Nondetection / True Seeing /

[Angel of Adventure]

I'm pretty sure that Mind Blank will stop True Seeing. If you wanted to be tough, non-detection could give you a % chance to stop it.

 

[Stalker0]

Sure there is - the note at the top that True Seeing is a divination spell.


I think this is the clencher right there....this is what says true seeing is vulnerable to nondetection. Nondetection works against divinination spells, true seeing is a divination spell. Therefore, for true seeing to trump nondetection it would have to say so.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Sure there is - the note at the top that True Seeing is a divination spell.


I think this is the clencher right there....this is what says true seeing is vulnerable to nondetection. Nondetection works against divinination spells, true seeing is a divination spell. Therefore, for true seeing to trump nondetection it would have to say so.

I've already addressed all this in posts above.

 

[Iku Rex]

Basically, all the spells listed are some kind of magical detection. You're detecting something's alignment, or something's location, or the way something looks from a distance. True Seeing, on the other hand, isn't detecting anything. Instead, it operates more like a very specialized form of anti-magic, suppressing (but not dispelling) a very narrow range of spells, and only for the caster.

The examples are not supposed to illustrate some special subset of divination spells. You have offered no good reason for why that would be the case. The actual game mechanics of the nondetection spell (if "a divination" is attempted against the warded creature or item...") makes no mention of any restrictions on which divination spells nondetection can stop.


For those who care about that sort of thing, the ruling by "WotC sources" has been that nondetection (but not mind blank) can stop see invisible/true seeing. ( One cite out of several I've seen over the years: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=263622&postcount=30 .)

True Seeing seems different enough from the detection spells listed in the way it operates that I don't believe it fits into the criteria of Nondetection. Hence, True Seeing trumps Nondetection.

Even if we accept your special "detection only" restriction on nondetection, true seeing is as much a "detection spell" as, say, clairvoyance.

Indirect example: dust of disappearance. Normal vision can’t see dusted creatures or objects, nor can they be detected by magical means, including see invisibility or invisibility purge.

Does true seeing let you see dusted creatures? Why?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

The examples are not supposed to illustrate some special subset of divination spells. You have offered no good reason for why that would be the case.

Says you. My reason is extremely good, as far as I'm concerned. If Nondetection were meant to work against all divinations, that's what the spell would say. No need for a list or examples. "Divinations" would cover it. Instead, the spell description says it foils spells "such as" and gives a list. That means there are spells, that are not "such as" the ones listed, that Nondetection doesn't foil. Here, the DM needs to decide if spells not specifically listed are indeed similar to the listed spells, or different enough either in flavor or mechanics that they are not. I rule that True Seeing is not.

Even if we accept your special "detection only" restriction on nondetection, true seeing is as much a "detection spell" as, say, clairvoyance.

I've already explained my reasoning above, and nothing here even attempts to prove how that reasoning is faulty.

*shrug* I can see how you rule the way you do. It all comes down to two points of adjudication. 1. Does Nondetection apply to all divinations? And 2. If the answer to 1 is 'no' then is True Seeing a divination spell to which Nondetection applies?

I've pretty much given my reasons for ruling as I do. I don't really have anything more to add.

 

[Mark Chance]

Instead, the spell description says it foils spells "such as" and gives a list. That means there are spells, that are not "such as" the ones listed, that Nondetection doesn't foil.

No, it doesn't mean that, either grammatically or logically. The presence of a list that is clearly not meant to be all-inclusive does not indicate that the affected category (divinations) has any exceptions.

It is quite sensible to note that nondetection is an abjuration against divination spells, that true sight is a divination spell, that there is nothing in true sight's description that clearly indicates it can thwart abjurations (as opposed to illusions and transmutations, for example), and that, therefore, nondetection is potentially effective against true sight.

You're, of course, welcome to your opinion, but to insist that your opinion is a fact really is a bit much.

 

[Teemu]

Lord Pendragon, you do realize that ‘such as’ is synonymous with ‘for example’? That would be, “divination spells, for example clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells”. It doesn’t mean there are divination spells that aren’t affected by nondetection. And like Iku Rex pointed out, the spell description continues, “If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item”.

Looks pretty clear to me.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

You're, of course, welcome to your opinion, but to insist that your opinion is a fact really is a bit much.

Sorry about that. I guess I was thrown off by the fact that nearly every post in this forum makes the same assertion.

Looks pretty clear to me.

Looks pretty clear to me too.

 

[Iku Rex]

If Nondetection were meant to work against all divinations, that's what the spell would say.

The spell works against "divinations". (If "a divination" is attempted against the warded creature or item...")

It doesn't have to add ",any divination, no exceptions, we really mean it, honestly".

No need for a list or examples. "Divinations" would cover it.

So that's your argument? "Examples are never provided unless they're [somehow] absolutely necessary". Roughly how many counterexamples do you need to abandon that argument? 5? 10? 20? Because if you're unable to do a search of the SRD spell section for yourself I can certainly provide them.

Instead, the spell description says it foils spells "such as" and gives a list.

Uh, it foils divination spells "such as" and gives a list.

That means there are spells, that are not "such as" the ones listed, that Nondetection doesn't foil.

Sure there are "spells" not "such as" those listed. Any spell that's not a "divination spell" in fact.





Does true seeing let you see dusted [by dust of disappearance] creatures? Why? (Or why not?)

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Iku Rex, I'm done debating in this thread. Clearly, there are those who believe my reasoning is flawed re: True Seeing. Fair enough. But you haven't said anything that others haven't said upthread, and you aren't going to change my mind any more than my arguments will change yours. And in any case, all my arguments have already been posted upthread.

Good gaming.