Making illusions for true seeing?

[CyberThread]

Is it possible to make an illusion that is undetectable to anyone but those that have true seeing? If a true see"er", gazes at the spot, they see the "invisible dwarf" but everyone else sees nothing anyways.

[Deophaun]

The most popular interpretation of the Invisible Spell metamagic feat works that way.

[Karnith]

I believe that the standard way to do this is to modify illusion spells with the Invisible Spell metamagic feat (from Cityscape), though anyone with Detect Magic, See Invisibility, or True Seeing would see them, not just people with True Seeing up.

[Nettlekid]

I've never really agreed with that interpretation of Invisible Spell. True Seeing pierces all, not just the first layer of an illusion. If you make an Invisible Major Image of a Dragon, then someone with True Seeing will first see the Major Image (invisibility doesn't hide it), but they have True Seeing, which interacts with Major Image in the normal way. There's no reason that True Seeing stops working after it reveals the existence of the invisible thing. That's like saying that if you cast Polymorph on a creature, and then cast Veil on the same creature, a True Seer would see the Polymorphed form but not the creature's original form. There's no reason that should be so.

What Invisible Spell DOES do with True Seeing is it can be used with other sight-obscuring spells like Wall of Stone or Solid Fog, which are not penetrated by True Seeing. Especially with something like Obscuring Mist, which has no penalty except not being able to see, if it's invisible then a non-True Seer is unaffected, while a True Seer is hindered as normal. But that's because Obscuring Mist isn't an illusion.

[The Trickster]

Depending on your interpretation, UA may have an answer;


From Unearthed Arcana

Chains of Disbelief (Ex)

Even if a viewer disbelieves an illusion created by an illusionist using this variant and commuincates the details of the illusion to other creatures, those other creatures do not receive the normal +4 bonus of their saving throws to disbelieve the illusion. Furthermore, even when presented with incontrovertible proof that the illusion isn't real, creatures must still succeed on a Will saving throw to see objects or creatures that the illusion obscures, although they get a +10 bonus on the saving throw.
An illusionist using this variant permanently gives up the ability to obtain a familiar.

You could argue that having True Seeing would give a person "incontrovertible proof that the illusion isn't real". It would be at a hefty penalty though.

[Deophaun]

I've never really agreed with that interpretation of Invisible Spell.
I don't agree with the interpretation either. I just present it.

What Invisible Spell DOES do with True Seeing is it can be used with other sight-obscuring spells like Wall of Stone or Solid Fog, which are not penetrated by True Seeing.
And this is the other part I disagree with. I think invisible spell simply omits whatever flashy side-effects accompany the spell's result (so if you looked at Disney's Cinderella, and the fairy godmother did an Invisible Spell version of her transformation magic, you'd just lose the sparkles, but Cinderella's dress would still be visibly different afterwards).

The problem in interpretation is figuring out what the heck "manifestation" means, and that the word "effect" is not being used as a defined rules term (as it's being referenced in regards to a fireball, which has no effect line).

So the idea that Invisible Spell could be logically read to do as you say is true. However, it is not true that such is the only reading, and I like to go with readings that still provide usability yet don't run into head-scratching dilemmas.

[Nettlekid]

I don't agree with the interpretation either. I just present it.

And this is the other part I disagree with. I think invisible spell simply omits whatever flashy side-effects accompany the spell's result (so if you looked at Disney's Cinderella, and the fairy godmother did an Invisible Spell version of her transformation magic, you'd just lose the sparkles, but Cinderella's dress would still be visibly different afterwards).

The problem in interpretation is figuring out what the heck "manifestation" means, and that the word "effect" is not being used as a defined rules term (as it's being referenced in regards to a fireball, which has no effect line).

So the idea that Invisible Spell could be logically read to do as you say is true. However, it is not true that such is the only reading, and I like to go with readings that still provide usability yet don't run into head-scratching dilemmas.

Hm, perhaps so. Since the example given is Fireball, an instantaneous effect, we aren't given much to work with. In that case, both the "manifestation" (in a general sense, not the psionic term) and the effect are made invisible. Lasting flames are not. So is it the entirety of the magic effect (the creation and explosion of the fireball) that is made invisible (and thus the entirety of say, a Wall of Stone would also be) or is it only the magically sustained material, and as such any Conjuration: Creation spell is not made invisible? What about a Wall of Fire?