I need an iron-clad argument re: True Seeing

[Nail]

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.

No it's not.

The line you are talking about is in an entirely separate paragraph!

...and that paragraphs topic (and first!) sentence is "True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects." Darkness is a lighting condition; it has nothing to do with physical things getting in the way of seeing a creature or object.

 

[Nail]

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.

.....right!

It's true that, taken out of context, you could try some shinanigans with the phrase "It does not negate concealment...". But the rest of the sentence and paragraph shows what it's talking about.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

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.

Actually, I'm not sure it's contradictory, though it is confusingly written. The quote given by Delemental states that True Seeing doesn't penetrate solid objects, then uses fog as an example of a solid object that True Seeing does not penetrate. Fog, unlike darkness, has a physical substance that foils True Seeing.

I've always taken this to mean that anything that has physical substance, but provides concealment rather than cover, would foil True Seeing, such as the specifically mentioned fog, or smoke, heavy rain, etc.

The spell is detailing a very specific exception to the powers of True Seeing, namely non-magical, mundane, physical deceptions. Darkness has no physical substance to qualify for the exception, and is specifically mentioned as being foiled by True Seeing.

 

[MerakSpielman]

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.)

It might not be in the SRD, but it's somewhere in the 3.5 RAW. I know, because it came up last session and we found the reference. I'll take a look when I get to my books this evening.

 

[Nail]

Merak: I'd love to hear about it. I've got my books....what book, and where (about). PH? DMG?

[EDIT]: I just looked over my PH. Are you sure you're nothing thinking of penalties to Search or Spot checks? In some cases that can be functionally equivalent.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Merak: I'd love to hear about it. I've got my books....what book, and where (about). PH? DMG?

I told the players the area X distance around their campfire was "Shadowy Illumination" and they started scrambling through the books, looking for the official definition of that term. Try the indexes. I'm not really sure.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You mean this?

In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly. Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character. A creature in an area of shadowy illumination can make a Hide check to conceal itself.

Or, possibly, this?

Concealment and Hide Checks: You can use concealment to make a Hide check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Hide check.

 

[Nail]

I'm there.

PH, section on Vision, p. 164 - 165.

It does not say you get a bonus to your hide check. It does say that hiding is possible in areas of shadowy illumination. I think yer players pulled a fast one......

 

[Nail]

Aack, Patryn beat me to it!

Darn you all to heck, Patryn, you nasty fast-typing type, you.

 

[MerakSpielman]

[EDIT]: I just looked over my PH. Are you sure you're nothing thinking of penalties to Search or Spot checks? In some cases that can be functionally equivalent.

It must have been the penalty to Spot check that tipped the odds in their favor. When making opposed Spot-Hide rolls, a penalty to Spot is very similar to a bonus to Hide. In this battle, it made all the difference, because the archers sneaking up on the camp failed to spot the PC on guard entirely because of that penalty.