. Good luck trying to win!

It's pointless to have counters if they don't cost less resources than the thing you're trying to counter.

And like Saph pointed out, inv gives you a BRUTAL advantage in almost any situation. Can't be targeted at all at best, 50% miss chance at worst. TS on the other hand doesn't give you a damn advantage if your oponent isn't trying to fool you with illusions. That ubercharge or that killing fog won't hurt a little less because you have TS on you.

So yes, it's perfectly fine that TS can counter every illusion effect out there, because otherwise casters end up even more powerfull(as only a caster of their level or higher will be able to even target them), and we really don't need that.

To compound this, True Seeing has a material component so it's not like it were a "free counter" or some such; you always pay the iron price when you absolutely need to see through illusions, Superior Invisibility and the like (outside few scenarios anyways).

Oslecamo
2009-06-27, 09:08 AM
To compound this, True Seeing has a material component so it's not like it were a "free counter" or some such; you always pay the iron price when you absolutely need to see through illusions, Superior Invisibility and the like (outside few scenarios anyways).

Well, that's another point in favor of TS screwing over all illusion spells I had forgoten, thanks for pointing it out. Sup inv and friends can be spammed at will, TS costs you your sweet hard earned money every time you use it.

woodenbandman
2009-06-27, 09:55 AM
Okay who's with me on banning both of these things?

Really though, Mind Blank and True Seeing are both overpowered as heck. Mind Blank is immunity to a whole school and a half of magic, and True Seeing is immunity to another. Single spells shouldn't castrate an entire caster's spell book.

Now, should there be an anti-invisibility spell? Yeah. But not one that defeats all illusions ever. But then there's the possibility of stacking illusory defenses and getting 10 mirror images who are blinking and displaced and then nobody wins, so those spells are going to need to be banned too.

At the very least True Seeing and Mind Blank should be nerfed to "The caster of an (Enchantment/Illusion) effect must make a caster level check, DC (your HD + 15) to effect you with such a spell."

Kilremgor
2009-06-27, 09:55 AM
Counter to TS?
Seed: Conceal.

Something like, core-only,
Epic Invisibility
Seed: Conceal Spellcraft DC: 17
Lasts regardless of the actions of the subject +4
Blocks divination spells, spell-like effects, and epic spells developed using the reveal seed +6
(add and specifically True Seeing into already encompassing statement above - unlike Mind Blank it clearly blocks all divinations, and being epic, trumps normal spells; eat some ad hoc DC +4 if DM is not liking it)
Gain +1 on caster level check to beat foe’s dispel effect (X times, +2 per each; adjust for your spellcraft).

Total DC: 27 (+4 or some other ad hoc DC, maybe) + 2 * X
That's easy spellcraft-wise.

And now to see through your Epic Invisibility with TS, or dispel it, one has to win opposed caster level check or dispel check, which, given spell level and caster level buff, is likely impossible short of another epic spell.

Eldariel
2009-06-27, 10:05 AM
At the very least True Seeing and Mind Blank should be nerfed to "The caster of an (Enchantment/Illusion) effect must make a caster level check, DC (your HD + 15) to effect you with such a spell."

I assume True Seeing would require you to be making the checks to penetrate illusions? Since again, it's the counter here. Frankly, I think True Seeing is fine given the short duration, the material component, the range limitation (if it extended as far as your sight goes, it'd be pretty insane, but right now you need to just "stay further away") and yeah.

Mind Blank, on the other hand, is a blanket protection with none of those making it rather b0rken. On the flipside, it's a level 8 spell and that's only 6 levels from Epic where epic spells totally trivialize all mortal protections, so it's not all that bad. Still, I definitely find it the more problematic of the two.

JeminiZero
2009-06-27, 10:28 AM
Really though, Mind Blank and True Seeing are both overpowered as heck. Mind Blank is immunity to a whole school and a half of magic, and True Seeing is immunity to another. Single spells shouldn't castrate an entire caster's spell book.


Actually, True Seeing doesn't provide anywhere near full immunity to illusions because a lot of illusions spells can generate semi-real effects (e.g. the killer gnome can still wipe out enemies with true seeing using this) and some illusion spells don't actually generate illusions at all (Color Spray, Shadow Walk, Simulacrum, etc).

As for Mind Blank, keep in mind that many many foes possess its main equivalent effect (namely immune to mind affecting): Undead, Constructs, Plants, Vermin and Oozes to name the main creature types. This alone already forces casters to NOT rely on the enchantment school to start with anyway.



At the very least True Seeing and Mind Blank should be nerfed to "The caster of an (Enchantment/Illusion) effect must make a caster level check, DC (your HD + 15) to effect you with such a spell."


There's already spell resistance for that. :smallwink: (well for mind blank at any rate).

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-27, 05:54 PM
It's much like Resurrecting in D&D (which is a bit botched up actually); there's no way to permanently kill anything or anyone. Everything from Unnaming to Imprisonment can be undone.

The whole deal kinda sucks; the only way to "permanently" destroy anything is to kill the damn thing and imprison the soul and hold onto the soulgem yourself. Once you lose its possession? The creature can be restored to life again.

This is a case of the "ultimate form of magic" going the wrong way; here magic reverses the natural order of things by effectively making the standard result of death "resurrection" rather than "permanent death".Drop them in a Bag of Holding. Disjoin the BoH. How, exactly, does someone go about getting them back?

Alternatively, Flesh to Stone. Transmute Rock to Mud. Purify Food and Drink. Drink the water. At no point do they die, but after the 3rd step, there is nothing left of them.

Kilremgor
2009-06-27, 06:08 PM
As for ultimate prevention of Resurrection:
Demilich.
Trap the Soul. Devour it in 24 hours. The End.

Jack_Simth
2009-06-27, 06:14 PM
It's much like Resurrecting in D&D (which is a bit botched up actually); there's no way to permanently kill anything or anyone. Everything from Unnaming to Imprisonment can be undone.

The whole deal kinda sucks; the only way to "permanently" destroy anything is to kill the damn thing and imprison the soul and hold onto the soulgem yourself. Once you lose its possession? The creature can be restored to life again.

This is a case of the "ultimate form of magic" going the wrong way; here magic reverses the natural order of things by effectively making the standard result of death "resurrection" rather than "permanent death".

Actually, there's a couple of ways to permanently kill someone. Render them defenseless (without killing), and then sic a Barghest on them. Have it Feed. 50% chance of no return.

There's the two Sstoopidtallkid mentioned ... although you'll want a few extra steps on the first (get opponent inside a portable hole with you. Close Portable Hole, so you're on a different plane. Cast Imprisonment on opponent. Open portable hold, get out of portable hole. Destroy portable hole. In order to free them, you have to undo the spell from the point where they were Imprisoned... and that point no longer exists.)

There's others. Barghest's Feast, from the Spell Compendium, for instance.

But the reason for Resurrection magic in the first place? Players get attached to their characters, and want to continue playing them. Resurrection magic permits that.

Emy
2009-06-27, 06:28 PM
The whole deal kinda sucks; the only way to "permanently" destroy anything is to kill the damn thing and imprison the soul and hold onto the soulgem yourself. Once you lose its possession? The creature can be restored to life again.

Well, if you don't mind using BoVD, you use the soul in crafting (in place of 10xp) or as a material component in Call Dretch Horde, Call Lemure Horde, or Call Nightmare. Destroying a soul is Evil with a capital E and a fully pronounced i, though. Eeeviiilllll.

Oh you can also use it in an evil spell to give +10 profane to overcome SR.

Kilremgor
2009-06-27, 06:48 PM
By the way, if discussion went in that direction anyway...
Does, by RAW, Death Ward counter the Life and Death divine ability?
Life and Death is stated to work like Destruction spell, except for no save and no material component (and well, unlimited range). Destruction is death effect; Death Ward counters them all.

If this is true, Death Ward is even larger offender than True Seeing.
A level 4 spells trumps over an ability of 6+ rank deity. So Yeah.

Viv
2009-06-27, 07:05 PM
I think that taking a look at the psionic version of mind blank is informative as to intention:


This power protects against powers with the mind-affecting or scrying descriptors.

It also doesn't hurt that second edition Mind Blank is limited to protecting against scrying as well.

Rules as written may say "divination", but I think that a simple application of logic -- and other versions of the spells, whether it's psionic versions or previous editions -- rather strongly supports the intention of it applying to scrying divinations, not all of them.

Zaq
2009-06-27, 07:06 PM
Frankly, I hate anything that gives a blanket "No" effect. Death Ward, True Seeing, Mind Blank, anything of the type. I'm okay with them if they're very short duration (generally speaking min/lv is as high as I'll go), but I really hate it (on EITHER side of the DM screen) when someone can go "aaaaand a major part of your strategy/character is hereby rendered useless, because I said so." I mean, yes, they have a place, but I feel that they way they are handled is incredibly inelegant at best. I don't know how I would improve on them (maybe a caster level check? I still don't like that...), but the whole blanket "no" just grates on me.

This, of course, just re-emphasizes how damned important proper dispelling capabilities are... and once again, the only way to beat a caster is with another caster. Sigh.

Funkyodor
2009-06-28, 07:06 AM
How about good ol' fashioned Dust of Disappearance? It specifically states that dusted creatures can't be detected by magical means, a much more absolute statement than Mind Blank.

And its counter? Dust of Appearance.

BobVosh
2009-06-28, 08:24 AM
Actually, True Seeing doesn't provide anywhere near full immunity to illusions because a lot of illusions spells can generate semi-real effects (e.g. the killer gnome can still wipe out enemies with true seeing using this) and some illusion spells don't actually generate illusions at all (Color Spray, Shadow Walk, Simulacrum, etc).

Actually that is hilarious. Wipe them out with an illusion dragon that is semireal that they can't see.

Viv
2009-06-28, 09:09 AM
I would argue that, text notwithstanding, True Seeing would not render one unable to see a semi-real illusion effect. After all, it is partially real. At the very least, the part that's real should be visible.

Killer Angel
2009-06-28, 01:28 PM
False. There's a combination in Poker that wins with 100% possibility, the royal flush. You win no matter what your oponents have.


Really?
For what I remember, a Royal flush (spades), is beaten (only) by the lowest straight flush (hearts).
Is a theoretical combination, made for the purpose to negate a certain victory before seeing the other hand.

But i don't bet on this... :smallcool:

Killer Angel
2009-06-28, 01:34 PM
Eldariel is spot-on here. The best anti-invisibility should beat the best invisibility. Otherwise you get invisibility which is impossible to counter, which leads to horrible gameplay.

• If True Seeing beats Mind Blank/Invis, then both characters are on equal terms. They can both see each other.
• If Mind Blank/Sup Invis beats True Seeing, then the first guy is almost guaranteed to win.

The "every move should have a counter" argument makes no sense because True Seeing is supposed to be the counter to Invisibility. Invisibility, when it works, is a massive advantage; it should not be possible to get it to work with 100% (or anywhere near 100%) reliability.

- Saph


Sorry for the late in my answer...

I understand your point, but you can't make a 6th level spell totally unbeatable. Inv. + MB is a 2-spells combo, which relies on a 8th level spell.
You can eventually deny the possibility for MB to stop TS, but what if I'm using a combo Greater Invisibility / Wish?
If I'm wishing to be protected from TS, even in that case you'll say that TS works, for role playing reasons?

And if my wiz. player is researching a 9th lev. spell "impenetrable invisibility", made specifically to deny TS?

I think that every move HAS a counter.
What is effectively the counter, is debatable.

SilverSheriff
2009-06-28, 01:39 PM
See Him before he see's you and kill him.:smalltongue:

Keld Denar
2009-06-28, 01:41 PM
I would argue that, text notwithstanding, True Seeing would not render one unable to see a semi-real illusion effect. After all, it is partially real. At the very least, the part that's real should be visible.

Illusions that have been True Seen through are still there, but appear faded and muted. This doesn't stop the shadowstuff they many are made of, which is VERY real. A creature summoned by a Shadow Conjouration spell that is True Seen through, just the same as if someone saved vs it, would have a XX% influence on whatever it interacts with. The material, which has been conjoured from the plane of shadow, a very real place, can still be dangerous.

EDIT:


I think that every move HAS a counter.
What is effectively the counter, is debatable.

So, in analogy, a knife counters a fist, and a pistol counters a knife, and a rifle counters a pistol, and a rocket counters a rifle, and a bomb counters a rocket, and a nuke counters a bomb. What counters a nuke? If everything has a counter, something has to be on top.

Honestly, I like the idea of True Seeing countering everything. Its not cheap, and the duration is not long. Thus, using it consumes more resources than what it counters. That forces the PCs to make a decision to consume resources to solve a problem, or not. They can suffer the miss chances trying to find someone who's Superior Invis'ed, or they can True See it. I think its balanced.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-28, 01:43 PM
I think that every move HAS a counter.
What is effectively the counter, is debatable.

There is no counter to the Chuck Norris Roundhouse Kick.

Roderick_BR
2009-06-28, 01:52 PM
Stay 120+ feet away?

Also, mundane Disguise and Hide checks work vs TS.

Its hotly debated whether or not Mind Blank protects against True Sight. There is a lot of debate back and forth that a 6th level spell shouldn't trump an 8th level spell even with TS's absolute statement and whatnot.

Then there is the balance issue. A character with Superior Invisibility (only pierced by True Sight) and Mind Blank (debatably fools True Sight) would be completely unlocatable in most circumstances.
I think that TS doesn't really really work on Mind Blank at all (Mind Blank protects against detection and mind reading, it doesn't make you invisible or something), so TS (that can't be enhanced, or combined with others spells) have nothing to work on a Mind Blanked person.
Example: You use mindblank and improved invisibility. If someone uses TS, he'll see through your invisibility. Your mind blank does nothing against it.
But if someone uses TS and Locate Creature, it's LC won't affect you, but if he happens to look at you, he'll look through the invisibility.

Yukitsu
2009-06-28, 02:53 PM
So, in analogy, a knife counters a fist, and a pistol counters a knife, and a rifle counters a pistol, and a rocket counters a rifle, and a bomb counters a rocket, and a nuke counters a bomb. What counters a nuke? If everything has a counter, something has to be on top.

A MIRV. After that, an SAS agent with excellent kung fu to take over the base with the MIRV. Which is then countered by a guy with a knife, etc.

Oslecamo
2009-06-28, 03:25 PM
There is no counter to the Chuck Norris Roundhouse Kick.

Spinzaku may actually be able to counter it with his own roundhouse kick, but that's more fighting fire with fire.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-28, 08:21 PM
For what I remember, a Royal flush (spades), is beaten (only) by the lowest straight flush (hearts).
You remember incorrectly. A royal flush always wins. The suits have no relative rankings. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_rankings). It's possible to have multiple royal flushes (and thus multiple winners) in games like draw poker, but in every case a royal flush is 100% guaranteed to win.

woodenbandman
2009-06-28, 08:27 PM
Drop them in a Bag of Holding. Disjoin the BoH. How, exactly, does someone go about getting them back?

Alternatively, Flesh to Stone. Transmute Rock to Mud. Purify Food and Drink. Drink the water. At no point do they die, but after the 3rd step, there is nothing left of them.

"Disintegrate! Gust of Wind! Now can we PLEASE go back to saving the world?"

Cybren
2009-06-28, 09:58 PM
You remember incorrectly. A royal flush always wins. The suits have no relative rankings. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_rankings). It's possible to have multiple royal flushes (and thus multiple winners) in games like draw poker, but in every case a royal flush is 100% guaranteed to win.

No the suits most certainly do have rankings. It is just not commonly used.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-28, 10:15 PM
No the suits most certainly do have rankings. It is just not commonly used.
You'll need to take it up with the entire professional poker community, then:
Suits have no value. The suits of the cards are mainly used in determining whether a hand fits a certain category (specifically the flush and straight flush hands). In most variants, if two players have hands that are identical except for suit, then they are tied and split the pot

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-28, 10:56 PM
"Disintegrate! Gust of Wind! Now can we PLEASE go back to saving the world?"Disintigrate specifically kills them though. Flesh to Stone leaves them alive but preserved until the spell is undone. Eliminate all remnants of the spell, and they're pretty hard to recover(still possible, but it takes more than just a Cleric and enough diamonds).

Killer Angel
2009-06-29, 01:53 AM
You remember incorrectly. A royal flush always wins. The suits have no relative rankings. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_rankings). It's possible to have multiple royal flushes (and thus multiple winners) in games like draw poker, but in every case a royal flush is 100% guaranteed to win.

I've checked: i rebember correctly (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_tradizionale#La_mano_perfetta), BUT I've found this only in italian: given that i'm not able to find the corrispondent in english, I fear it's an official rule, but only for italian tournament... :smallfrown:

The text basically says: the lowest straight flush is beaten by all the other straight flush, which are beaten by the royal flush, wich can only be beaten by the lowest straight flush.

EDIT: to prove a little my point, Here's another link (in english) 'bout ranking of suits in italy (http://www.pagat.com/vying/pokerrank.html#suit): it seems that we are different from the rest of the world... :smallredface:

Killer Angel
2009-06-29, 01:57 AM
There is no counter to the Chuck Norris Roundhouse Kick.

Ah, you're using Epic, here... :smallbiggrin:

When Chuck was no epic, even Him was beaten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLO1YIWQuXE)! (but his adversary was Truly Epic :smallcool:)

Killer Angel
2009-06-29, 02:05 AM
So, in analogy, a knife counters a fist, and a pistol counters a knife, and a rifle counters a pistol, and a rocket counters a rifle, and a bomb counters a rocket, and a nuke counters a bomb. What counters a nuke? If everything has a counter, something has to be on top.


Exactly. Imo a wish beats a TS. And wish can be beaten by Epic magic. And then there is Divine Intervention. And then there is Ragnarok, so we can come back playing 1° lev. characters... :smalltongue:




Honestly, I like the idea of True Seeing countering everything. Its not cheap, and the duration is not long. Thus, using it consumes more resources than what it counters. That forces the PCs to make a decision to consume resources to solve a problem, or not. They can suffer the miss chances trying to find someone who's Superior Invis'ed, or they can True See it. I think its balanced.

Well, i think that my Pow is not against the RAW, but i'm not close-minded.
You, Eldariel, Oslecamo and Saph, are supporting TS, and my side is supported by... myself. So, probably I'm wrong.
In the end, if I were the DM and you my players, I will certainly join your point of view.

Heliomance
2009-06-29, 11:57 AM
There is no counter to the Chuck Norris Roundhouse Kick.

I beg to differ.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a265/Heliomance/ultimateshowdown.jpg

Faramir
2009-06-29, 01:42 PM
This isn't entirely true; [url=http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#spot]

Best detection should always trump best protection, or at least provide reasonably doable means to do so.


My philosophy as well.

Finwe
2009-06-29, 01:53 PM
Best way to mess with people who have True Sight? Open up your copy of Cityscape and find the Invisible Spell feat. Guess what it does? It makes a spells effect invisible. "How does that help me?" you ask? Well, you can't see an invisible spell effect, can you? Nope. So it wouldn't restrict your vision in any way, would it? Nope. It wouldn't even block line of sight, would it? Nope.

Now, cast an Invisible Fog Cloud. Or an Invisible Deeper Darkness.

For you, and all of your non-True Seeing friends, the day is clear and the sun is shining. You can see for miles and miles. Anyone with True Sight trying to look at you, though, sees only murky fog or inpenetrable darkness. Sucks to be them...

This. You just have to be creative.

Kosjsjach
2009-06-29, 02:19 PM
I beg to differ.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a265/Heliomance/ultimateshowdown.jpg

I'm going to regret saying this, but you missed a few: Spock, The Rock, Doc Ock, and Hulk Hogan. :smallamused:

Finwe
2009-06-29, 03:12 PM
I'm going to regret saying this, but you missed a few: Spock, The Rock, Doc Ock, and Hulk Hogan. :smallamused:

Well they DID come out of nowhere, lightning fast...

JackQ
2009-06-29, 04:18 PM
To the OPs question:

TS can be beaten by the psionic power False Sensory Input (3rd level power)

Relevant text:

Because you override a victim’s senses, you can fool a victim who is using true seeing or some other method of gathering information, assuming you know that the victim is actively using such an effect and you can maintain concentration.

ericgrau
2009-06-29, 05:02 PM
Fog cloud, obscuring mist, solid fog, sleet storm, wall of X, a smoke stick, etc. The list is a mile long. If you want to avoid being seen, there are plenty of magical ways to beat true seeing. Main downside is that they also block your sight. But there are ways around this, such as area spells and a good listen check. Sure, the other caster might do the same, but he won't do it nearly as well because his spell selection doesn't revolve around it and yours does.

Asheram
2009-06-29, 05:21 PM
To the OPs question:

TS can be beaten by the psionic power False Sensory Input (3rd level power)

Relevant text:

Because you override a victim’s senses, you can fool a victim who is using true seeing or some other method of gathering information, assuming you know that the victim is actively using such an effect and you can maintain concentration.

Ah yes! This is great! I had hoped something completely warding, but this'll do great if one does know the person is actively searching for you! Thank you. :)



Fog cloud, obscuring mist, solid fog, sleet storm, wall of X, a smoke stick, etc.

Thanks for the tip, but the point was more to being undetected more than just avoid being spotted. But I'll remember these should I be in a tight spot.

Heliomance
2009-06-29, 06:59 PM
I'm going to regret saying this, but you missed a few: Spock, The Rock, Doc Ock, and Hulk Hogan. :smallamused:

I seem to remember that when they appear they block the view of almost all the others. I took that screenshot as having the most visible characters.

elonin
2009-06-29, 07:21 PM
I don't see the conflict between mind blank and true seeing. One spell protects you from mind effecting which true seeing isn't and the other let's you see through illusions. To not be seen with true sight just rely on mundane means of concealment which true sight doesn't work against.

erikun
2009-06-29, 07:32 PM
This cannot work by the rules though, since Anti-Magic Field does not block line of sight or line of effect; spells work fine through it, only the area under AMF is unable to be affected. If a spell ends in an AMF, it's suppressed until the AMF ends, but going through one is no problem.
Wait... so a Lightning Bolt aimed at an Anitmagic Field will stop when it hits the field... and come out the other side?! :smallconfused:

Anyways, I prefer that certain spells act as magical trump cards - Antimagic Field, True Seeing, and Mordenkainen's Disjunction come to mind. By basically cancelling any other magical effects, they make mundane skills actually useful. Well, they try to anyways: Invisibility pretty much makes ranks in Hide useless up until True Seeing, after all.

Eldariel
2009-06-29, 08:02 PM
Wait... so a Lightning Bolt aimed at an Anitmagic Field will stop when it hits the field... and come out the other side?! :smallconfused:

Anyways, I prefer that certain spells act as magical trump cards - Antimagic Field, True Seeing, and Mordenkainen's Disjunction come to mind. By basically cancelling any other magical effects, they make mundane skills actually useful. Well, they try to anyways: Invisibility pretty much makes ranks in Hide useless up until True Seeing, after all.

That's how it works, yes; Bolt is merely suppressed, not countered/dispelled.

See Invisibility and Glitterdust are affordable low-level counters to Greater Invisibility; normal is undone by mere offensive action. Superior, however...

Keld Denar
2009-06-29, 08:34 PM
I don't see the conflict between mind blank and true seeing. One spell protects you from mind effecting which true seeing isn't and the other let's you see through illusions. To not be seen with true sight just rely on mundane means of concealment which true sight doesn't work against.

Go reread Mind Blank. It also blocks Divinations that gather information. True Seeing is a Divination that gathers optical information. So, if a Mind Blanked person were to be Invisible, and a person with TS looked at them, the Mind Blank would block the True Seeing from penetrating the Invisibility. Or at least thats one view of it.

Most of the consensus in this thread seems to be that Mind Blank was not intended to block TS, and from a balance point of view, its better if it doesn't.

And Eld...I thought there was a FAQ ruling or something that dictated that an AMF did in fact block LoE...I'll pull it up quick and have a looksee.

holywhippet
2009-06-29, 09:03 PM
Could you argue that nondetection blocks true seeing when you are invisible? It says that it blocks divination spells including detect type spells.

Jack_Simth
2009-06-29, 09:29 PM
Could you argue that nondetection blocks true seeing when you are invisible? It says that it blocks divination spells including detect type spells.
As a DM, I'd let Nondetection work against True Seeing (and See Invisibility) without a second thought - it's a roll vs. a DC, a clean mechanic, and gives either person a fighting chance at winning.

Eldariel
2009-06-30, 05:39 AM
And Eld...I thought there was a FAQ ruling or something that dictated that an AMF did in fact block LoE...I'll pull it up quick and have a looksee.

Regardless of what FAQ says, Rules Compendium explicitly spells out that it does not, and it's the newest source and also an official one.

Kaiyanwang
2009-06-30, 05:53 AM
Regardless of what FAQ says, Rules Compendium explicitly spells out that it does not, and it's the newest source and also an official one.

Ironically, I always ruled that way. I liked the idea of AMF as a "opposite phase magic" for the zone.

Brom
2009-06-30, 06:41 AM
I'm going to throw it out there that I don't allow non-core spells. Balance in spells gets rather ridiculous once you leave core.

You get Conjurers who do better damage than Evokers.
You get Clerity...do I have to say more?

IMO? A form of invisibility that REQUIRES True Seeing to be beaten doesn't exist in core. I'm glad for that.

Someone said, ''they are both easily attainable effects'' to which I must respond, ''Only if you allow non-core casting.''

Which I don't. Because non-core spells quickly make other characters more redundant than they already are.

Keld Denar
2009-06-30, 11:20 AM
Because non-core spells quickly make other characters more redundant than they already are.

Because Contingency wasn't printed in core...oh wait.

Because Shapechange wasn't printed in core...oh wait.

Because Disjunction wasn't printed in core...oh wait.

Because Polymorph wasn't printed in core...oh wait.

Because Wish wasn't printed in core...oh wait.

Because Greater Shadow Evocaiton wasn't printed in core...oh wait.

Really, PHBII fixed Polymorph by making more limited versions of it. You still get the shapeshifty feel if you want outa your wizardy, without the open ended abuse you get with Alter Self and Polymorph. Sure, PHBII also gave us Celerity, but its better to pick and choose and ban what needs to be banned than blanket Core=Good, Else=Bad. There's pretty much a higher percentage of broken OP stuff in the PHB than in any other printed WotC book.

ericgrau
2009-06-30, 12:35 PM
^ Core monsters to polymorph into aren't that strong, unless you stack 10 different buffs at the same time. Take the common "polymorph into great wyrm" comment. Can't be done. The dragon within the HD limit is fairly low CR, and if cast on the caster instead of a martial party member the low BAB & HP hurt him even more. As for the 10 buffs, that's more of a problem of having 10 buff rounds and enemies without dispel magic. There was a thread a while back on this and me and someone else basically reached that point as a standstill (he was insisting it was still broken b/c you could cast literally 5-10 buffs and have higher stats that way).

Some other spells are quite useful, sure, but non-core spells add 10 times as many options that encroach upon other classes' features.



Thanks for the tip, but the point was more to being undetected more than just avoid being spotted. But I'll remember these should I be in a tight spot.

True seeing has a short duration. The easiest way to avoid detection altogether is to go invisible, perhaps silenced as well, and make sure the enemy caster never has a reason to cast true seeing. See: Xykon and Azure City battle. But if you mean monsters with continuous true seeing, then that's another story. Though I'm sure you've got a ton of tips by now that work even with such monsters; I'm just throwing out other options.

Eldariel
2009-06-30, 01:39 PM
Polymorph into a Horned Devil (with Outsider-base), Polymorph into an X-headed Hydra, Polymorph even into Cloaker or the friggin' Animal-forms Druid uses all the time are all more powerful than they should be. It's all trivially easy to pick up better-than-you-should-be-getting-stat forms, and god help you if someone is base-Outsider...

And that's without even mentioning Shapechange; I don't probably need to explain why access to every Su- and Ex- ability in MM is a bad thing. Polymorph Any Object also offers permanent Int-buffs, 'cause Wizards weren't good enough yet (just in case you had to start with lower-than-20 starting Int).