Sequester versus True Seeing [3.5]

[Duke of Urrel]

Okay, I've got another tough question for the Playground.

The True Seeing spell empowers you to "[see] invisible creatures or objects normally." On the other hand, the Sequester spell "not only prevents divination spells from working to detect or locate the creature or object affected by sequester, it also renders the affected creature or object invisible to any form of sight or seeing."

So what happens when you look for a sequestered creature or object using the True Seeing spell?

1. On the one hand, True Seeing normally defeats invisibility, and this is all that the Sequester spell explicitly provides to prevent detection by direct observation (as opposed to mediated detection from a long distance away, which it certainly blocks).

2. On the other hand, the Sequester spell, according to its description, "prevents divination spells from working to detect or locate," and the True Seeing spell is undeniably a divination – and one whose spell level is usually lower than that of the Sequester spell, by the way.

So when the True Seeing spell and the Sequester spell challenge each other, which spell do you think should be defeated? And what reason or reasons can you give to justify your opinion? I'm asking this question here rather than in the RAW thread, because I can't form a strong opinion, one way or the other, of how the RAW relevant to this case ought to be interpreted.

[Flickerdart]

Specific always beats general.

General: Things can be seen.
Specific: Invisible things can't be seen.
More Specific: True Seeing allows you to see invisible things.
Most Specific: Sequester prevents divinations from seeing its invisible thing.

Conclusion: Sequester trumps True Seeing.

[Duke of Urrel]

Specific always beats general.

General: Things can be seen.
Specific: Invisible things can't be seen.
More Specific: True Seeing allows you to see invisible things.
Most Specific: Sequester prevents divinations from seeing its invisible thing.

Conclusion: Sequester trumps True Seeing.

I like your logic, Flickerdart! And it works perfectly if we assume one little thing, which is that the word "detect" in the description of the Sequester spell includes detection by sight.

I confess that when I started this thread, I already inclined toward giving the Sequester spell the power to block the True Seeing spell. It seemed disappointing for this seventh-level spell to be defeated by a spell that is possibly of no higher than fifth level.

On the other hand... Consider the Nondetection spell. This spell also blocks "divinations," though not perfectly; the diviner gets a caster level check against a DC of 11 plus the caster level of the abjurer. And Nondetection doesn't bestow invisibility, as the Sequester spell does. (Nor does it hold a creature in suspended animation.) Suppose we consider the Sequester spell simply to be an infallible version of the Nondetection spell, only with invisibility (and suspended animation) added. Should we consider this to be infallible invisibility that resists even the True Seeing spell (and presumably the See Invisibility spell as well)? And if so, how far does this infallibility stretch?

There's another complication here. The text of the Sequester spell also states (on page 276 of the Player's Handbook): "The spell does not prevent the subject from being discovered through tactile means or through the use of devices (such as a robe of eyes or a gem of seeing)." Note that casting the True Seeing spell is required to create either a Gem of Seeing or a Robe of Eyes. So if I agree that the True Seeing spell doesn't work against the Sequester spell, do I still have to concede that a "device," such as wand or a scroll of True Seeing must succeed? (And, for the sake of argument: What about a Glyph of Warding?) That doesn't make any sense at all, but then how else am I to interpret this sentence?

The answer that we give to this question has serious in-game consequences. After I cast the Sequester spell on a body, do I have to hide the body, or is it enough just to leave it standing in a corner where nobody will think to look for it?

I don't mean to seem ungrateful to Flickerdart, but I'd like to keep this thread open a while to see whether there are others with a contrary opinion. If not, I'll side with Flickerdart. After all, I'm pretty much a fence-sitter here. Even a poll strongly in favor of one view or the other is likely to sway me, though of course, as I said, I like Flickerdart's logic.

[Phelix-Mu]

It's not entirely on-point, but it's come to my attention that the description of sequester was nerfed down in 3.5, where they added the caveat about it working "as the invisibility spell."

This all came up in a discussion about the ring of sequestering epic magic item, which is not at all good with the 3.5 description of sequester, but using the 3.0 version of sequester makes the item a solid investment.

As to the point, I find that the divination blocking is supposed to be pretty trump-card like, especially given the comatose side-effect. Now, if you remove the "as the invisibility spell" bit, now it really seems like it should block all "sight," and I would even posit an argument that it blocks sight-like abilities like Lifesight and Mindsight.

In any case, abjuration is generally not overpowered. Taking the more liberal interpretation of the spell's scope probably isn't going to rock the foundation of the game.

[Duke of Urrel]

It's not entirely on-point, but it's come to my attention that the description of sequester was nerfed down in 3.5, where they added the caveat about it working "as the invisibility spell."

This all came up in a discussion about the ring of sequestering epic magic item, which is not at all good with the 3.5 description of sequester, but using the 3.0 version of sequester makes the item a solid investment.

As to the point, I find that the divination blocking is supposed to be pretty trump-card like, especially given the comatose side-effect. Now, if you remove the "as the invisibility spell" bit, now it really seems like it should block all "sight," and I would even posit an argument that it blocks sight-like abilities like Lifesight and Mindsight.

In any case, abjuration is generally not overpowered. Taking the more liberal interpretation of the spell's scope probably isn't going to rock the foundation of the game.

You're not off-point at all, Phelix-Mu. I'm really clutching at straws here, and any information helps, even if it's somewhat distantly related to my original question.

I agree that the Sequester spell should block divinations that work without the use of one's eyesight. If that's what Lifesight and Mindsight do, then I think the Sequester spell should block them. Certainly the Sequester spell should block the lowly Deathwatch spell, which it seems specifically designed to counter. (Where can a find a description of Lifesight and Mindsight, by the way?)

I used to have a Player's Handbook, version 3.0, but I replaced it with a 3.5 version not long ago. I generally want to use the more recent version, because I think changes happen for a reason. If the game designers nerfed the Sequester spell, I think they had a reason for doing so. (However, I'm sticking with version 3.5. More recent versions are a different game that I believe I'll never learn to know or love as well.)

All of your other points are well taken, of course. I agree particularly that the school of Abjuration is not overpowered. Neither is the school of Divination under-powered.

I am now wondering how to draw the line between "devices" (presumably magic items) that can discover a sequestered subject and "divinations" (presumably spells) that cannot. Suppose we say that the True Seeing spell cannot detect a creature or object protected by the Sequester spell. I think that's the way we're leaning here, anyway. If the True Seeing spell can't penetrate this abjuration, then it follows that the See Invisibility spell certainly shouldn't be able to, either, and a Glyph of Warding shouldn't be able to detect a sequestered creature carried through the barrier that it guards, even though both the See Invisibility spell and Glyphs of Warding are able to detect normal invisibility.

But those are spells. Devices are something different, and my new Player's Handbook v. 3.5, which I regard as the supreme authority on rules, includes that sentence that explicitly mentions the Gem of Seeing (CL 10) and the Robe of Eyes (CL 11). The former behaves like the True Seeing spell with a limit of 30 minutes per day, whereas the latter behaves like Darkvision plus the See Invisibility spell, both with a range of 120 feet.

I suppose maybe the best thing to do is allow magical devices with the power to reveal invisible objects to empower you to see the subject of the Sequester spell, if it is not otherwise hidden from view. Probably I should include in this category any magic item that has the power of the See Invisibility spell, the Invisibility Purge spell,* or the True Seeing spell, even if this item is a magic scroll, potion, or wand. This interpretation of the rules makes the power of the Sequester spell seem oddly lopsided, but I can't think of an interpretation that better harmonizes the RAW with the opinions I've read here so far, as well as my own.

Does anybody feel strongly that the game designers probably intended the invisibility of a sequestered creature or object to be normal rather than extraordinary? Are there any parallels in the RAW that would support this conclusion? On the other hand, are there any other examples of abjurations that block spells, but not the spell-like effects of magic items? (I think that's really weird, but maybe it's not so unusual.)
________
*It occurs to me that the Invisibility Purge spell is a special case, because it's not a Divination spell; it belongs to the Evocation school. Should this spell instantly negate the invisibility effect of the Sequester spell? My feeling at this point is that it should.

[Duke of Urrel]

I have another little thing to add. The text of the Sequester spell says that it makes the subject invisible "as the invisibility spell."

I have sometimes noticed that when the RAW say that something acts "as X," they mean that it may be something radically different from X, but that it acts like X in at least one important way. In other words, the phrase "as X" often indicates strongly that a thing is in fact not X.

This only underscores what has been said here so far, I think.

[Galvin]

Aye, Sequester overules True Seeing.

[Phelix-Mu]

My point about the 3.5 v 3.0 description was mainly to speak to the epic item, ring of sequestering, which allows the person wearing it to move around while under the effect of sequester. Some readings of the 3.5 version of the spell might note the "as the invisibility spell," which might imply that any normal way of bypassing invisibility would see the person protected by sequester, which makes the 3.0 epic item a hyper-expensive ring of invisibility (since the sequester would end once an attack was made, as it keys off invisibility, not greater invisibility).

Aside from that one, narrow area, I generally agree that 3.5 PHB should hold precedence. As Epic Level Handbook was only poorly updated for 3.5, all of it's references should be compared to their original sources, since clearly no one at WotC was that thorough.

To your broader issue, let me also bring some of my 2e experience to the table. In 2e, items that had trumping effects were not all that uncommon, and many items had unique effects not well-replicated by spells. Gem of seeing may have cropped up back then as an item granting a kind of "supreme seeing" ability that couldn't be blocked, and it's mention in sequester could be a legacy. Certainly wouldn't be the first time. I seem to recall that both gem of seeing and robe of eyes were items in 2e as well.

I would avoid extending a narrow exception for one or two items to a broad set. Flickerdart's scheme of specific and general seems to hold sway here; they intended only two specific exceptions to the more general "no divination or sight penetrates sequester." I'd stay with this intent; expanding it to any item using the same spells, including spell trigger and completion items, massively expands the list of what can overcome sequester. Notably, UMD on a spell trigger item that will bypass it now stands to be quite pathetically easy.

Mindsight is from Lords of Madness (though for the life of me I've never found it in that book). Lifesight...well, it might actually be called Lifesense. It's from Libris Mortis, the feats section.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Aye, Sequester overules True Seeing.

+1

True Seeing is overpowered and shuts down entire schools of magic and way too many other effects, even higher level ones. It fills my heart with vengeful glee anytime the RAW can be interpreted in a way that ****s it over.

[Chronos]

Gem of Seeing and Robe of Eyes will still work, but I would rule that something like a scroll of True Seeing won't. Devices can detect a sequestered object, and a scroll is a device, but it doesn't interact directly with Sequester. A scroll works by producing a casting of a spell, and the spell then does whatever, not the scroll doing whatever directly. And we've already established that Sequester trumps True Seeing the spell.

[Duke of Urrel]

I think I'll accept Phelix-Mu's argument that the Gem of Seeing and the Robe of Eyes have legacy powers carried over from version 2e. I'll also accept Chronos's point that a spell stored in a magic item is not the same thing as a magical function that works "as" a spell. (There's that meaningful word "as" again.)

So I'll interpret the rules as follows: The Sequester spell's invisibility effect is not the same as the Invisibility spell; it's stronger and is not defeated by True Seeing. It is defeated by the See-Invisibility-like effect of a Robe of Eyes, and it is defeated by the True-Seeing-like effect of a Gem of Seeing, but it is not defeated by the See Invisibility spell, the True Seeing spell, or by any magic item that simply stores either one of these spells.

However, a contrary voice inside me still says that the Invisibility Purge spell should make visible anything that the Sequester spell has made invisible, because the Invisibility Purge spell belongs to the school of Evocation, not Divination. [Edit: And it occurs to me now that the lowly Deathwatch spell belongs to the Necromancy school, so maybe this spell defeats the Sequester spell, too!]

Thanks to all for the comments. I think this has been a very productive thread that has helped my thinking along. Unless somebody has something radically different to say, I think I'll declare myself well advised! Good night, all.

[Zanos]

Mindsight is from Lords of Madness (though for the life of me I've never found it in that book). Lifesight...well, it might actually be called Lifesense. It's from Libris Mortis, the feats section.
Page 126 gives a description of Mindsight, and there's also a feat to actually get it. It's a special quality. Anyone with telepathy can take the feat(mindbender dip, anybody?), and it allows you to feel anything with an intelligence score of at least 1 within range of your telepathy.

I don't believe sequester would block mindsight, RAW.

[Chronos]

I don't think the divination-foiling effect of Sequester would foil Deathwatch or mindsight, but I think the suspended-animation effect would. I see no reason why Invisibility Purge wouldn't work, though-- It's more like Dispel Magic than it is like See Invisibility.

[Duke of Urrel]

I don't think the divination-foiling effect of Sequester would foil Deathwatch or mindsight, but I think the suspended-animation effect would. I see no reason why Invisibility Purge wouldn't work, though-- It's more like Dispel Magic than it is like See Invisibility.

I think we both agree about the Invisibility Purge spell.

I shall have to think some more about the Deathwatch spell. My present interpretation of it may be making it overpowered. The spell's description states: "You instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), undead, or neither alive nor dead (such as a construct)." My first inclination was to interpret the phrase "such as" to mean "including, but not limited to," so that the Deathwatch spell would identify all creatures in suspended animation as "neither alive nor dead." But maybe I'm including too much.

I've also wondered whether the Deathwatch spell should tell you anything about a creature before you know that a creature is there at all. I do have a house rule limiting Spellcraft, whereby you cannot identify an ongoing spell effect until you both perceive the effect and know that it is a spell. In other words, you still have to make a Will save to disbelieve in an illusion before I will allow you to make a Spellcraft check to identify it as the effect of the Minor Image spell, for example. A similar rule applied to the Deathwatch spell would withhold information about any creature if you are not yet aware that it exists.

Clearly, I need to think some more about how I am going to handle the Deathwatch spell.

[EyethatBinds]

True seeing is divination, Sequester blocks divination spells from detecting or locating a creature. So clearly, sequester blocks true seeing with little need for arbitration.

[Chronos]

Oh, right, I forgot that Deathwatch had the "neither alive nor dead" bit, too. In that case, it depends on how that bit works: Does it actually give you a ping of "neither alive nor dead", or is that just a lack of it telling you "alive" or "dead"? If the former, it'd let you detect a creature in suspended animation (or a petrified creature, or a construct standing still and disguised as a normal statue, or whatever), but if the latter, it wouldn't.

[ravidubey]

Sequester blocks True Seeing (or Greater Arcane Sight) because it blocks divinations.

It won'st stop Blindsight since that is an alteration.

The power of Sequester is counterbalanced by it's putting a willing target into a coma. It can't be used to hide a thief, for example, unless that thief was willing to be put into a coma.

Unfortunately, Discern Location bypasses Sequester (which makes the spell MUCH less useful) since the description of that spell says nothing short of Mind Blank or the "direct intervention of a deity" stops the spell.

You could put an object in an antimagic field and Discern Location would reveal were it was.