TRUE SEEING vs HIDE FROM DRAGONS or TRUE SEEING vs MAGE PRIVATE SANCTUM

[dkist]

The main question will be TRUE SEEING vs CONJURATION :smallcool:

[Diarmuid]

I dont have the text frmo Hide from Dragons handy, but reading Mage's Private Sanctum and True Seeing I dont see anything unclear about how the interact.

True Seeing lists what it foils, and none of those things are listed by Private Sanctum. Someone with True Seeing would see the same "foggy mass" as anyone else.

[dkist]

{Scrubbed}

[Diarmuid]

That spell also doesnt seem to have any interactions with True Seeing. It isnt an illusion, it doesnt mention any of the keywords TS beats, sounds like it should work.

[dkist]

I also think so... but waiting for other opinions :smallbiggrin:

[TroubleBrewing]

True Seeing is not a catch-all pierce effect. As stated, it has a very specific list of things it sees through:

"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."

Furthermore, Hide From Dragons is an Abjuration spell, and that alone keeps it out of True Seeings reach, as it is not an Illusion, Polymorph, or Transmutation effect.

[Fouredged Sword]

Hide from dragons is less of a "invisability" effect and more of a "unexplained abjuration" effect. Really I would think it should be a mind effecting enchantment spell, but nope. Abjuration all the way.

Undefeated by mind blank, trueseeing, or even common sence.

"They act as though the warded
creatures are not there"

Dragon wakes up and sees you - cast hide from dragons - dragon shrugs and goes back to sleep becuse you aren't there as far as it's concerned.

Crazy.

[Ernir]

Hmm, you guys seem to place much less faith in the "You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are." line of True Seeing than I do. :smallconfused:

[stainboy]

Because that line would give me Dr. Manhattan vision. I would stop the game every round to interrogate the DM about the molecular composition of my enemies. It would be no fun for anyone but me.

[Flickerdart]

Hmm, you guys seem to place much less faith in the "You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are." line of True Seeing than I do. :smallconfused:
The Dragon might very well see the target - he just acts as if it's not there, in all respects.

Using that line of fluff as ruling is problematic in itself - what does it mean to "see all things"? It's the rest of the spell that puts restrictions on this statement: you "see all things" within a 120ft radius, and "as they actually are" despite a specific number of effects. Just as the spell does not let you see everything everywhere, it does not pierce all magical effects.

[Ernir]

Because that line would give me Dr. Manhattan vision. I would stop the game every round to interrogate the DM about the molecular composition of my enemies. It would be no fun for anyone but me.
What you're saying is that the spell is not fun, or ridiculous. Wouldn't be the first time.

The Dragon might very well see the target - he just acts as if it's not there, in all respects.
Good point. That at least means TS doesn't work against Hide from Dragons.

Using that line of fluff as ruling is problematic in itself - what does it mean to "see all things"? It's the rest of the spell that puts restrictions on this statement: you "see all things" within a 120ft radius, and "as they actually are" despite a specific number of effects. Just as the spell does not let you see everything everywhere, it does not pierce all magical effects.
The way I read it, it allows you to "see all things", which is an open-ended term. What I think is the difference between how I read it and how you read it is that I read the list of effects immediately following the first sentence a list of examples of what "seeing all things" means, rather than an exhaustive one.

The range restriction and the second paragraph place constraints on what the spell can accomplish, or put in other words, exceptions that make you not see all things everywhere when you cast the spell.

I really wish the core spells had a (fluff)/(rules) distinction as it appears in books like the SpC. As is, the first sentence in each spell description is usually meaningless, but this one isn't exactly about some ray you fire being green.

For the record, I think interpreting the first sentence as fluff is a far superior choice with respect to playability, I'm just not convinced it's the Rule.