What do you truly see?

[Evolved Shrimp]

I’m wondering about what one would see while under the effect of a True Seeing spell.

For example: A covered litter (similar to this one (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Sedan-chair.jpg), but with curtains that prevent any glimpse of the interior when drawn) passes, carrying a woman who is really a polymorphed great wyrm gold dragon.

When the curtains are drawn, one sees only the litter. But what if the curtains are open? And what if the woman leaves the litter and one stands directly beside her? What would one see in these cases?

[Psyren]

True Seeing doesn't provide specifics, but we do know the following:

(1) The curtains aren't magical concealment, so True Seeing won't penetrate them (as you noted.)
(2) True Seeing will show you the true form of polymorphed creatures, so you would know the lady is a dragon.
(3) Obviously a great wyrm dragon is considerably larger than the litter in your example. But just as obviously, the dragon can fit inside when polymorphed. Furthermore, you "see things as they actually are," which suggests to me that seeing the true form of the dragon won't cause it to block your view of the rest of the carriage or anything beyond it.

So putting all that together, I would rule that you get some kind of very large translucent dragony image superimposed on top of the actual scene - distinct enough that you clearly see what's truly going on, but vague enough that it doesn't obscure your sight of anything else.

[Jack_Simth]

It's not really spelled out. I have always pictured it as ghostly images of the true forms superimposed over current reality.

[Evolved Shrimp]

Thanks.

Yes, that’s about what I figured as well. Perhaps one can focus on the apparent reality (illusion, polymorphed form, …) or on the real reality as desired (similar to how one can focus on close things or on things far away). The spell description notes this only for seeing into the Ethereal, but it might well work for the other effects, too.

The reason I’m asking at all is that there seems to be an alternate explanation where True Seeing forces the recipient to see everything as if it were not invisible, covered by an illusion, polymorphed, etc. (The most common application of this interpretation seems to be “Creating a fog cloud and making it invisible, thereby blocking the view only for the enemy who has True Seeing”.)

As Psyren describes, this interpretation seems to create – well, not really paradoxa, but effects that do not seem right. I’m glad to see that it is, at least, not a consensus view.

[Celestia]

I've imagined true seeing to basically be like an extra sense. It doesn't interfere with your sight because the two aren't related. After all, there's nothing in the rules preventing blind creatures from using true seeing. As to what that would actually "look" like, I don't know. Sensory information is qualia that can never be truly understood or explained. I have no idea what it would be like to have an extra sense like true seeing because I've never experienced it. It's like trying to figure out what the fourth spacial dimension looks like; it's simply impossible.

[Psyren]

The reason I’m asking at all is that there seems to be an alternate explanation where True Seeing forces the recipient to see everything as if it were not invisible, covered by an illusion, polymorphed, etc. (The most common application of this interpretation seems to be “Creating a fog cloud and making it invisible, thereby blocking the view only for the enemy who has True Seeing”.)

As Psyren describes, this interpretation seems to create – well, not really paradoxa, but effects that do not seem right. I’m glad to see that it is, at least, not a consensus view.

Well hang on, before you go using my name, I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion here. The Invisible Spell Fog thing is completely different from non-magical curtains after all. True Seeing shows you what is really there, and the fog is really there, so it does block your vision of anything beyond it (as fog normally does.) By contrast, while you do see the polymorphed dragon's true form, that dragon's form itself is not really there, otherwise the litter would be smashed to smithereens.

[Deophaun]

True Seeing allows you to see into the urdimension, from which all form is derived. It does not neatly correlate to normal space, as distance works on an entirely different principle such that the more something resembles a dragon, the closer, physically, it is to the original form of a dragon. It thus makes no sense to say that you have a dragon riding on a litter, as the Form of dragon is far removed from the Form of a litter such that they can never be next to one another.

Needless to say, any comprehensible perception of this realm is impossible by 3-dimensional beings. Which is why magic.

/end head canon

[Evolved Shrimp]

the fog is really there, so it does block your vision of anything beyond it (as fog normally does.) By contrast, while you do see the polymorphed dragon's true form, that dragon's form itself is not really there, otherwise the litter would be smashed to smithereens.

Sorry, I did not want to put words in your mouth there.

The question, then, is: Why can you perceive both the real and the apparent in the case of polymorph, but not in the case of invisibility? The spell description does not seem to offer any hint that the spell has so substantially different effects depending on what magic is being pierced.

[PacMan2247]

Sorry, I did not want to put words in your mouth there.

The question, then, is: Why can you perceive both the real and the apparent in the case of polymorph, but not in the case of invisibility? The spell description does not seem to offer any hint that the spell has so substantially different effects depending on what magic is being pierced.

Invisibility and polymorph are two entirely different effects, and from different schools of magic. The spell description for true seeing describes how it handles several different common effects, including that the subject sees invisible creatures or objects normally, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. In the case of an invisible fog cloud, a subject of true seeing would see the invisible objects (tiny drops of water suspended in air) normally, and thus be hampered by the fog. In the case of a polymorphed gold dragon, well, that isn't described explicitly- at one table, the subject of true seeing might see the dragon's true form as a shadowy overlay on everything in that space while still being able to see the things within that space just fine; another table might instead say that seeing the dragon's true form blocks line of sight (though probably not line of effect) to anything within that space. Magic is powerful, but not infallible, and there are certainly ways to trick divinations and those using them.

[Evolved Shrimp]

The spell description for true seeing describes how it handles several different common effects, including that the subject sees invisible creatures or objects normally.

The spell description is not, in fact, entirely clear on this. It is unambiguous that the subject of the spell can see through illusions; it is not clear that is must. (Hence the varying interpretations.)

One could divide the effects to which the spell applies into three classes: effects that change the visual appearance only (illusions, invisibility, blur, etc.), effects that alter the physical form (polymorph, wild shape, etc.), and seeing into the Ethereal:

Seeing into the Ethereal is clearly described as an optional capability: The spell recipient can see both planes, although possibly not together at the same moment.
Seeing the real form of polymorphed creatures is described in the indicative mood, but the prevailing opinion in this discussion seems to be that this does not preclude the spell recipient to see both the real and the apparent form, probably at the same time.
Seeing through purely optical illusions is also described in the indicative mood, just like above for polymorphed creatures.

I find it easiest to assume that all three classes are optional, not just the first two ones. While it is true that different schools of magic are involved in these effects, the spell description does not indicate anywhere that the source of the effect matters in any way, whether it be spell vs. supernatural effect vs SLA, caster level, or the school to which a spell belongs (if any; seeing into the Ethereal does not even negate a magical effect).

Note, too, that if the school of magic would be relevant, e.g., wild shape and the invisibility of an invisible stalker, would need to be affected similarly by True Seeing: Both are supernatural effects that do not belong to any school of magic.

Overall the language of the spell description is decidedly ambiguous: In the beginning, the spell is said to confer an “ability”, which suggests the option for the recipient to apply or not apply the capability moment by moment. Thereafter, the effects are described as immutable facts, which suggests a lack of such discretion. (But could also have been chosen for readability and brevity: The list of effects is lengthy, and half a dozen “can”s would have added quite some bulk.)

It seems clear that multiple interpretations are possible. It also seems clear that the extreme form “where the indicative mood is used in the spell description, the recipient can only notice the reality without the effect in question” is not universally supported, although there seems to be disagreement as to whether this applies only to polymorph or to illusions as well.

My personal interpretation is that the spell recipient always sees both the real world (what everybody would see if there were no disguising magic used) and the apparent world (what normal creatures not under the effect of True Seeing see), whether with a separate sense or as a kind of overlay. This seems not to be universally shared, but at the same time, there seem to be no facts or rules that would make this interpretation obviously wrong or produce problematic game effects.

[Psyren]

I'd say you're overthinking this to a fair degree. The interaction isn't that complex. Just remember the following:

1) Fog has a rule that it blocks your sight. True Seeing and Polymorph don't.
2) Invisible Spell states that folks with True Seeing see "whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell" - thus in the case of Invisible Fog, you would see Fog, which brings us back to #1.
3) Without a rule saying your sight is blocked (like fog has) then it isn't.

In short, seeing the fog blocks your sight because that's what fog does. Revealing a polymorphed creature's true form has no such rule, so if you want it to do that, you need to find or make one. That's really it, open and shut.

[Evolved Shrimp]

I'd say you're overthinking this to a fair degree. The interaction isn't that complex. Just remember the following:

1) Fog has a rule that it blocks your sight. True Seeing and Polymorph don't.

I don’t believe I follow. Of course True Seeing doesn’t have a rule that it blocks your sight – after all, it does not block it. But what are we to learn of that? (And the result of a polymorph blocks your sight just as well as fog does, but again, what is the importance here?)


2) Invisible Spell states that folks with True Seeing see "whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell" - thus in the case of Invisible Fog, you would see Fog, which brings us back to #1.

But the manifestations of a spell aren’t its results, they are the accompanying effects. I remember reading (in Sage Advice?) that Invisible Spell does not allow you to create, e.g., an invisible wall of stone. In the same way, you couldn’t create invisible fog with it. This is moot for this discussion, however, because you could substitute the fog with a door or some other object that can be turned invisible with the Invisibility spell, and have the same discussion about the effects of True Seeing.


3) Without a rule saying your sight is blocked (like fog has) then it isn't.

In short, seeing the fog blocks your sight because that's what fog does. Revealing a polymorphed creature's true form has no such rule

I beg to differ: A normal creature in its true form does block your sight, just as any other solid object does. There is no specific rule about it just as there is no specific rule that a floor keeps you from sinking to the next lower level, but that doesn’t mean that the effects do not occur – it’s understood to be part of the way the world is known to work.

[Psyren]

I don’t believe I follow. Of course True Seeing doesn’t have a rule that it blocks your sight – after all, it does not block it. But what are we to learn of that? (And the result of a polymorph blocks your sight just as well as fog does, but again, what is the importance here?)

What I'm saying is that your reading is creating a rule that doesn't exist. You need a rule that says "looking at a polymorphed creature can obscure your vision" before you can conclude it does, just like you would need one for fog to do the same. The difference is that fog does have that rule.


But the manifestations of a spell aren’t its results, they are the accompanying effects.

For a fog spell those two are the same thing. The effect is visual; that's the whole point.



I beg to differ: A normal creature in its true form does block your sight, just as any other solid object does.

Does it? At best it would provide partial concealment or cover. It's not like it's a wall or the corner of a building. And again, only invisibility is seen "normally" per true seeing; polymorph just lets you see (adjusted to "reveal" per Rules Compendium) the true form, with nothing stating that you get that information at the expense of anything located behind the creature in question.

[Segev]

Stepping away from the invisible fog cloud question, I think an important consideration is whether true seeing lets you ALSO see the falsehood that it penetrates.

If you're talking to an invisible person while using true seeing, do you know they're invisible? Or do they look just like any other visible person would?

If you're talking to a doppelganger while using true seeing, do you know what form that doppelganger is currently wearing, or do you only see the doppelganger's true form?

If you're walking down a corridor that has an illusory wall blocking it, do you even know that you just walked through one, or did you just see the corridor continue on and have no idea why your companions, who lack true seeing, were hesitant to run full-tilt past that one point?

[Psyren]

Stepping away from the invisible fog cloud question, I think an important consideration is whether true seeing lets you ALSO see the falsehood that it penetrates.

If you're talking to an invisible person while using true seeing, do you know they're invisible? Or do they look just like any other visible person would?

If you're talking to a doppelganger while using true seeing, do you know what form that doppelganger is currently wearing, or do you only see the doppelganger's true form?

If you're walking down a corridor that has an illusory wall blocking it, do you even know that you just walked through one, or did you just see the corridor continue on and have no idea why your companions, who lack true seeing, were hesitant to run full-tilt past that one point?

That's the crux of the issue indeed. Pathfinder has unequivocally answered that you get both pieces of information, and that's the interpretation I agree with.

[PacMan2247]

The spell description is not, in fact, entirely clear on this. It is unambiguous that the subject of the spell can see through illusions; it is not clear that is must. (Hence the varying interpretations.)

You've got your interpretations, obviously, but the spell still clearly states that the subject "sees invisible creatures or objects normally." It doesn't include a clause stating whether or not the subject of true seeing is aware that those creatures or objects are invisible; I'm sure a number of people would say that creates an ambiguity, but since the spell description says what the spell does, and doesn't state that the subject of the spell is aware of the magical effects affecting anything it might view, there's no reason to think it would be a part of the spell. What you're putting forth isn't an interpretation, it's a misunderstanding of something that's clearly defined.

Edit: In the absence of a 'Pathfinder' tag, I've been working from 3.5's PHB. As Psyren posted, Pathfinder says you do see it both ways, so it would depend on just what game you're playing.

[Segev]

That's the crux of the issue indeed. Pathfinder has unequivocally answered that you get both pieces of information, and that's the interpretation I agree with.

Got a citation? or at least a place I can go look? (Is it in true seeing's text, itself?)

[Psyren]

Got a citation? or at least a place I can go look? (Is it in true seeing's text, itself?)

The FAQ answer for Phantasmal Killer + True Seeing says you see both the illusion and the fact that nothing is actually there, thus automatically making your save.

[Evolved Shrimp]

That's the crux of the issue indeed. Pathfinder has unequivocally answered that you get both pieces of information, and that's the interpretation I agree with.

Now you got me really confused. That’s seems to be what my interpretation is, too… with which you seemed to disagree. I seem to be missing something here.

[Psyren]

Now you got me really confused. That’s seems to be what my interpretation is, too… with which you seemed to disagree. I seem to be missing something here.

I'll try to clear it up:

In the case of Invisible Spell Fog, I didn't definitively come down on one side or the other. I'm saying that I understand the viewpoint of the folks that believe it would obscure the True Seer.

In the case of polymorph though, I'm unequivocally saying that (I believe) you get the information of the shapeshifter's true form without said true form blocking the rest of your vision, even if it's larger than their assumed form.

[Evolved Shrimp]

I'll try to clear it up:

In the case of Invisible Spell Fog, I didn't definitively come down on one side or the other. I'm saying that I understand the viewpoint of the folks that believe it would obscure the True Seer.

In the case of polymorph though, I'm unequivocally saying that (I believe) you get the information of the shapeshifter's true form without said true form blocking the rest of your vision, even if it's larger than their assumed form.

Ah, OK – thanks.

Seems we’re pretty close, then. In the end, though, when faced with an actual situation in the game, one needs to go one way or another. I’ve decided for myself that I’ll opt for simplicity – True Seeing lets you always see the real or the apparent, as desired, no matter which effect you’re facing – but, as you say, I can understand why people would decide differently.