Concealing Amorpha Powers from XPH

[green slime]

Of course true seeing penetrates concealing amphora. The rules concerning true seeing where written prior to, and are seperated from the psionic rules. So of course they do not refer to, nor use the same language as contained in the XPH. Or are you suggesting that not even psionic true seeing will penetrate concealing amphora? Which for me is just too wierd to contemplate, unless you are playing by strict "psionics are different" rules, and in which case psionic true seeing should not penetrate magical illusions... Which also seems strange. The purpose of the spell true seeing is to reveal all such magical (and psionic) obfuscations for what they really are.

True seeing penetrates even shape change. If it is only "quasi-real", then true seeing will see what it really is, i.e. nothing. Leaves on a tree are not "quasi-real"

 

[KarinsDad]

It's only quasi-real, not a solid object. True Seeing would see throught it just fine.

Regardless of whether or not physical objects can grant concealment or cover, it's not a physical object.

Real or quasi-real (there are no definitions of quasi-real elements in the game btw), True Seeing still does not see through it.

True Seeing PHB page 296

"It does not negate concealment, including that caused by fog and the like."

Quasi-real is in no way is defined as an illusion, so the "sees through illusions" aspect of True Seeing does not trump this. There are "partially real" Shadows, but those are explicitly defined as illusions.

Concealing Amorpha is also a metacreativity power. "This discipline includes powers that draw ectoplasm or matter from the Astral Plane, creating semisolid and solid items such as armor, weapons, or animated constructs to do battle at the shaper's command.".

Metacreativity powers are not illusions unless it states so (and I do not know of any metacreative powers that are defined as illusions).

Just because Shadows are "partially real" and Concealing Amporpha is "quasi-real" does not make them the same thing.

Shadow illusions do partial damage. Metacreative objects do full damage.

Two totally different effects and set of rules. For example, Dismiss Ectoplasm will not dispel an illusion, nor will Break Enchantment affect Concealing Amorpha, even if you play magic and psionics are the same.

 

[KarinsDad]

Of course true seeing penetrates concealing amphora. The rules concerning true seeing where written prior to, and are seperated from the psionic rules. So of course they do not refer to, nor use the same language as contained in the XPH. Or are you suggesting that not even psionic true seeing will penetrate concealing amphora? Which for me is just too wierd to contemplate, unless you are playing by strict "psionics are different" rules, and in which case psionic true seeing should not penetrate magical illusions... Which also seems strange. The purpose of the spell true seeing is to reveal all such magical (and psionic) obfuscations for what they really are.

True seeing penetrates even shape change. If it is only "quasi-real", then true seeing will see what it really is, i.e. nothing. Leaves on a tree are not "quasi-real"

Irrelevant. If they had wanted Psionic True Seeing to see through quasi-real Concealing Amorpha, they should have indicated it. They didn't.

And, 3.5 True Seeing WAS written after 3E psionics, so it is not like were not aware of Metacreativity powers (although Concealing Amorpha didn't exist at that time).

 

[green slime]

Fair enough, I see your point, KD. Still, not in my game!

I guess I just interpret

"..., sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects..."

to include concealing amphora, as it is a blur effect re-written in psionic language. The rest is only so much flavour text, IMO.

 

[KarinsDad]

Fair enough, I see your point, KD. Still, not in my game!

I guess I just interpret

"..., sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects..."

to include concealing amphora, as it is a blur effect re-written in psionic language. The rest is only so much flavour text, IMO.

I agree with you that this was probably their intent.

But, designer intent and RAW are sometimes too different things. Game on!

 

[green slime]

Provide any one single instance, of a spell in 3.5 (from 3.0), which has had its text changed to accommodate psionics. Any one. There aren't. The text in the PHB 3.5 takes no consideration whatsoever of the psionic rules.

 

[Caliban]

Real or quasi-real (there are no definitions of quasi-real elements in the game btw), True Seeing still does not see through it.

True Seeing PHB page 296

"It does not negate concealment, including that caused by fog and the like."

Quasi-real is in no way is defined as an illusion, so the "sees through illusions" aspect of True Seeing does not trump this. There are "partially real" Shadows, but those are explicitly defined as illusions.

Concealing Amorpha is also a metacreativity power. "This discipline includes powers that draw ectoplasm or matter from the Astral Plane, creating semisolid and solid items such as armor, weapons, or animated constructs to do battle at the shaper's command.".

Metacreativity powers are not illusions unless it states so (and I do not know of any metacreative powers that are defined as illusions).

Just because Shadows are "partially real" and Concealing Amporpha is "quasi-real" does not make them the same thing.

Shadow illusions do partial damage. Metacreative objects do full damage.

Two totally different effects and set of rules. For example, Dismiss Ectoplasm will not dispel an illusion, nor will Break Enchantment affect Concealing Amorpha, even if you play magic and psionics are the same.

*shrug* Whatever. Ignore the intent of the rules if you want.

 

[KarinsDad]

*shrug* Whatever. Ignore the intent of the rules if you want.

This is a rules forum Caliban.

Not an "intent of the rules" forum.

We can discuss both, but if someone asks what the rule is, I am going to try to tell them the rule. I might also tell them the intent, but I will try to distinguish the difference.

In this case, the rule is that True Seeing does not negate concealment unless it is an illusionary concealment or concealment caused by darkness (tmk, I do not know of any transmutation concealments).

 

[Caliban]

This is a rules forum Caliban.

Not an "intent of the rules" forum.

We can discuss both, but if someone asks what the rule is, I am going to try to tell them the rule. I might also tell them the intent, but I will try to distinguish the difference.

In this case, the rule is that True Seeing does not negate concealment unless it is an illusionary concealment or concealment caused by darkness (tmk, I do not know of any transmutation concealments).

I didn't ask you.

You responded to my post, not the original posters. I was answering a question that was asked of me.

You just saw a nit you could pick, and you decided to do it, even though you later stated that you thought the intent was that True Seeing would work.

I'm really not interested in argueing for the sake of argueing.

 

[atom crash]

Provide any one single instance, of a spell in 3.5 (from 3.0), which has had its text changed to accommodate psionics. Any one. There aren't. The text in the PHB 3.5 takes no consideration whatsoever of the psionic rules.

That's so true. The psionics rules weren't part of the SRD -- and by extension not core rules -- until after the XPH came out. And now we're having a discussion in which we're trying to figure out how to rule psionic and magical effects that don't always sync up.

I agree with Caliban and green slime that the intent was apparently for concealing amorpha was to be a psionic version of blur. But there are differences implied in the mechanics, as well. That's why I don't ascribe to the concept of psionic-magic transparency. I rule that psionics are different, because there's enough discrepancies to warrant it. Otherwise, the psionics handbook could be boiled down to a simple listing of how many PP a caster receives at each level and how many PP each spell consumes. And how fun would that be?