Can True Seeing see someone covered in Dust of Disapperance?

[Dwarmaj]

The item says that See Invisible and Invisiblity Purge don't work. Does True Seeing?

Dwarmaj

 

[gfunk]

Exact quote, "Normal vision can't see dusted creatures or objects, nor can they be detected by magical means, *including* see invisibility or invisibility purge."

Since they say including and not "such as" or "limited to" it seems clear that all forms of magical detection are impossible. You would be limited to Blindsight, Scent, Tremorsense, and such.

 

[Artoomis]

After reading both descriptions carefully, this appears to be a sort of "irresistible force meeting an immovable object" sort of scenario. True Seeing is supposed to see just such sort of things (heck, it even sees into the ethereal plane), but the dust is not supposed to be detectable.

I lean just slightly towards saying True Seeing won't work, but one could easily rule either way and feel good about it.

edit: Okay, I'm leaning over the other way, now.

 

[pontus]

After thinking about it for some time, my only conclusion was that Dust of Disappearance should never have been created. See invisibility (and true seeing) is supposed to reveal invisible creatures, yet here we have an item that foils the spell, and unlike nondetection, there's no opposed checks. The only counter is dust of appearance.

Bad! I say! Bad! Bad! Bad!

 

[SpikeyFreak]

After thinking about it for some time, my only conclusion was that Dust of Disappearance should never have been created. See invisibility (and true seeing) is supposed to reveal invisible creatures, yet here we have an item that foils the spell, and unlike nondetection, there's no opposed checks. The only counter is dust of appearance.

Bad! I say! Bad! Bad! Bad!

I agree.

Some food for though: true seeing is a cleric 5th/ sor/wiz 6th/ druid7th level spell. Should it really be trumped by a magic item that's worth a whopping 3500gp and only requires a 4th level spell to make?

IMC true seeing is infallible short of gods and artifacts.

--Happy Spikey

 

[graydoom]

I would tend to agree... True Seeing is really meant to defeat all effects like this. In this case, I would rule that True Seeing easily leaves the dust in the dust.

 

[CRGreathouse]

After thinking about it for some time, my only conclusion was that Dust of Disappearance should never have been created. See invisibility (and true seeing) is supposed to reveal invisible creatures, yet here we have an item that foils the spell, and unlike nondetection, there's no opposed checks. The only counter is dust of appearance.

Bad! I say! Bad! Bad! Bad!

I would tend to agree... True Seeing is really meant to defeat all effects like this. In this case, I would rule that True Seeing easily leaves the dust in the dust.

I agree with both of these - I don't like the idea of true seeing as "You see what's there. Well, usually...".