PDA

View Full Version : True Seeing backfires?



shadow_archmagi
2010-04-11, 08:56 AM
So, if I'm using True Seeing, I see the true form of a polymorphed creature.

Does that mean that:


Me:(thinking) Ha ha ha, that wizard is so weak. I have nothing to fear from his punch

Wizard: (thinking) Being a super-dragon is totally the best use of polymorph.

JeminiZero
2010-04-11, 09:07 AM
I always took it that you see their shapechanged form, with their true form ghosted in the middle (or something like that).

True Seeing can still backfire however, when your opponent casts Invisible Fog.

Sliver
2010-04-11, 09:18 AM
I believe it's like an illusion that is disbelieved... You know it is there, you can just see through it.

Kobold-Bard
2010-04-11, 09:28 AM
You can magically see the true form, but that doesn't stop you using your eyes to see the big old dragon about to much on your carcass.


I always took it that you see their shapechanged form, with their true form ghosted in the middle (or something like that)....

That's how I picture it too.

theMycon
2010-04-11, 11:12 AM
I always took it that you see their shapechanged form, with their true form ghosted in the middle (or something like that).

True Seeing can still backfire however, when your opponent casts Invisible Fog.

I "see" the opposite, for the same reason- the fake stuff as a half-hollow thingie, and the real form as solid. Seeing a invisible fog as a ghostly-see-through fog would be a problem, but not as much of a pain as real fog.

Boci
2010-04-11, 11:19 AM
True Seeing can still backfire however, when your opponent casts Invisible Fog.

How is this any different than just casting normal fog? The only one I see is that the caster won't be affected.

Ranos
2010-04-11, 11:22 AM
True seeing allows you to "see the true form of polymorphed creatures". It doesn't prevent you from seeing their fake form, so you see both.
On the other hand, true seeing allows you to see invisible things normally. At best, you could argue that you see them both invisible and visible, which doesn't really change anything. Invisible fog thus blocks your vision.

Fishy
2010-04-11, 11:24 AM
How is this any different than just casting normal fog? The only one I see is that the caster won't be affected.

That is how it is different from casting normal fog. Anyone who doesn't have True Seeing is fine.

I (theoretically) enjoy using Trickery Devotion with Invisibility. Turn invisible, create an illusionary duplicate that looks exactly like you: ie. invisible. Have him go pants the Wizard with True Seeing, who sees his real form (nothing) overlayed with its visible form (nothing).

The Glyphstone
2010-04-11, 11:25 AM
Invisibility + Invisible Fog Cloud. If they have True Seeing, they see the fog cloud, blocking LOS to you. If they don't have true seeing, they can't see you or the fog cloud.

shadow_archmagi
2010-04-11, 11:27 AM
I wonder...

Could you counter Darkness/Fog Cloud by casting Invisibility at it?

Boci
2010-04-11, 11:49 AM
That is how it is different from casting normal fog. Anyone who doesn't have True Seeing is fine.

Pretty easy to counter them. Just cast invisibility on yourself and the enemy is forced with the same dilema. Cool tactic, with bonus points for the irony, but given how people talked about it I expected more.


Invisibility + Invisible Fog Cloud. If they have True Seeing, they see the fog cloud, blocking LOS to you. If they don't have true seeing, they can't see you or the fog cloud.

That is more like it. Nice combo, but still subject to the same weakness above.


I wonder...

Could you counter Darkness/Fog Cloud by casting Invisibility at it?

Pretty sure the spells aren't valid targets for invisibility.

Yukitsu
2010-04-11, 11:54 AM
In my view, it doesn't let you see the false state at all. You only have one set of eyes, and if they are being used to see through the veil, you don't have some other set to see the veil.

I think this is the more balanced way to read the spell. It negates large parts of two schools without any opposed rolls. They should be able to at least be clever to double bluff the diviner.

Evard
2010-04-11, 11:55 AM
Dispel targets spells sooo you could always make a metamagic that allows you to target area spells with spells other that dispel and etc ? hmmm

I would allow a player to cast invisibility on a darkness spell, mostly because they just wasted an invisibility spell slot :P Sometimes its ok to bend the rules when players are giving up something like that to light up an empty room :smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone
2010-04-11, 11:55 AM
Pretty easy to counter them. Just cast invisibility on yourself and the enemy is forced with the same dilema. Cool tactic, with bonus points for the irony, but given how people talked about it I expected more.



That is more like it. Nice combo, but still subject to the same weakness above.



Pretty sure the spells aren't valid targets for invisibility.

Nope, that's pretty much it. It's not supposed to be OP/gamebreaking/fight-winning, just amusing. For example, it's trivial to just pump AoE spells into the boundaries of the cloud. If you can see it and not the wizard, that means he's in the cloud, which is the same size as a Fireball spell.

Optimystik
2010-04-11, 12:05 PM
I wonder...

Could you counter Darkness/Fog Cloud by casting Invisibility at it?

The invisible fog stuff is a reference to the Invisible Spell metamagic from Cityscape.

Lost Wanderer
2010-04-11, 12:19 PM
In my view, it doesn't let you see the false state at all. You only have one set of eyes, and if they are being used to see through the veil, you don't have some other set to see the veil.

I think this is the more balanced way to read the spell. It negates large parts of two schools without any opposed rolls. They should be able to at least be clever to double bluff the diviner.

That's sort of the point of True Seeing, though. It's the be-all, end-all of seeing through illusions. Fundamentally, one side needs to win: illusion or divination. Either their is a kind of illusion that cannot be pierced, or there is a way to see through any illusion. The former is frustrating and game-breaky, so the latter is the answer.

You might have an argument that True Seeing is too low level to do all that it does. I suppose a decent way to address that would be to make it only automatically pierce illusions of its level or lower, and make an 8th or 9th level version that sees through everything. That doesn't really seem powerful enough for that high level a spell, but I really can't think of another solution.

Lysander
2010-04-11, 12:22 PM
I imagine it works as see invisibility:


You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are ethereal, as if they were normally visible. Such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures.

So you'd be able to see through the fog cloud as it would remain translucent.

True Seeing also never says it stops you from seeing the false state of things. Just that it allows you to see things as they truly are.

Yukitsu
2010-04-11, 12:28 PM
That's sort of the point of True Seeing, though. It's the be-all, end-all of seeing through illusions. Fundamentally, one side needs to win: illusion or divination. Either their is a kind of illusion that cannot be pierced, or there is a way to see through any illusion. The former is frustrating and game-breaky, so the latter is the answer.

That's not what I'm really saying. It should not both see and not see the illusion. That means an illusion double bluff, where the illusions are beneficial can't be used by true seeing guys.


You might have an argument that True Seeing is too low level to do all that it does. I suppose a decent way to address that would be to make it only automatically pierce illusions of its level or lower, and make an 8th or 9th level version that sees through everything. That doesn't really seem powerful enough for that high level a spell, but I really can't think of another solution.

As I said, I don't care about that. I simply can't understand why people want it to both see and not see the problem, when there is no real reason for it to do so, and in doing so, it's no longer seeing the truth.

I mean, that's kind of like having mind blank up and arguing beneficial mind influencing buffs are still supposed to work.

J.Gellert
2010-04-11, 12:30 PM
When I read the title, I immediately thought of a Medusa polymorphed into anything.

"Now I see your true fo-"

Jack_Simth
2010-04-11, 12:31 PM
That's sort of the point of True Seeing, though. It's the be-all, end-all of seeing through illusions. Fundamentally, one side needs to win: illusion or divination. Either their is a kind of illusion that cannot be pierced, or there is a way to see through any illusion. The former is frustrating and game-breaky, so the latter is the answer.

Incorrect. One does not necessarily need to trump the other. It's possible to have them tie - if you, say, permit Nondetection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nondetection.htm) to function against See Invisibility and True Seeing, then it's a caster level check to see who wins. If that's the case, then neither school quite trumps the other - as sometimes one side will win, sometimes the other will win.

Mind you, Nondetection is an Abjuration, but the principle applies.

waterpenguin43
2010-04-11, 12:33 PM
You know it's there, but you just know it's fake.
But my suggestion for making True Seeing backfire is this:

Whenever you use it on an abberation, you have to make a will save (The same DC you would need to if an identical wizard to you cast True Seeing on you and you needed to make a save for some reason.) or go insane.
Why?
You understand the horrible truth behind it.

Optimystik
2010-04-11, 12:34 PM
That's sort of the point of True Seeing, though. It's the be-all, end-all of seeing through illusions. Fundamentally, one side needs to win: illusion or divination. Either their is a kind of illusion that cannot be pierced, or there is a way to see through any illusion. The former is frustrating and game-breaky, so the latter is the answer.

You might have an argument that True Seeing is too low level to do all that it does. I suppose a decent way to address that would be to make it only automatically pierce illusions of its level or lower, and make an 8th or 9th level version that sees through everything. That doesn't really seem powerful enough for that high level a spell, but I really can't think of another solution.

There is a solution: a caster level check. This is how the Conceal Seed and Reveal Seed interact in epic spells.

El Dorado
2010-04-11, 12:36 PM
It will backfire if your DM throws a invisible medusa at you. Truly, a thing you can't unsee!

Taelas
2010-04-11, 12:40 PM
There is a solution: a caster level check. This is how the Conceal Seed and Reveal Seed interact in epic spells.

While this is completely true, True Seeing is a holdover from earlier editions, where things like "caster level checks" didn't exist.

Lysander
2010-04-11, 12:40 PM
That's sort of the point of True Seeing, though. It's the be-all, end-all of seeing through illusions. Fundamentally, one side needs to win: illusion or divination. Either their is a kind of illusion that cannot be pierced, or there is a way to see through any illusion. The former is frustrating and game-breaky, so the latter is the answer.

You might have an argument that True Seeing is too low level to do all that it does. I suppose a decent way to address that would be to make it only automatically pierce illusions of its level or lower, and make an 8th or 9th level version that sees through everything. That doesn't really seem powerful enough for that high level a spell, but I really can't think of another solution.

I don't think True Seeing is overpowered. It's a 5-7th level spell with a 1 minute/level duration. If someone is using it then they expect illusions. The power of illusion is that it tricks people who don't expect it., and functions against the majority of creatures who lack access to true seeing.

I think there's a better argument for saying illusion is overpowered. A level 1 illusion can fool (with no save without interaction) the senses of a level 20 character.

Lost Wanderer
2010-04-11, 12:45 PM
That's not what I'm really saying. It should not both see and not see the illusion. That means an illusion double bluff, where the illusions are beneficial can't be used by true seeing guys.



As I said, I don't care about that. I simply can't understand why people want it to both see and not see the problem, when there is no real reason for it to do so, and in doing so, it's no longer seeing the truth.

I mean, that's kind of like having mind blank up and arguing beneficial mind influencing buffs are still supposed to work.

"Seeing through" an illusion doesn't mean you can no longer perceive the illusion, it means you know its illusory. What that means depends on context. It lets you see through a Silent Image wall, for example, but it doesn't mean you can't tell there's still an illusion there. And something like Mirror Image, someone with True Seeing up would look at the mirrored mage and instantly be able to tell which is the real one. They'd still see the mirror images, they'd just know that that's all that are: images. You're seeing the true, will still being able to see the existence of an illusion.

What kind of illusion would provide a benefit by failing to perceive it as fake? I cannot think of an example. What do you have in mind?

As for transformed things, the spell says know the true form. So under the effect of True Seeing, you look at an elf wizard turned into a troll and see not the outline of an elf in there, but realize that troll is, in fact, a transformed elf. Time to break out the Dispell Magic.

Lost Wanderer
2010-04-11, 12:54 PM
Incorrect. One does not necessarily need to trump the other. It's possible to have them tie - if you, say, permit Nondetection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nondetection.htm) to function against See Invisibility and True Seeing, then it's a caster level check to see who wins. If that's the case, then neither school quite trumps the other - as sometimes one side will win, sometimes the other will win.

Mind you, Nondetection is an Abjuration, but the principle applies.

See, I don't think that principal applies to illusion vs. divination. Abjuration is different; it's about protecting. There should always be a way to defend against an intrusion on oneself, even if even the defense is imperfect.

Illusion is about occluding information, divination is about getting it, abjuration is about actually protecting it. In the end, divination beats illusion, and has to fight it out with abjuration.

Re: Caster level checks with True Seeing, that works too, but I'd say only on illusions of above 6th level. Anything 6th or below is automatic.

Yukitsu
2010-04-11, 12:54 PM
The first line of the rules states that you see things as they are, so not only do you see through an illusion, which is the elaboration of that rule, but you do not see the illusion at all, because that's not as things truly are.

Easiest forms of beneficial illusions are illusory light sources in the dark, illusory markers for directions, illusory warnings of dangers. There are some more overt methods involving shadow magic that I won't go too much into.

Edit: It's also this odd perception that one spell should counter an entire school that leads me to take insidious magic, so that my one feat counter counters their entire school.

DaedalusMkV
2010-04-11, 01:02 PM
What kind of illusion would provide a benefit by failing to perceive it as fake? I cannot think of an example. What do you have in mind?


The invisibility spell a friendly wizard used on the Medusa's face so that she could become a functioning member of society? I'm sure there could be other cases of benign illusions, as well, but that's one that jumps out at me.

Also, Killer Gnome? 100% damage is so much better than 150% damage...

Closak
2010-04-11, 01:04 PM
Example of True Seeing causing problems.

The party is fighting some sort of giant blob of flesh, some sort of ooze apparantly.
They get the overwhelming feeling that something is wrong and decide to use True Seeing to view the creatures true shape.

DM: What you see is so horrible it cannot be described, roll a Will save, DC 250

Player: ...But my Will save bonus is only +35!

DM: Sucks for you then...you die and your soul is ripped out and destroyed by the sight of the creatures true form.

Other players: ...:smalleek:...DON'T USE TRUE SEEING! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T!


They would have won if they didn't lose one of their party members like that.
Seriously, had they only refrained from seeing the things true form they would have had an easy victory.

Lost Wanderer
2010-04-11, 01:08 PM
The first line of the rules states that you see things as they are, so not only do you see through an illusion, which is the elaboration of that rule, but you do not see the illusion at all, because that's not as things truly are.

Easiest forms of beneficial illusions are illusory light sources in the dark, illusory markers for directions, illusory warnings of dangers. There are some more overt methods involving shadow magic that I won't go too much into.

Edit: It's also this odd perception that one spell should counter an entire school that leads me to take insidious magic, so that my one feat counter counters their entire school.

I disagree that "see things as they are" means that if you look at a Mirror Image'd mage, you see only the caster and no images. I read it to mean you see the caster and all the images, but you can automatically tell them apart.

I hate arguing RAW, but does it explicitly say that "see through illusions" means the affected character literally not see the illusions? Not from what I can see.

Also, abjuration has plenty of spells that effectively (or explicitly!) shut down large parts to al of other schools. Like Mind Blank, which you mentioned.

Yukitsu
2010-04-11, 01:14 PM
"You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are." means that they do not see things that are false. When you "see" something, that's not the same as percieving it. You're talking about percieving it as it really is. The rule states you see it as it really is, which discludes the falsehoods.

You keep bringing up "sees through" as though that means an ability to percieve things in a selective manner. That's not what that means, and even then that's not what my argument hinges on.

Optimystik
2010-04-11, 01:15 PM
They would have won if they didn't lose one of their party members like that.
Seriously, had they only refrained from seeing the things true form they would have had an easy victory.

But the opposite is also true. That Gnome Illusionist could easily do the reverse, and make himself appear to be an eldritch horror even as he laughs up his miniature sleeve at the party's trepidation. This goes double if he has levels in Nightmare Spinner.

Yukitsu
2010-04-11, 01:17 PM
But the opposite is also true. That Gnome Illusionist could easily do the reverse, and make himself appear to be an eldritch horror even as he laughs up his miniature sleeve at the party's trepidation. This goes double if he has levels in Nightmare Spinner.

If he had, it's be a bit late for the party to get true seeing up in that case.

Oslecamo
2010-04-11, 02:01 PM
Ah, screwed if you do, screwed if you don't, now there's a proper killer DM combo!:smallbiggrin:

Sliver
2010-04-11, 02:02 PM
Example of True Seeing causing problems.

The party is fighting some sort of giant blob of flesh, some sort of ooze apparantly.
They get the overwhelming feeling that something is wrong and decide to use True Seeing to view the creatures true shape.

DM: What you see is so horrible it cannot be described, roll a Will save, DC 250

Player: ...But my Will save bonus is only +35!

DM: Sucks for you then...you die and your soul is ripped out and destroyed by the sight of the creatures true form.

Other players: ...:smalleek:...DON'T USE TRUE SEEING! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T!


They would have won if they didn't lose one of their party members like that.
Seriously, had they only refrained from seeing the things true form they would have had an easy victory.

Indeed, DM fiat and **** moves are the best ways to make players feel sorry for playing with you... That spell, I mean...

Player: "I cast Light"

DM: "Oh, that's too bad. The whole place was soaked in gasoline. Roll a Reflex Save. DC e^2531.

Player: "But... Light is a heatless spell!"

DM: "Tough. I don't like the spell!"

Closak
2010-04-11, 02:04 PM
Well to be fair, they were warned that the campaign would have an abnormally high risk of horrible death.

Not the DM's fault if they didn't listen and take precautions to keep themselves in one piece.
Nope, they have to rush into everything without any form of plan.

That, combined with the much higher than normal difficulty and plain out sadistic homebrew monsters...leads to a great many TPK's in a very short amount of time.


Above: It was hinted, repeadetly, that seeing it's true form was literally a death sentence.
They didn't catch on before one of them had already fallen victim to it.

The spell worked fine the rest of the time, it was just against that specific creature that gazing upon it's true shape was the equivalent of instant death.

erikun
2010-04-11, 02:11 PM
Anything with a gaze attack that is invisible, magically disguised, or polymorphed will generally bite True Seeing in the butt. There is a spell that will prevent you from accidentally looking into a gaze attack though... Steadfast Gaze? I don't recall what it is right off hand.

Boci
2010-04-11, 02:29 PM
Well to be fair, they were warned that the campaign would have an abnormally high risk of horrible death.

Not the DM's fault if they didn't listen and take precautions to keep themselves in one piece.
Nope, they have to rush into everything without any form of plan.

Yes and killing them is a much better solution then sitting down with them and saying "Look, it appears we have a different expectation of what the game should include. How do you propose we resolve this,"

jseah
2010-04-11, 02:34 PM
What kind of illusion would provide a benefit by failing to perceive it as fake? I cannot think of an example. What do you have in mind?
Project Image:

Fighter: There's the enemy! I char---
Wizard: Hold up! It's an illusion. Find the caster!
*Fighter changes actions to Spot check, nothing*
*Wizard attempts a locate spell, fails Non-detection roll*
Image: Hahaha, you have fallen into my trap. Think this is an illusion? Eat this! *cast Wail of the Banshee, Fighter keels over dead*
Wizard: What the- Oh ****! Project Image!

Hard to tell if it's a Project Image rather than just a normal illusion since both look (falsely) like the caster, and both are actually not there (what true seeing would show)

herbe
2010-04-11, 03:28 PM
The Project Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/projectimage.htm):

The projected image canít cast any spells on itself except for illusion spells. And Wail of Banshee is Necromacy.

erikun
2010-04-11, 04:16 PM
That reminds me: hidden with Invisibility. Most casters who have True Seeing have poor spot checks, while most characters with good spot checks won't be able to make up the extra +20 granted to invisible hiding characters. (assuming you have decent hide ranks) Simply cast a 2nd level spell and hide behind a bush, then summon away.

krossbow
2010-04-11, 05:29 PM
Example of True Seeing causing problems.

The party is fighting some sort of giant blob of flesh, some sort of ooze apparantly.
They get the overwhelming feeling that something is wrong and decide to use True Seeing to view the creatures true shape.

DM: What you see is so horrible it cannot be described, roll a Will save, DC 250

Player: ...But my Will save bonus is only +35!

DM: Sucks for you then...you die and your soul is ripped out and destroyed by the sight of the creatures true form.

Other players: ...:smalleek:...DON'T USE TRUE SEEING! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T!


They would have won if they didn't lose one of their party members like that.
Seriously, had they only refrained from seeing the things true form they would have had an easy victory.



This is when your players just walk out on you. thats just being a douche because you can.

Jack_Simth
2010-04-11, 06:20 PM
The Project Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/projectimage.htm):
And Wail of Banshee is Necromacy.

You don't generally target yourself with Wail of the Banshee. You target everyone else.

shadow_archmagi
2010-04-11, 06:24 PM
This is when your players just walk out on you. thats just being a douche because you can.

He said he gave them fair warning and lots of hints.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-11, 06:27 PM
Yeah...if we are getting the whole story here, and not being filtered somehow (say, if the 'its true form is death' was in some obscure riddle and not outright stated), then this isn't a DM douche maneuver, this is a player character who just earned an in-game Darwin award.

Optimystik
2010-04-11, 06:53 PM
If he had, it's be a bit late for the party to get true seeing up in that case.

Not really. Party cleric can make his save vs. fear, toss up True Seeing and give everyone else a new save.

Fiery Diamond
2010-04-11, 07:05 PM
"You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are." means that they do not see things that are false.

See, this is where opinion stops mattering because you are, in fact, completely and utterly wrong from a factual standpoint. The sentence I have quoted is a falsehood. It is wrong.

The ability to see the truth != The inability to see the lies.

You seem to think that it is only possible to see one thing at a time. This is not so. You can, in fact, see both truth and falsehood. Because you can, in fact, see more than one thing at a time.

Mundane example not related to the spells:

Player: I enter into the room and look straight ahead. What do I see?
DM: *consults notes* You see a large black dragon standing 50 feet away from you, its tail dangling into a 20 foot diameter pool behind it.

Does this mean that the player can't see the floor of the room at any point? Of course not! The DM would have specified that he couldn't see the floor if that were the case. Similarly, the books would have specified that you couldn't see the illusion if that were the case.

Fineous Orlon
2010-04-11, 08:42 PM
Nope, that's pretty much it. It's not supposed to be OP/gamebreaking/fight-winning, just amusing. For example, it's trivial to just pump AoE spells into the boundaries of the cloud. If you can see it and not the wizard, that means he's in the cloud, which is the same size as a Fireball spell.

How can you pump AoEs into the cloud if you only have line of sight and effect to the edge of the cloud, and the fireball is the same size as the cloud? Wouldn't that mean your fireball only gets about half the cloud?

NEO|Phyte
2010-04-11, 08:43 PM
How can you pump AoEs into the cloud if you only have line of sight and effect to the edge of the cloud, and the fireball is the same size as the cloud? Wouldn't that mean your fireball only gets about half the cloud?

Fog doesn't block line of effect.

Yukitsu
2010-04-11, 08:46 PM
See, this is where opinion stops mattering because you are, in fact, completely and utterly wrong from a factual standpoint. The sentence I have quoted is a falsehood. It is wrong.

The ability to see the truth != The inability to see the lies.

You seem to think that it is only possible to see one thing at a time. This is not so. You can, in fact, see both truth and falsehood. Because you can, in fact, see more than one thing at a time.

Mundane example not related to the spells:

Player: I enter into the room and look straight ahead. What do I see?
DM: *consults notes* You see a large black dragon standing 50 feet away from you, its tail dangling into a 20 foot diameter pool behind it.

Does this mean that the player can't see the floor of the room at any point? Of course not! The DM would have specified that he couldn't see the floor if that were the case. Similarly, the books would have specified that you couldn't see the illusion if that were the case.

You're confusing the issue by talking about things that are not geographically taking up the exact same space, or the same line of vision. So in other words, that's a bit of a strawman.

If there is a dragon illusion in front of a wall, with true seeing you see a wall. Do you see a wall partly obscured by a fuzzy dragon illusion? No, because you see the wall exactly as though it were not obscured by a falsehood.

Fineous Orlon
2010-04-11, 08:53 PM
Fog doesn't block line of effect.

True.


Nope, that's pretty much it. It's not supposed to be OP/gamebreaking/fight-winning, just amusing. For example, it's trivial to just pump AoE spells into the boundaries of the cloud. If you can see it and not the wizard, that means he's in the cloud, which is the same size as a Fireball spell.

Revised:

How can you pump AoEs into the cloud if you only have line of sight to the edge of the cloud, and the fireball is the same size as the cloud? Wouldn't that mean your fireball only gets about half the cloud?

Milskidasith
2010-04-11, 08:54 PM
True.

Revised:

How can you pump AoEs into the cloud if you only have line of sight to the edge of the cloud, and the fireball is the same size as the cloud? Wouldn't that mean your fireball only gets about half the cloud?

You don't have to have line of sight to fire into something. You just cast into the center of the cloud, or thereabouts.

Fineous Orlon
2010-04-11, 08:56 PM
You don't have to have line of sight to fire into something. You just cast into the center of the cloud, or thereabouts.

Intriguing. Rule source?

I am looking, too.

Fineous Orlon
2010-04-11, 09:09 PM
Intriguing. Rule source?

I am looking, too.

Got it, PH, 175, Aiming a Spell, Effect, "designate location..., either by seeing it or defining it."

I'd played that way for awhile, but had come to decide it was not correct.

Good to know.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-11, 09:13 PM
Precisely - in this case, you'd define the detonation point as "20 feet in from the edge of the cloud", since as a caster capable of throwing Fireball, you can make the Spellcraft check to ID Fog Cloud and know how big it is. If it's a Widened Fog Cloud, it's not a guaranteed hit, but you can see that it's Widened by looking at it.

Fiery Diamond
2010-04-11, 09:24 PM
You're confusing the issue by talking about things that are not geographically taking up the exact same space, or the same line of vision. So in other words, that's a bit of a strawman.

If there is a dragon illusion in front of a wall, with true seeing you see a wall. Do you see a wall partly obscured by a fuzzy dragon illusion? No, because you see the wall exactly as though it were not obscured by a falsehood.

So let me see if I understand what you mean. Are you saying that, because we have only one pair of eyes and our brain pieces it together as a single image, it is impossible to both see something (Item A, we'll call it) and see an object that obscures Item A from view (Item B, we'll call it)? Do I have that right?

Because that's actually not true either. If you place something (Item B) to block your line of sight from only one eye to Item A and look at Item A, you can see both Item A and Item B simultaneously. Sure, you can switch primary focus to one eye or the other, but you can still focus such that you see both items at the same. Similarly, True Seeing gives you the magical ability to do the same with Truth (Item A) and Falsehood (Item B). Why do I say this? Because we have this situation, rules-wise:

Normal:
Person can see Item B (tranformed shape, illusion, what have you) and this obscures Item B (normal shape, what actually is there, etc.).

Person with True Seeing:
Person can see Item A.

Nowhere does it say you cannot see, or stop seeing, Item B. Therefore, since it is possible to see both (as I have shown, plus it is MAGIC anyway, so my evidence of its possibility shouldn't have been needed), you do see both.

Yukitsu
2010-04-11, 09:30 PM
So let me see if I understand what you mean. Are you saying that, because we have only one pair of eyes and our brain pieces it together as a single image, it is impossible to both see something (Item A, we'll call it) and see an object that obscures Item A from view (Item B, we'll call it)? Do I have that right?

Because that's actually not true either. If you place something (Item B) to block your line of sight from only one eye to Item A and look at Item A, you can see both Item A and Item B simultaneously. Sure, you can switch primary focus to one eye or the other, but you can still focus such that you see both items at the same. Similarly, True Seeing gives you the magical ability to do the same with Truth (Item A) and Falsehood (Item B). Why do I say this? Because we have this situation, rules-wise:

Trying to talk about a rather odd scenario of binocular vision is rather avoiding the statement that you can't see two things which are taking the same geographic point, which is true even if you seperate binocular vision. Partly due to the impossibility of two seperate things being in the same point, and partly because even if there were, you'd see one of them, not both.


Normal:
Person can see Item B (tranformed shape, illusion, what have you) and this obscures Item B (normal shape, what actually is there, etc.).

Person with True Seeing:
Person can see Item A.

Nowhere does it say you cannot see, or stop seeing, Item B. Therefore, since it is possible to see both (as I have shown, plus it is MAGIC anyway, so my evidence of its possibility shouldn't have been needed), you do see both.

So your argument is in essence, "It doesn't say I can't so nyah nyah." Well that's not the argument that I've been referencing, I state that "you see the world as it truly is" must be by omission of any falsehood. Why? Because if you saw anything else in addition, you are no longer seeing the world as it truly is.

Evard
2010-04-11, 09:48 PM
Indeed, DM fiat and **** moves are the best ways to make players feel sorry for playing with you... That spell, I mean...

Player: "I cast Light"

DM: "Oh, that's too bad. The whole place was soaked in gasoline. Roll a Reflex Save. DC e^2531.

Player: "But... Light is a heatless spell!"

DM: "Tough. I don't like the spell!"

Well I know my players love DM fiat when its funny or fricken awesome :D and so do I haha (keeping the fun alive is most important after all :p)

Jack_Simth
2010-04-11, 10:01 PM
Nope, that's pretty much it. It's not supposed to be OP/gamebreaking/fight-winning, just amusing. For example, it's trivial to just pump AoE spells into the boundaries of the cloud. If you can see it and not the wizard, that means he's in the cloud, which is the same size as a Fireball spell.

Unless he teleported behind cover elsewhere... in which case, you're wasting spells. Especially fun if he uses Project Image to keep spells coming from within said cloud.

Fiery Diamond
2010-04-11, 10:48 PM
Trying to talk about a rather odd scenario of binocular vision is rather avoiding the statement that you can't see two things which are taking the same geographic point, which is true even if you seperate binocular vision. Partly due to the impossibility of two seperate things being in the same point, and partly because even if there were, you'd see one of them, not both.

Well, it does address the issue of line of sight, which you mentioned in addition to identical geographical location above. So it does address the issue of the dragon illusion in front of the wall. So no, it isn't avoiding anything.

Also, you might want to consider what you mean by identical location. Would you, for example, consider me, as a human, to occupy a space? Or would you instead say "your skin occupies these spaces, your bones occupy those spaces, your muscles occupy these other spaces, etc."? If you would claim the first, might I point you to these things we call X-rays as an example of seeing two things that occupy the same space. If you would claim the second, what makes you think that the illusion occupies the same space as the actual thing? Because I'm pretty sure the rules treat space as the former of those two.

Or do you mean, instead, "Well, it occupies the same space as the air, so now you can see the air unobstructed by falsehood, even though you can't actually see air."? If that is how you view things, I really don't know what to say to you. Let's not worry about this and focus on the actual rules, shall we?


So your argument is in essence, "It doesn't say I can't so nyah nyah." Well that's not the argument that I've been referencing, I state that "you see the world as it truly is" must be by omission of any falsehood. Why? Because if you saw anything else in addition, you are no longer seeing the world as it truly is.

Actually, the "It doesn't say I can't so nyah nyah," as you put it, has absolutely nothing to do with game rules. It has to do with something we call logic. You might be familiar with it...

Premises
1) Condition A and B are not mutually exclusive (this is what I've been establishing but you seem to be in denial about.)
2) Condition A is true. ((In our gaming example, this is "you can see the illusion"))
3) Condition B is true. ((In our gaming example, this is "you can see the truth"))
Conclusion
1) Therefore, Condition A and B are true.


So now that we've done all this, let's look at the exact wording of the spell description, as well as precedent, such as see invisibility.


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

This statement tells us nothing, mechanically. It is purely descriptive; what some people call "fluff." This "fluff" could be interpreted in any number of ways; without further information supplied in the spell description, this might mean you can now see atoms, protons, electrons, etc., since that is how things "actually are." Or if the world is really made up of collections of mystic energy (your DM might have made the word thus when he created it) you might see those energy collections, since that is how things "actually are." Or perhaps this spell lets you see the souls that inhabit bodies, since that is how things "actually are."

Or perhaps this might mean that you "see all things", such as walls, stones, people, animals, illusions of walls, illusions of stones, illusions of people, illusions of animals, "as they actually are." So now you see that that wall is really a wall, but that that illusion of a dragon is really an illusion of a dragon.


The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. Further, the subject can focus its vision to see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extradimensional spaces). The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet.

Whoa! What do you know! The spell description actually contains more than one sentence! Let's see what the mechanics of this spell entail, since this section actually discusses them, unlike the first sentence.

"The subject sees through normal and magical darkness"
Hm, that's interesting. Already we have some debate due to poor wording. Can I see objects in darkness? Or can I just see objects illuminated outside of the area of darkness even though the darkness is "in the way" as long as it is in Line of Sight? You can already do the latter with normal darkness, and only some non-core effects (such as Blacklight) specifically make it impossible to do with magic darkness (Blacklight darkness specifies that it is "impenetrable") as far as I've discovered. Not to mention the phrase "see through" is used when talking about characters within environmental darkness in reference to being able to see in the dark. Since the spell under discussion is core...either this means you can see objects in darkness or this sentence has absolutely no point.

"...notices secret doors hidden by magic"
Seems pretty self-explanatory.

"sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects"
Well, that's pretty handy. We can see the exact locations of those critters! Pretty spiff! Nothing says we aren't aware they are under the effect of those spells; nothing says that we "see the creatures without any form of obstruction or additional visual information whatsoever." No, this states we can see their exact locations.

"sees invisible creatures or objects normally"
Helpful, yep. Here you might have a valid argument for not knowing that they are invisible, since it says you "see [them] normally," and I would guess that it is fairly common to assume that "normally" means "how they would appear if they were not invisible." But wait! Precedent Time!


You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are ethereal, as if they were normally visible. Such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures.

Apparently, "normally" in this case somehow means "visible as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal." Following precedent, this is what we apply to the True Seeing spell.

"sees through illusions"
This seems to where we're having our little debate, I think. What does this sentence mean? Well, first I would approach it from a common sense standpoint. Usually, when we use the phrase "to see through" we are talking about being aware of a deception and the truth that is being concealed by it. Extending that to this case, I'd say that we are visually "aware" of the illusion and are also visually "aware" of the truth concealed by the illusion. Whether this is physically impossible or not (as I think it is, and you think it is not, apparently) is really rather irrelevant; this is magic - it does a lot of physically impossible things. Also, note the precedent for see invisibility and seeing invisible things. The same principle should apply (though exactly in what manner it applies is up to the DM, I suppose, as it isn't specified).

"and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things"
We see the true form! Yay! Nothing, however, states that this form is unobstructed by anything; there is simply no mechanical drawback specified. Besides, as long as we're seeing things as they actually are, the physical presence of that Hydra-wizard is pretty darn actual and those teeth wounds it can make are actual too. Why would you suddenly be unable to see something that is actually there because you are seeing what that something's "true form" is?

"Further, the subject can focus its vision to see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extradimensional spaces)."
Nice additional benefit. It could be reasonable to say that you're shifting your focus away from other things, except for that pesky part where this would be weaker than see invisibility (in one way) by violating precedent in a way that makes it less powerful. As a general rule, the spells don't do that. When they do, it is pretty unambiguously stated.

"The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet."
And we know what the range is, now.


And now for what True Seeing does NOT do.

True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects. It in no way confers X-ray vision or its equivalent. It does not negate concealment, including that caused by fog and the like. True seeing does not help the viewer see through mundane disguises, spot creatures who are simply hiding, or notice secret doors hidden by mundane means. In addition, the spell effects cannot be further enhanced with known magic, so one cannot use true seeing through a crystal ball or in conjunction with clairaudience/clairvoyance.

"True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects. It in no way confers X-ray vision or its equivalent."
Okay. Makes sense, I suppose.

"It does not negate concealment, including that caused by fog and the like."
Okay, I guess...but wait. What about caused by darkness? *scratches head* Is that a specifically called out exception above, perhaps? I'll leave that to others to argue.

"True seeing does not help the viewer see through mundane disguises, spot creatures who are simply hiding, or notice secret doors hidden by mundane means."
Okay, that's pretty simple.

"In addition, the spell effects cannot be further enhanced with known magic, so one cannot use true seeing through a crystal ball or in conjunction with clairaudience/clairvoyance."
To prevent cheese and keep the spell from being used at a larger range than that 120 feet. It would be too powerful a spell, otherwise.


Apologies for the Wall of Text.

Lunawarrior0
2010-04-11, 11:02 PM
Fiery Diamond, I think this is basically your argument, but much more concise: The phrase "see things as they really are" is interpreted as "seeing things with all of the relevant magical information." While Yukitsu is interpreting the statement more along the lines of "You see no illusions"

If Fiery Diamond has a correct interpretation of the rules than you would know if something is hidden magically, and you would even see the illusionary dragon, but you would know it is an illusion.

If Yukitsu has a correct interpretation of the rules than you you would see the thing that is magiclly hidden and know nothing about the magic, and you would not see the illusionary dragon.

Now we just need to decide which interpretation is correct.

edit: My vote is with Fiery Diamond.

wish I got this in before the wall of text, might have saved you a lot of trouble.

Optimystik
2010-04-11, 11:10 PM
I'm in favor of "You see both the reality and the illusion." Though I can see how DMs might have fun with the other interpretation, it's bound to be difficult to pull off that way in play. It's easy to pass a note to the True Seeing player to reveal the illusion's nature to him, but not so easy to ask him to cover his ears while you describe the fake to everyone else.

Lysander
2010-04-11, 11:23 PM
In addition to Fiery Diamond's excellent points there's the first line:


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

Since there actually is an illusion you therefore can see the illusion, and can tell that it is an illusion. A view of the world that excludes visible illusions would not show things as they actually are: a falsehood attempting to mask a truth.

Lost Wanderer
2010-04-12, 12:10 AM
Through injection of sanity.
Thank you! I was going to reply further about the ridiculous (to the point of irrational) semantic quibbling, but you've done it already.



Since there actually is an illusion you therefore can see the illusion, and can tell that it is an illusion. A view of the world that excludes visible illusions would not show things as they actually are: a falsehood attempting to mask a truth.
This, also.

Yukitsu
2010-04-12, 12:23 AM
il∑lu∑sion (-lzhn)
n.
1.
a. An erroneous perception of reality.
b. An erroneous concept or belief.
2. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
3. Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an erroneous belief or perception.
4. Illusionism in art.
5. A fine transparent cloth, used for dresses or trimmings.

So no, the illusion isn't a "truth" that is there, and can thus be seen. The illusion itself is a falsehood, that's simply the sort of things they are.


Well, it does address the issue of line of sight, which you mentioned in addition to identical geographical location above. So it does address the issue of the dragon illusion in front of the wall. So no, it isn't avoiding anything.

Not at all by intent. Even with binocular vision, that something can obscure both eyes and fall into the same category with your interpretation needs to be adressed.


Also, you might want to consider what you mean by identical location. Would you, for example, consider me, as a human, to occupy a space? Or would you instead say "your skin occupies these spaces, your bones occupy those spaces, your muscles occupy these other spaces, etc."? If you would claim the first, might I point you to these things we call X-rays as an example of seeing two things that occupy the same space. If you would claim the second, what makes you think that the illusion occupies the same space as the actual thing? Because I'm pretty sure the rules treat space as the former of those two.

Assuming either would be correct. An individual as a classified whole does not mean you can't classify if by parts as well.

Also, you're misusing the term "see". You don't "see" the bones when you take an X-ray. You see a photograph of those bones. Seeing is the process of light hitting your retina reflected from the object being seen. I suggest you take a course on vision.


Or do you mean, instead, "Well, it occupies the same space as the air, so now you can see the air unobstructed by falsehood, even though you can't actually see air."? If that is how you view things, I really don't know what to say to you. Let's not worry about this and focus on the actual rules, shall we?

Doesn't really matter what it's superimposed over top of, or blocking LOS to. The fact is, the ruling has to be consistent, and an illusion on air has to be ruled in the same manner as an illusion over a person, or a wall, or a spike.


Actually, the "It doesn't say I can't so nyah nyah," as you put it, has absolutely nothing to do with game rules. It has to do with something we call logic. You might be familiar with it...

Premises
1) Condition A and B are not mutually exclusive (this is what I've been establishing but you seem to be in denial about.)

That's because it's false. In any event that you see a falsehood, a portion of the truth is being blocked. As by necessity you see truth, it must necessarily be true that you can't see the falsehood.

Unless you would like to photoshop me a picture of something with another something superimposed over the latter that is not identical such that the latter can be seen flawlessly. Vision simply doesn't allow the detection of multiple differing things in an identical place at once.


2) Condition A is true. ((In our gaming example, this is "you can see the illusion"))

Again, by necessity this must be false if you are to see the truth behind the falsehood. If it had said percieve, this would not be an issue.


So now that we've done all this, let's look at the exact wording of the spell description, as well as precedent, such as see invisibility.

See invisibility explicitly has a different set of text dealing with such an interaction. Since true seeing does not, you should not take it to mean that it does. Especially since they effectively mention it when necessary.


This statement tells us nothing, mechanically. It is purely descriptive; what some people call "fluff." This "fluff" could be interpreted in any number of ways; without further information supplied in the spell description, this might mean you can now see atoms, protons, electrons, etc., since that is how things "actually are." Or if the world is really made up of collections of mystic energy (your DM might have made the word thus when he created it) you might see those energy collections, since that is how things "actually are." Or perhaps this spell lets you see the souls that inhabit bodies, since that is how things "actually are."

A table, seen as a table made of atoms, electrons and protons etc. still appears in truth as a table. The individual component parts aren't somehow more "true" than the whole. What does a chair like clump of atoms and protons look like in truth? Why, a chair of course.


Or perhaps this might mean that you "see all things", such as walls, stones, people, animals, illusions of walls, illusions of stones, illusions of people, illusions of animals, "as they actually are." So now you see that that wall is really a wall, but that that illusion of a dragon is really an illusion of a dragon.

That's like saying when told only to tell truths, that you can tell a lie, so long as it's a true lie.

Ignoring your precedent example, because true seeing clearly doesn't have the additional text that allows you to percieve that additional information.


"sees through illusions"
This seems to where we're having our little debate, I think. What does this sentence mean? Well, first I would approach it from a common sense standpoint. Usually, when we use the phrase "to see through" we are talking about being aware of a deception and the truth that is being concealed by it. Extending that to this case, I'd say that we are visually "aware" of the illusion and are also visually "aware" of the truth concealed by the illusion. Whether this is physically impossible or not (as I think it is, and you think it is not, apparently) is really rather irrelevant; this is magic - it does a lot of physically impossible things. Also, note the precedent for see invisibility and seeing invisible things. The same principle should apply (though exactly in what manner it applies is up to the DM, I suppose, as it isn't specified).

I take "sees through" to literally mean you see through it. Not as a metaphorical "See through your lies" which is not actually seeing at all.

You take "See through an illusion" to mean "Can percieve that it is a falsehood." but to see something and to percieve it is something vastly different, even if one is needed for the other.

I take "see through an illusion" to mean no photons are connecting with the retina that would get in the way of detecting the presence of objects which are in truth present.

Which is technically correct? Mine is. I'm talking about seeing, and you are talking about percieving, which the spell doesn't really explicitly alter. Does wizards use the terms all that accurately? Not really. However, I see no reason to assume that something they haven't actually written is correct simply because what they have written relies on obscure visual distinctions.

herbe
2010-04-12, 12:53 AM
You don't generally target yourself with Wail of the Banshee. You target everyone else.
The projected image canít cast any spells on itself except for illusion spells but wail of banshee is necromancy.

Beorn080
2010-04-12, 12:55 AM
Re:x-rays

X-rays only "see" bone and dense matter, or rather those are the only things that prevent them from going through your squishy body. If you saw via X-rays, you wouldn't see flesh, just bone. So if True Seeing = Magical X-rays, then you only see that which reflects/stops magical x-rays, namely non illusionary objects.

2xMachina
2010-04-12, 04:33 AM
The projected image canít cast any spells on itself except for illusion spells but wail of banshee is necromancy.

It is not casting spells on itself. It is casting on someone else. Thus, the restriction does not apply.

EDIT: Also, I prefer to edit/research the spell so that it only works on 1 eye at a time.

So, I see both the real and illusion no matter how it works.

Ogremindes
2010-04-12, 05:00 AM
I have to agree with the interpretation that true seeing means you cannot see the falsehoods. 'cause otherwise there's no reason to not have it on as much as possible, and that's just not interesting.

shadow_archmagi
2010-04-12, 05:13 AM
"Luke! Luke!"
"Oh god, voices!"
"No, I'm right here"
"What?"
"Turn off your true seeing I'm a spooky vision with an important message"
"oh there we go"

Runestar
2010-04-12, 05:26 AM
The projected image canít cast any spells on itself except for illusion spells but wail of banshee is necromancy.

It isn't casting any spells on itself, it is casting wail of the banshee through the projected image, which works. :smallsmile:

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-04-12, 05:45 AM
The dictionary is not RAW, so don't use that definition of Illusion. The argument isn't simply "Oxford Dictionary says Illusion is a falsehood, True Seeing only sees true things, therefore a true seer doesn't see illusions."

From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm):


Illusion

Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened.
Figment

A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.) Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the image produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like.

Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly.This section isn't exactly cut-and-dry, but it is a much better source than the dictionary.

The first thing we note is that "Figments and glamers [...] are unreal." It then goes on to define what an 'unreal' effect can and cannot do. We also see, however, that "A figment spell creates a false sensation." If it were merely a false sensation, then it wouldn't actually create a false sensation, and we would have a paradox. It is an effect which creates a false sensation. Therefore, when you see things the way they actually are, you can see what the effect hides or distorts, but the effect does not simply vanish.

The question is whether or not one can then see "the effect" as it truly is, or if the only thing "visible" about the effect is the false perception the true seer avoids. IMO this is not clear by RAW and would require an individual judgment; personally I would rule that the true seer cannot see the illusion, because that makes the most sense to me. In the case of true seeing a shape-shifter (which I conjecture has a similar argument which leads to a similar conclusion), he might only see the true form, but he would likely hear, smell, and even feel the presence of the shape-shifted form, so he'd at least know something was up.

Amiel
2010-04-12, 07:28 AM
What is seen cannot be unseen.

Lunawarrior0
2010-04-12, 07:29 AM
I have to agree with the interpretation that true seeing means you cannot see the falsehoods. 'cause otherwise there's no reason to not have it on as much as possible, and that's just not interesting.

well, it does only last 1 min/lvl and costs 250gp per casting. While that isn't a ton at higher levels, it is a reason to not have it up.

I say that you see the illusions because it is true that the illusion is there, but it is also true that there is nothing there.

unre9istered
2010-04-12, 07:51 AM
I have to agree with the interpretation that true seeing means you cannot see the falsehoods. 'cause otherwise there's no reason to not have it on as much as possible, and that's just not interesting.

I'm pretty sure the descriptions of most of the creatures that are able to have True seeing up all the time (demons and the like) say that they usually do, as they have no reason not to. Normal casters don't usually have that option.

Beorn080
2010-04-12, 11:52 AM
I have a Query. There appears to be a problem with Illusions as they are writ. Illusions, lets use a basic Silent Image just to avoid ambiguities, can block light. If it didn't block light, it would be see through and thus automatically disbelieved. If they don't block light, they are effectively a mind effecting spell, generating the object in the viewers mind, and the definition for figment says that they aren't in the subjects mind.

The query is this. If an illusion blocks light, how would True Seeing let you see the other side? Even if you know its unreal, it still blocks the light. I know the rules say that disbelieving a figment leaves an outline, but in this instance, you aren't disbelieving it, merely not seeing it.

Yukitsu
2010-04-12, 12:02 PM
The question is whether or not one can then see "the effect" as it truly is, or if the only thing "visible" about the effect is the false perception the true seer avoids. IMO this is not clear by RAW and would require an individual judgment; personally I would rule that the true seer cannot see the illusion, because that makes the most sense to me. In the case of true seeing a shape-shifter (which I conjecture has a similar argument which leads to a similar conclusion), he might only see the true form, but he would likely hear, smell, and even feel the presence of the shape-shifted form, so he'd at least know something was up.

Yes, that interpretation makes sense.

Taelas
2010-04-12, 12:26 PM
I have a Query. There appears to be a problem with Illusions as they are writ. Illusions, lets use a basic Silent Image just to avoid ambiguities, can block light. If it didn't block light, it would be see through and thus automatically disbelieved. If they don't block light, they are effectively a mind effecting spell, generating the object in the viewers mind, and the definition for figment says that they aren't in the subjects mind.

The query is this. If an illusion blocks light, how would True Seeing let you see the other side? Even if you know its unreal, it still blocks the light. I know the rules say that disbelieving a figment leaves an outline, but in this instance, you aren't disbelieving it, merely not seeing it.
Obviously the light passes through the illusion for the person who cast True Seeing.

If you think about the shadow the illusion creates by blocking light as simply another part of the illusion, this makes perfect sense.

Sliver
2010-04-12, 12:46 PM
The query is this. If an illusion blocks light, how would True Seeing let you see the other side? Even if you know its unreal, it still blocks the light. I know the rules say that disbelieving a figment leaves an outline, but in this instance, you aren't disbelieving it, merely not seeing it.

Now think about seeing through a dragon which is actually a polymorphed wizard.

krossbow
2010-04-12, 01:13 PM
Alot of the arguments against True seeing tends to come down to not wanting it to be good because then PC's would abuse it or try to have it up as much as possible.


news flash: Useful spells are useful. Trying to interpret flaws to them is just meanspirited. Should we start trying to come up with ways to screw people using mage armor since they have it up so much? or how about the alarm spell, that makes it too hard to ambush PCs.

Fiery Diamond
2010-04-12, 01:50 PM
Alot of the arguments against True seeing tends to come down to not wanting it to be good because then PC's would abuse it or try to have it up as much as possible.


news flash: Useful spells are useful. Trying to interpret flaws to them is just meanspirited. Should we start trying to come up with ways to screw people using mage armor since they have it up so much? or how about the alarm spell, that makes it too hard to ambush PCs.

Exactly. Thank you. Also, thank you to the other people who said that what I said was right.


Also, if you want to talk about "seeing" versus "perceiving," I'd like to ask what you think happens with Arcane Sight and True Seeing on the same person. Do you think that they can't both be in effect at the same time or something? I mean, Arcane Sight talks about seeing auras and such. But if you could see those, surely they must obscure the actual objects there, by your reasoning, Yukitsu. But then True Seeing would make it so that they weren't obscured. Or something like that. Which is, of course, ridiculous.

And if you want to say "the auras aren't falsehoods" then they must be truth. How things actually are. Which would mean True Seeing by itself should see them, by your bizarre reasoning. But it doesn't.

You seem to have two hangups, really, as far as I can tell.

1) If it would be physically impossible, the spell cannot make it possible.
-NEWS FLASH- It's magic; therefore that statement is not true. Spells do a lot of physically impossible things.
2) Seeing truth means seeing only truth.
-NEWS FLASH- That is a false statement. No matter what you argue, this does not change. It is only an extremely mean spirited and completely baseless interpretation that gives that conclusion.

Lysander
2010-04-12, 02:10 PM
I'm pretty sure the descriptions of most of the creatures that are able to have True seeing up all the time (demons and the like) say that they usually do, as they have no reason not to. Normal casters don't usually have that option.

Exactly. The reason casters don't have true seeing on all day is that each casting only lasts up to 1 minute/level, and there are lots of other important things to use high level spell slots for. A spellcaster can't afford to randomly cast spells on a whim. It's like asking why spellcasters bother to walk anywhere once they learn dimension door. True Seeing is hardly overpowered and has no need of being nerfed. To use it you must have reason to suspect magical trickery. If you're already on guard against illusions True Seeing mainly saves you the effort of poking everything with a stick to make sure its actually there.

Lost Wanderer
2010-04-12, 03:18 PM
I have a Query. There appears to be a problem with Illusions as they are writ. Illusions, lets use a basic Silent Image just to avoid ambiguities, can block light. If it didn't block light, it would be see through and thus automatically disbelieved. If they don't block light, they are effectively a mind effecting spell, generating the object in the viewers mind, and the definition for figment says that they aren't in the subjects mind.

The query is this. If an illusion blocks light, how would True Seeing let you see the other side? Even if you know its unreal, it still blocks the light. I know the rules say that disbelieving a figment leaves an outline, but in this instance, you aren't disbelieving it, merely not seeing it.

We are talking about a 6th level divination here. At a certain point, you can say "I know because the magic tells me." Call it an extra sense: on top of your normal senses, when True Seeing is up, you have a "know what is on the other side of illusions" sense. Different characters could interpret it in different ways. No need define it in terms of sight, either. "That dragon is an illusion, and there's a gnome hiding behind it, I can taste him!" Or whatever.

Lysander
2010-04-12, 03:26 PM
Also, I don't think illusions block light. They fool your senses into not seeing the light.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-12, 03:36 PM
Polymorph does though, and true seeing sees through that.

So, let's say I have a roof to a house. I used a stick to PaO it into that roof.

Let's say I walk across the roof in a kilt.

Does the person in the house with true seeing get a show?

Yukitsu
2010-04-12, 03:38 PM
Also, if you want to talk about "seeing" versus "perceiving," I'd like to ask what you think happens with Arcane Sight and True Seeing on the same person. Do you think that they can't both be in effect at the same time or something? I mean, Arcane Sight talks about seeing auras and such. But if you could see those, surely they must obscure the actual objects there, by your reasoning, Yukitsu. But then True Seeing would make it so that they weren't obscured. Or something like that. Which is, of course, ridiculous.

I don't think you actually understand the mechanics that you're referencing. An aura in D&D is an actual thing, it's not a falsehood of any sort. True seeing doesn't let you see through one real object into another. In fact, it explicitly states it can't. When you cast arcane sight, you add the ability to detect a real and tangible effect that would otherwise be invisible to you, much like how ultraviolet light is invisible to us normally. Just because we can't detect it doesn't mean that it's not there, not real, and couldn't, if we could percieve it, get in the way of our seeing something beneath it.


And if you want to say "the auras aren't falsehoods" then they must be truth. How things actually are. Which would mean True Seeing by itself should see them, by your bizarre reasoning. But it doesn't.

Just because we can see things as they really are doesn't mean we can detect things that, in truth, are beyond our faculty of sensation.

You seem to have two hangups, really, as far as I can tell.


1) If it would be physically impossible, the spell cannot make it possible.
-NEWS FLASH- It's magic; therefore that statement is not true. Spells do a lot of physically impossible things.

I don't think I've ever said that. I'm saying the mechanism by which you assume it does so is absurd for that purpose. True seeing in and of itself is a physical impossibility due to that odd seeing in darkness part. However, what you and others describe it as doing (percieving both things despite perfect geographic overlap without any loss of detail on the true stimulous) doesn't make any cognitive sense, even with the abilities granted by the spell.


2) Seeing truth means seeing only truth.
-NEWS FLASH- That is a false statement. No matter what you argue, this does not change. It is only an extremely mean spirited and completely baseless interpretation that gives that conclusion.

And here we've just got a very rude "you're wrong" no explanation given. Sure.

Lost Wanderer
2010-04-12, 03:42 PM
Polymorph does though, and true seeing sees through that.

So, let's say I have a roof to a house. I used a stick to PaO it into that roof.

Let's say I walk across the roof in a kilt.

Does the person in the house with true seeing get a show?

Again, you're extrapolating the phrase "see through" to irrational lengths. By the mechanical rules (which don't say anything about literally seeing through anything, the whole idea of invisible/illusory things being translucent or transparent comes from See Invisibility), you simply know if something is an illusion and you know a transformed thing's true form. It doesn't say anything about seeing that true form. "That troll is actually an elf!" or "That roof is actually a stick!". You still see a troll or roof, you just know, magically, that magic put it in that form and the form it would take if the magic was removed.

EDIT: You could even have the knowledge of what the transformed thing looks like normally and be able to communicate that knowledge, but having the knowledge is not the same as seeing it in front of your face. You didn't get the knowledge though seeing the true form, you got it by magically acquiring it with a 6th level divination spell.

The Random NPC
2010-04-12, 03:43 PM
Would you say we can not see glass? If you do not, there is proof that seeing through something does not preclude seeing the obscuring material.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-12, 03:45 PM
Would you say we can not see glass? If you do not, there is proof that seeing through something does not preclude seeing the obscuring material.

Where is the RAW support that someone under the effect of true seeing sees a less than opaque version of the item that's revealed?

Lysander
2010-04-12, 04:00 PM
Where is the RAW support that someone under the effect of true seeing sees a less than opaque version of the item that's revealed?

I agree that See Invisibility provides a clear precedent. See Invisibility says this:


You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are ethereal, as if they were normally visible.

So by RAW, an invisible creature you can see "normally" is "visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures." True Seeing also says that it lets you see invisible creatures and objects "normally," so it seems reasonable that it would work the same way.

But even if there was a case that by RAW True Seeing doesn't let you perceive the false state of things at all, it seems pretty clear by RAI that you can see both. Wouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that it prevents you from perceiving that there are illusions around you at all, or that something is invisible, or that you can't tell that the person you're repeatedly saying hello to and getting insulted that they aren't responding has been turned into a statue?

taltamir
2010-04-12, 04:06 PM
So, if I'm using True Seeing, I see the true form of a polymorphed creature.

Does that mean that:


Me:(thinking) Ha ha ha, that wizard is so weak. I have nothing to fear from his punch

Wizard: (thinking) Being a super-dragon is totally the best use of polymorph.

Also, do you need to select which square to attack and get miss changes if they have polymorphed into a smaller form?

PC: HAHA! I hit that wizard right in the face! Eath flaming sword!
DM: Well, he is polymorphed into a gnat... so there is a 99.9% chance that no portion of his body was actually where his "face" should have been... roll 3d10 and let me know if you roll all 10s.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-12, 05:00 PM
So by RAW, an invisible creature you can see "normally" is "visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures." True Seeing also says that it lets you see invisible creatures and objects "normally," so it seems reasonable that it would work the same way.So, the explicit text of the spell allows you to see things that aren't there as kinda there. It "fades them in", so to speak.

Note: Seeing invisible creatures "normally" does not mean "I get to see them as if I were under the effects of a different, very specific spell that grants this." I could make a much stronger argument for "Invisibility Purge".

However, if we're using See Invisibility as a precedent?
The spell does not reveal the method used to obtain invisibility. It does not reveal illusions or enable you to see through opaque objects.

So, let's see, let's apply this to true seeing.


You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are. The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effectsIt can discern the location of blur effects. Check.


sees invisible creatures or objects normally,
Normally does not equal "as if you were under a see invisibility spell". It is "as if they were not invisible"... i.e. "normal", in the absence of anything special.

sees through illusions,Check. Here's support for it "fading out" illusions. You can "see through" them. Then again, illusions aren't objects.

and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things.Ok, so you see the true form. Nothing about concealing the old form, or fading it out. And, as the precedent you wanted to use, see invisibility, states that you don't see through opaque objects, what makes you think this would allow you to?

In the former case, the illusion lets you see through it. See invis partially reveals it.

In this case, true seeing FULLY reveals it, showing it to you as if it had no invisibility at all. In addition, it shows you the true form of transmuted objects/creatures. Doesn't say anything about fading out the creature/object that is actually there.

And, in addition, it allows you to see through illusions. That it leaves that text out of the other things is a pretty good indication that RAI is that you DON'T.

Teddy
2010-04-12, 05:04 PM
I agree that See Invisibility provides a clear precedent. See Invisibility says this:


You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are ethereal, as if they were normally visible.

So by RAW, an invisible creature you can see "normally" is "visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures." True Seeing also says that it lets you see invisible creatures and objects "normally," so it seems reasonable that it would work the same way.

But even if there was a case that by RAW True Seeing doesn't let you perceive the false state of things at all, it seems pretty clear by RAI that you can see both. Wouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that it prevents you from perceiving that there are illusions around you at all, or that something is invisible, or that you can't tell that the person you're repeatedly saying hello to and getting insulted that they aren't responding has been turned into a statue?

I think that "normally visible" in this case indicates something that can be seen without use of any external aid (such as a magic blindfold or a gem of seeing, or an IR camera for an IRL example), i.e. as everything else you see with your own eyes, which both can be something opaque and something transparent. The See Invisibility spell shows the revealed creatures and objects as translucent shapes, which thus heavily favours this explanation for the True Seeing spell too.

As for the wording of the True Seeing spell description, well, I can't find anything that states that you can't see the illusions as well, only that you see through them, which is the case for a glass window too, or translucent shapes for that matter. In fact, while the effect of an Illusion (figment) spell creates the sensation of something that isn't real, the spell is still real in itself, so the subject of the True Seeing spell should see it for what it is, i.e. an Illusion spell, and thus be able to see it. Since the spell description states that you see through illusions, which excludes opacity, and that the reality of the Illusion spell itself still should make it visible acording to the wording of the same spell description, which excludes invisibility, leave us with just transparency to explain how the illusion is seen.

taltamir
2010-04-12, 06:05 PM
you could interpret it as "you magically see both, at the same time, not superimposed... you just see both and know which is which".
The magic makes your mind capable of interpreting it correctly.

trmptfnfr
2010-04-12, 06:36 PM
Invisible exploding runes, symbol of X, and so on?
Would that work?

Yukitsu
2010-04-12, 06:38 PM
you could interpret it as "you magically see both, at the same time, not superimposed... you just see both and know which is which".
The magic makes your mind capable of interpreting it correctly.

That's a bit of a stretch though.

taltamir
2010-04-12, 07:09 PM
That's a bit of a stretch though.

but a wizard polymorphed into a dragon and you having magic that sees through that isn't?

it makes an invisible "third eye" on your forhead that sees through the magic while your normal eyes do not, producing different image in different eyes... and you can somehow manage it...

actually IRL helicopter pilots train with a camera whose output covers one of their eyes, one eye looks into the cockpit and the other via the camera at the bottom and they see completely different images. For the first 2 weeks most report horrible headach and nausea and vomiting but eventually they get used to it.

Yukitsu
2010-04-12, 07:18 PM
but a wizard polymorphed into a dragon and you having magic that sees through that isn't?

it makes an invisible "third eye" on your forhead that sees through the magic while your normal eyes do not, producing different image in different eyes... and you can somehow manage it...

actually IRL helicopter pilots train with a camera whose output covers one of their eyes, one eye looks into the cockpit and the other via the camera at the bottom and they see completely different images. For the first 2 weeks most report horrible headach and nausea and vomiting but eventually they get used to it.

If you ask any of them to look through at something, they will see it from the one eye, but they will start to miss blatantly obvious things in the other eye. People, even in those situations aren't seeing two sets of things at once that have irreconcilable differences, they simply learn to percieve only one set of stimulus at a time.

That aside, a third eye growing on your head to encompass your true seeing is probably something that would warrant a mention if it was actually intended by the rules.

taltamir
2010-04-12, 07:21 PM
If you ask any of them to look through at something, they will see it from the one eye, but they will start to miss blatantly obvious things in the other eye. People, even in those situations aren't seeing two sets of things at once that have irreconcilable differences, they simply learn to percieve only one set of stimulus at a time.
People don't have 30 int and can't use MAGIC.


That aside, a third eye growing on your head to encompass your true seeing is probably something that would warrant a mention if it was actually intended by the rules.
It doesn't actually grow, its a metaphysical third eye, its there in your soul... your forehead is still the same... or maybe its "metaphysical receptors inside your regular eye that produce a second image without interfering with your normal, physical ones". I used the third eye imagery because its a classic and helps explain it.

Lysander
2010-04-12, 07:41 PM
I think the biggest proof is that nowhere does True Seeing come close to mentioning it stops you from seeing anything you would otherwise see. If that was intended without a doubt it would be mentioned among the carefully added caveats and conditions.

Tiki Snakes
2010-04-12, 08:01 PM
I'd just like to say that I love the idea of true seeing making a third eye grow on the wizards forehead, reguardless of the rules issues.

It's just such a neat image.

Fiery Diamond
2010-04-12, 08:06 PM
I think the biggest proof is that nowhere does True Seeing come close to mentioning it stops you from seeing anything you would otherwise see. If that was intended without a doubt it would be mentioned among the carefully added caveats and conditions.

Indeed. At this point, I think that Yukitsu is deliberately being pedantic and starting out assuming premises that are either A) not true or B) not necessarily true. When I mentioned what the same thing you just said earlier, Yukitsu called it, if I recall correctly "the rules don't say I can't so nyah nyah," which I think tells us something about his way of looking at things.

Also, Yukitsu, magic giving the ability to see both images (the real and the false) and know which is which is not at all unreasonable to assume, as it is magic; and it is no more unrealistic than other examples of magic (as has been pointed out in the last few posts). Also, note the "see through" example of "seeing through" glass that was given above.

In other words, look to Lysander's and taltamir's and teddy's posts for some sanity.

Yukitsu
2010-04-12, 08:16 PM
People don't have 30 int and can't use MAGIC.

Sensations use wisdom. Spells do what they say. True seeing also works when it's cast on people as dumb and as unwise as bricks.


It doesn't actually grow, its a metaphysical third eye, its there in your soul... your forehead is still the same... or maybe its "metaphysical receptors inside your regular eye that produce a second image without interfering with your normal, physical ones". I used the third eye imagery because its a classic and helps explain it.

Then it would be true perception, not seeing.


Indeed. At this point, I think that Yukitsu is deliberately being pedantic and starting out assuming premises that are either A) not true or B) not necessarily true. When I mentioned what the same thing you just said earlier, Yukitsu called it, if I recall correctly "the rules don't say I can't so nyah nyah," which I think tells us something about his way of looking at things.

Actually, I'm pointing out that you are in essence, making up definitions to terms as opposed to using what they mean. "True" and "seeing" being pretty consistent examples.


Also, Yukitsu, magic giving the ability to see both images (the real and the false) and know which is which is not at all unreasonable to assume, as it is magic; and it is no more unrealistic than other examples of magic (as has been pointed out in the last few posts). Also, note the "see through" example of "seeing through" glass that was given above.

That's no more reasonable nor cogent than me saying casting fireball makes me a God, simply because "it's magic."


In other words, look to Lysander's and taltamir's and teddy's posts for some sanity.

As much as I'm sure you'd like me to arise to the provocation, I will report your post if you imply that I or anyone else who takes this side of the issue is not sane.

Fluffles
2010-04-12, 08:23 PM
Also backfires when the bard walks around naked but has Silent Image as clothing on him :smallbiggrin:

Fiery Diamond
2010-04-12, 08:36 PM
As much as I'm sure you'd like me to arise to the provocation, I will report your post if you imply that I or anyone else who takes this side of the issue is not sane.

And yet when another quoted my Wall of Text by calling it an injection of sanity no one was upset.

You know, I think I'm going to bow out of this now. It's obvious that nobody who currently disagrees in this thread is going to come to a consensus. There really isn't any point in continuing this conversation.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-04-12, 09:03 PM
I think the biggest proof is that nowhere does True Seeing come close to mentioning it stops you from seeing anything you would otherwise see. If that was intended without a doubt it would be mentioned among the carefully added caveats and conditions.>Implying WotC carefully added caveats and conditions to all spells

The way I see it, the rule is in no way clear, and yet people act as though it is and (repeatedly) resort to ad hominem instead of attempting to discuss and clarify the rule. "Sane replies." "[The other side] is just being pedantic." "[The other side] just wants to nerf True Seeing." All of these are a load of male cow droppings that severely reduce the poster's credibility.

Lysander
2010-04-12, 09:57 PM
>Implying WotC carefully added caveats and conditions to all spells


Most spells are woefully brief and undescriptive. True Seeing is an exception in that it actually has a paragraph just to clarify its limitations.

Lunawarrior0
2010-04-12, 10:30 PM
Is it true that where there is an illusion spell, an illusion spell is in effect? I would say yes.

If the statement above is true, and true sight does not let you see the illusion effect, then it is hiding the truth.

Lost Wanderer
2010-04-12, 11:57 PM
>Implying WotC carefully added caveats and conditions to all spells

The way I see it, the rule is in no way clear, and yet people act as though it is and (repeatedly) resort to ad hominem instead of attempting to discuss and clarify the rule. "Sane replies." "[The other side] is just being pedantic." "[The other side] just wants to nerf True Seeing." All of these are a load of male cow droppings that severely reduce the poster's credibility.

Yukitsu's entire argument relies on a semantic equivocation about the meaning of the word "see" (and to a lesser extent "true"). The only actual references to the spell writeup have been to equivocate about the meaning of the word "see" as it is used there and to point out that it doesn't specifically say whether or not you can still perceive "falsehoods" (whatever the heck that means; an illusion is a real thing that pretends to be something else so the illusion itself is not a falsehood, just the thing it is of), which is, at best, shaky ground to argue from.

I've been trying to argue the heart of the issue: "see" is being used figuratively by the spell, and literally by Yukitsu. If the spell was called True Perception, or maybe something more esoteric like Enlightenment, but had the same description, would it be possible to make the argument Yukitsu has? How about if all instances of "sees" and "sees through" were replaced with "perceives" and "perceives the true nature of" respectively?

And having an insane argument isn't an indictment of anyone. People argue things that make no sense all that time, often because they have assumed something that is not true, or not necessarily true. And from what I can tell, this argument has spawned from Yukitsu's false assumptions about the meaning of the words "true seeing".

Yukitsu
2010-04-13, 12:06 AM
You shouldn't make the claim "is being used figuratively" when discussing the issue of contention, unless you're assuming you're right. As it stands, I don't see the basis for the use of figurative terms when describing the mechanics of the game. Unless you can demonstrate why I would want to believe anything in the mechanics is a figure of speech, it would be best to say "It's my opinion that."

Lost Wanderer
2010-04-13, 12:32 AM
You shouldn't make the claim "is being used figuratively" when discussing the issue of contention, unless you're assuming you're right. As it stands, I don't see the basis for the use of figurative terms when describing the mechanics of the game. Unless you can demonstrate why I would want to believe anything in the mechanics is a figure of speech, it would be best to say "It's my opinion that."

Spell names and descriptions are full of figurative language, even more so than the rest of the rules. Writing solely in literal terms is a very dry and legalistic way to communicate, and hard to do without training as a scientist, lawyer or in similar fields.

Examples are everywhere in the spell section. Take Shield. It has nothing to do with a piece of metal or wood you wear on your arm to deflect attacks (literally, a shield); it's talking about a semimoblie personal force barrier (figuratively, a shield). Or Knock: the spell is nothing like the literal meaning of the world. Epic spells probably take the cake here. Hellball? Vengeful Gaze of God (especially as an arcane spell)? Not even remotely literal descriptions.

So no, it's not my opinion. Figurative language in spell names and descriptions is a fact.

Yukitsu
2010-04-13, 12:47 AM
Spell names and descriptions are full of figurative language, even more so than the rest of the rules. Writing solely in literal terms is a very dry and legalistic way to communicate, and hard to do without training as a scientist, lawyer or in similar fields.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the figurative is correct by default.

Besides, I also refer to the non-descriptive text "sees through" in those terms where I assume they mean so literally.


Examples are everywhere in the spell section. Take Shield. It has nothing to do with a piece of metal or wood you wear on your arm to deflect attacks (literally, a shield); it's talking about a semimoblie personal force barrier (figuratively, a shield).

Or the second literal definition (person or thing that provides protection).


Or Knock: the spell is nothing like the literal meaning of the world. Epic spells probably take the cake here. Hellball? Vengeful Gaze of God (especially as an arcane spell)? Not even remotely literal descriptions.

The majority of the definitions of knock involve hitting things, bowling things over and so forth. If the spell opens doors with a sharp force, which considering it loosens welded shut doors, it likely does, then it is in fact using any number of literaly terms for the word knock.

That aside, why then is the term "opens... doors" taken literally? Shouldn't it be taken to figuratively mean that it presents new opportunities?

As for epic spells, I can't comment. No idea of Hellball is literally a ball composed of bits of hell. Also have no idea if vengeful gaze of the gods is actually channeling divine energy. Mind you, epic spells are cast by both arcanists and divine casters from the same list, so it may have been created by a cleric.


So no, it's not my opinion. Figurative language in spell names and descriptions is a fact.

Not really. There is more than one literal use of a word, and they need to be accounted for. And more important, you're saying "sees through", which is not a title nor a description is figurative. It's being used in the mechanics. So now are you going to say the text in the name, description and mechanics are all figurative, and that they are figurative by default?

Lunawarrior0
2010-04-13, 07:49 AM
Yukitsu, you seem to be the main one who thinks True Seeing is less powerful so I will direct this question at you.

Are the illusions really there? If there really is some magic working to create the image of something, then true seeing not telling you about the magic would make true seeing hide the truth. So unless you can point out a flaw, (and it doesn't matter that the objects are occupying the same space, this is magic we are talking about) True Seeing should show you both.

Xyk
2010-04-13, 07:58 AM
You want the truth?! You can't handle the truth!

That is all.

Skaven
2010-04-13, 08:04 AM
I always saw it as you seeing normally, but you get a mental image of what is behind the polymorph / illusion.

Yukitsu
2010-04-13, 08:21 AM
Yukitsu, you seem to be the main one who thinks True Seeing is less powerful so I will direct this question at you.

Are the illusions really there? If there really is some magic working to create the image of something, then true seeing not telling you about the magic would make true seeing hide the truth. So unless you can point out a flaw, (and it doesn't matter that the objects are occupying the same space, this is magic we are talking about) True Seeing should show you both.

I'd ask this: What does an illusion, sans the illusion that you see, look like?

If I cast nystuls magic aura, can you see it with your bare eye? If so, what does it look like? Just because you can see things as they are, does not mean you gain the faculty to percieve things that you could not otherwise see.

The illusion itself, true or not doesn't look like anything other than the falsehood it's projecting, and by the very definition of the ability, you see through that portion.

Is it true that there is magic there? Yes. Does true seeing let you see magic? No, it does not. So that you no longer see the false effects of true magic does not matter.

If you also cast detect magic, and can thus see the auras of the magic that is actually there would you detect the illusions? Yes.

Greenish
2010-04-13, 08:55 AM
well, it does only last 1 min/lvl and costs 250gp per casting. While that isn't a ton at higher levels, it is a reason to not have it up.Get a Decanter of Endless Klatchian Coffee.

Just don't forget to stock up on Desert Orakh.

Ashiel
2010-04-13, 09:07 AM
Location: The great state of denial.

So true.

"I see, said the blind man."

Lysander
2010-04-13, 09:26 AM
True Seeing doesn't actually show you things as you'd see them with the naked eye though.

For example it lets you see in perfect darkness. And it doesn't mention anything about it being darkvision. You can just see in darkness, presumably in color. Which means that you're already defying physics and reality by seeing color without light.

Yukitsu
2010-04-13, 10:08 AM
True Seeing doesn't actually show you things as you'd see them with the naked eye though.

For example it lets you see in perfect darkness. And it doesn't mention anything about it being darkvision. You can just see in darkness, presumably in color. Which means that you're already defying physics and reality by seeing color without light.

Yeah, I always thought that was odd.

However, it doesn't at all grant detect magic, so unless you're arguing that it does...

Lysander
2010-04-13, 10:31 AM
Yeah, I always thought that was odd.

However, it doesn't at all grant detect magic, so unless you're arguing that it does...

But you're not seeing magic. It's what you would be able to see with the naked eye. True Seeing only says it allows you to see extra things. It never mentions that it stops you from seeing anything.

The thing is, illusions aren't optical effects. They're not light. They're not barriers to light. They aren't Star Trek style holograms. Instead it's magic that fools your senses. Think of it like a lie. If someone tells you a lie and you disbelieve it you're still able to hear the lie.

So true seeing allows you to tell that the dragon in front of you is an illusion, but it doesn't stop a spell from being there going "psst. look! a dragon! there's a dragon here! totally honest! a real dragon!"

Yukitsu
2010-04-13, 10:39 AM
But you're not seeing magic. It's what you would be able to see with the naked eye. True Seeing only says it allows you to see extra things. It never mentions that it stops you from seeing anything.

The thing is, illusions aren't optical effects. They're not light. They're not barriers to light. They aren't Star Trek style holograms. Instead it's magic that fools your senses. Think of it like a lie. If someone tells you a lie and you disbelieve it you're still able to hear the lie.

So true seeing allows you to tell that the dragon in front of you is an illusion, but it doesn't stop a spell from being there going "psst. look! a dragon! there's a dragon here! totally honest! a real dragon!"

So what, you can't see behind the illusion?

And yes, that is the stance you have to take if you won't believe that "sees through" is literal.

As well, disbelief explicitly allows you to see the illusion as a fuzzy outline, even if you no longer believe it's there. A better comparison for true seeing and lies is, a lie can be disbelieved, but if you've cast "Hear truth", well, it's not exactly a useful ability if you can hear lies as well. "Percieve truth" would be more useful as you'd know which are which.

Lysander
2010-04-13, 10:45 AM
So what, you can't see behind the illusion?

And yes, that is the stance you have to take if you won't believe that "sees through" is literal.

You also see through illusions when you make a will save against one, but it doesn't prevent you from continuing to perceive it:


A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

So yes, it is possible to both see an illusion and see what's behind it.

Yukitsu
2010-04-13, 10:48 AM
You also see through illusions when you make a will save against one, but it doesn't prevent you from continuing to perceive it:

So yes, it is possible to both see an illusion and see what's behind it.

I'm aware of that, however, neither that text, nor a statement that you autopass your will save against an illusion appears in true seeing.

Also, if it's a figure of speech, then you don't even get the "It's an outline" argument, as "sees through (the lie)" means the illusion is still there in all of its visibleness blocking your line of sight to whatever is behind it.

Lysander
2010-04-13, 10:58 AM
Any time you have convincing proof that a figment isn't real you automatically disbelieve it:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a


Automatic Disbelief

According to the Player's Handbook, if you're faced with proof that an illusion isn't real, you disbelieve the illusion without making a saving throw. The rules give a few examples of "proof" that an illusion isn't real. If you step on an illusory floor and fall through, you know that floor isn't real. Likewise, if you poke around an illusory floor and your hand (or the implement you're using as a probe) goes through the floor, you know the floor isn't real.

So if True Seeing tells you something is fake you automatically disbelieve it, and thus get to see a translucent outline of it.

Yukitsu
2010-04-13, 11:10 AM
Any time you have convincing proof that a figment isn't real you automatically disbelieve it:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a

So if True Seeing tells you something is fake you automatically disbelieve it, and thus get to see a translucent outline of it.

Or they took chains of disbelief, and you still have to figure out how you see through the illusion when it's not disbelieved. Or you're looking at a simulacrum.

And again, why is this figurative when it's "sees through" listed in the mechanics of the spell?

Lysander
2010-04-13, 11:20 AM
Or they took chains of disbelief, and you still have to figure out how you see through the illusion when it's not disbelieved. Or you're looking at a simulacrum.

And again, why is this figurative when it's "sees through" listed in the mechanics of the spell?

"sees through" does not mean "cannot see"

In the case of a simulacrum you'd see a transparent image of skin and hair superimposed over an ice sculpture.

Taelas
2010-04-13, 12:49 PM
Illusions exist, y'know. They are an intangible form, and they do not disappear simply because you disbelieve them. They are magical and last until their duration ends or they are dispelled. Detect magic can detect them, thus the magic is there.

Therefore you would still see the illusion, as it has an actual form.

Yukitsu
2010-04-13, 01:17 PM
That interpretation means you just see things in exactly the same way.

Besides, they specifically say that illusions are unreal. I don't know how you can argue that they are there beyond just the magic when they aren't real.

As for translucence over transparance, I'll take that if you will agree that the illusion would provide partial concealment.

Lysander
2010-04-13, 01:41 PM
As for translucence over transparance, I'll take that if you will agree that the illusion would provide partial concealment.

No, because a figment isn't an optical effect. No light is being blocked. It's not something you're really seeing with your eye. It's more like a mass hallucination that only some people have the will to resist. When you disbelieve it you're able to perceive it as non-real.

Indon
2010-04-13, 02:15 PM
Alot of the arguments against True seeing tends to come down to not wanting it to be good because then PC's would abuse it or try to have it up as much as possible.

As has been noted previously, even the strictest interpretation would still have an invisible object with a symbol spell, or an "I prepared invisible Explosive Runes this morning" as a dangerous trap. Also, invisible gaze attack makers.