Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Delemental" data-source="post: 1839958" data-attributes="member: 5203">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: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 concealment2. The absence of direct observation at the time of the skill attempt3. A Hide check result in excess of the Spot check results of observersEliminate 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.</blockquote>

Verification