I need an iron-clad argument re: True Seeing

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So, there's this rules argument I've been having with a whole bunch of people over the course of the past couple years.

It hinges on the - to my mind - inappropriately worded phrase:

True seeing does not help the viewer see through mundane disguises, spot creatures who are simply hiding ...

I contend, and have crafted many, many examples to support, that this particular line does not apply to anyone who is only using darkness - and the concealment that it grants - in order to Hide.

To whit, a creature has concealment against a human holding a torch when it is in the 20'-40' range circle. Farther than that, it has Total Concealment, and doesn't need to Hide at all.

Therefore, the creature meets the requirements of using the Hide skill - 1. Have cover or concealment; 2. Not be under active observation.

Should that human then cast True Seeing, he or she ignores all mundane and natural darkness within 120' - meaning that the creature 30' away no longer has concealment, and should therefore be revealed (though only to that particular human, and not necessarily to the 2nd human standing next to him).

[EDIT: Note that the creature never had concealment against the elf standing next to the human.]

I've brought up the point that Darkvision eliminates the concealment at that range, and True Seeing is Darkvision+++, and therefore should work similarly.

All the idiots ( ) just keep saying, "But True Seeing *says* it doesn't counter mundane hiding."

So, oh Rules Lawyers among Rules Lawyers, can anyone construct, for me, an iron-clad, no-bones-about-it proof that True Seeing beats "hiding in the shadows of a dark alley"?

Or am *I* out to lunch?

[EDIT: I've also done a quick search of the FAQs and the Errata, and couldn't find hardly anything about Hiding at all, let alone the interface between Hiding and True Seeing]

 

[Westwind]

First off, I'm sorry that you're stuck playing with people willing to argue the point when the intent of True Seeing is pretty clear. True Seeing sees through anything that isn't physical.


You example of the torch is spot on. That said, I'd rule there are ways of hiding from someone with an active true seeing spell.

1. Cover. Behind a curtain, under a table, behind the pile of trash in the shadowy alley etc. True Seeing isn't x-ray vision (see caveat about physical disguises), so these things will still work.

2. Some forms of concealment. For example, if you're behind a bunch of thin vines that don't actually count as cover, you could still hide from someone using True Seeing.

3. Chameleon effects. This might be a little more iffy, but True Seeing states that you see things "as they actually are." If a chameleon blends in with the background thanks to some (Ex) ability, that's still how it actually is and should gain concealment, allowing it to hide.

 

[calypso15]

Put it to them this way: Hide is an opposed check. It is opposed by observers Spot check. Which means that different observers can have different advantages or disadvantages.

If a human and a dwarf are keeping watch together on a moonless night, and a rogue is attempting to stealthily approach, the human has very little chance of spotting him (total concealment) whereas the dwarf has no penalty out to 60 feet and will very likely see him.

The same goes for True Seeing. It says in Hide that you gain +40 to Hide if you are invisible. That is, you gain +40 if the observer cannot see you. So if you have two people keeping watch, one with True Seeing and one without, and an invisible person is approaching, he only gets the +40 (actually +20 because he's moving) against the person without True Seeing. The person with True Seeing can see him plain as day.

This also applies to hiding in darkness, which provides total concealment. If the observer can see in the darkness perfectly fine, then the person Hiding gains no advantage from it. Namely: They Aren't Hidden.

Calypso

 

[Delemental]

While I can't say it's 'iron-clad', since there are no rulebook references to back it up, what I think you're suffering from is a case where the designeers got a bit too pedantic in clarifying the spell's limitations. Let's look at a bit more of the paragraph that you quoted:

True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects. It in no way confers X-ray vision or its equivalent. It does not negate concealment, including that caused by fog and the like. True seeing does not help the viewer see through mundane disguises, spot creatures who are simply hiding, or notice secret doors hidden by mundane means.

Now, to my mind what this all boils down to is to tell you that true seeing doesn't see through solid objects, and everything after the first two sentences is meant to clarify that. However, in doing so they have created two problem sentences; the "does not negate concealment" one, and the "spot creatures who are simply hiding" one that you quoted. The problem is that they failed to address the issue of using the concealment factor of darkness, which is not a physical object, and which is negated according to the spell's description ("sees through normal or magical darkness"). They should have specifically excluded darkness from the "does not negate concealment" line, because what I believe they are talking about is concelament from a physical object blocking line of sight, such as fog, or a big rock. They also should have clarified that if a hiding subject is using darkness as their sole means of concealment, then true seeing would reveal them (if the hider had used the darkness as their initial source of concealment and then moved into a convenient crevice or behind a piece of furniture, then their Hide would not be negated by the spell).

The argument you are trying to make is one of common sense. If Enemy A is hiding behind a big rock, and my wizard disintegrates that rock, would they not be revealed, as their source of concealment is gone and they are now in my line of sight? If Enemy B is standing in the middle of the corridor in the dark 50 feet away, staying out of the range of my torch as their Hide check, would that hide not be negated if I suddenly lit a second torch and threw it 30 feet down the hall?

Unfortunately, the spell as written has some flaws that defy common sense, which is the thing that the worst of the rules-lawyers love.

There are three requirements for a successful Hide:

1. Cover or concealment
2. The absence of direct observation at the time of the skill attempt
3. A Hide check result in excess of the Spot check results of observers

Eliminate one factor, and you aren't hiding. I think the thing to do in game play is that whenever someone says "I Hide", they need to specify how, exactly, they are fulfilling these three conditions.

 

[AuraSeer]

Patryn, your argument is perfectly reasonable, and the people you're arguing with are in fact idiots )). Unfortunately, this is a case where one needs to read and understand the rules, so there's no iron-clad argument to use against people who skip the second part.

Your best bet is to send a question to Sage Advice, and hope they listen to the voice of authority. I'd also suggest WOTC Customer Service, except they're not always very good at the "understanding" thing either.

 

[Nail]

...yep, they're dolts......

I'd also suggest WOTC Customer Service, except they're not always very good at the "understanding" thing either.

(chuckles)



Seriously: The argument hinges on what Hiding is, and how concealment is required for that activity. Convince them that True Seeing takes away the concealment provided by darkness. That should be easy to do, actually.


Question: "Do you get concealment from being in a darkened area when viewed by True Sight?"

Answer: "No"

Conclusion: "Therefore you cannot be hidden, if your only concealment was provided by that darkness."

 

[MerakSpielman]

There is a bonus granted to Hide if the hider is within darkness or shadowy illumination. It makes perfect sense to me to deny this bonus when the hider is being Spotted by a creature with the ability to see through darkness.

That said, they're still hiding, and they have rolled their Hide check. I would maintain that the fellow with True Seeing would still have to make a Spot check in order to see them.

In the "featureless dark room" example, presume the hider is hiding in a featureless, lit room. Whether they can or cannot hide under such conditions is a separate discussion and has been argued before, somewhat vehemently if I recall.

 

[Pielorinho]

The SRD is contradictory, and I think this is where the problem is. "Sees through normal and magical darkness," translated into rulespeak, means "negates the concealment provided by darkness." The later line reading "It does not negate concealment, including that caused by fog and the like" therefore is contradictory.

Clearly the intent is that the spell does negate concealment provided by darkness. But since the spell's description contradicts itself, you've either got to houserule it, or you've got to play with an internally contradictory spell.

The only way I could see this working consistently is to say that when true seeing is up, I can perfectly see someone in the pitch dark, but due to the darkness, if I attack them, I suffer a 50% miss chance. And that's just silly, IMO.

Then again, I'm all for having the rules serve plausibility .

Daniel

 

[Nail]

There is a bonus granted to Hide if the hider is within darkness or shadowy illumination.

Not to be contradictory or anything, but: No it doesn't.

The SRD does not say what you claim it says. Darkness does NOT give you a bonus to Hide checks. (Perhaps you are thinking of invisibility?) Darkness is one way of gaining concealment; if you have that concealment, you may hide. If you do not have concealment or cover, you may not hide. (The ability "Hide in Plain Sight" being an obvious exception.)

 

[MerakSpielman]

The SRD is contradictory, and I think this is where the problem is. "Sees through normal and magical darkness," translated into rulespeak, means "negates the concealment provided by darkness." The later line reading "It does not negate concealment, including that caused by fog and the like" therefore is contradictory.

What I think it meant to say is "It does not negate concealment caused by opaque obstructions, including that caused by solid objects, fog, and the like."

or something.