Nystuls Magical Aura

[Mephistopheles]

The divine true seeing grants the ability to see auras in 3.0 but not in 3.5. Even in 3.0 I'm not sure that the divine true seeing detects magical auras or if it is limited to alignment auras.

From the 3.0 SRD:

Additionally, the divine version of this spell allows the subject to see auras, noting alignments of creatures at a glance.

All things considered I think Oni's argument is correct. True seeing does not grant the ability to see magical auras and doesn't extend the ability to penetrate illusions to other forms of vision (such as detect magic) so it doesn't see through Nystul's undetectable aura/Nystul's magic aura.

I disagree with KarinsDad's suggestion that wall of force would block true seeing. The description for wall of force in both 3.0 and 3.5 states that it does not block gaze attacks.

 

[KarinsDad]

The description for wall of force in both 3.0 and 3.5 states that it does not block gaze attacks.

What does gaze attacks have to do with:

"The wall of force cannot move, it is immune to damage of all kinds, and it is totally unaffected by most spells, including dispel magic. However, disintegrate immediately destroys it, as does a rod of cancellation, a sphere of annihilation, and disjunction. Spells and breath weapons cannot pass through the wall in either direction"

Nothing indicates that True Seeing can penetrate a Wall of Force since spells (unless noted in their text or the text of Wall of Force) cannot penetrate the Wall.

 

[KarinsDad]

Here is the SRD text:
I don't see anything about seeing auras.

It is in the 3E book, not the SRD.

You say that Detect Magic could be enhanced by True Seeing, if we use that logic then we oculd say that clairaudience/clairvoyance is also enhanced by True Seeing and not the other way around. However it is clearly spelled out in the spell description that this does not in anyway work. Detect Magic and True Seeing gain absolutely no combined benefit.

This is a reasonable interpretation.

However, I take phrases like the one in True Seeing with a grain of salt.

For example, you are in a dark cavern. It is naturally dark (not a darkness spell). You cast Darkvision. You can now see.

You cast True Seeing. With your interpretation, the True Seeing does not work. Why? Because you are not seeing naturally, you are seeing via magic.

Hence, the Darkvision does not enhance True Seeing. But, the dwarven cleric standing next to you with natural Darkvision can cast True Seeing and use it effectively.

I can see this as a valid interpretation of the text of True Seeing, I just also see it as a fairly limited and literal interpretation that disagrees (in my mind) with the intent of that text, or at least the example of that text.

I think the designers meant that you cannot put True Seeing through any type of "long distance" scry (like Clairvoyance or a Crystal Ball), not that enhancing yourself with spells would not give True Seeing the ability to pierce illusions and perceive auras once you gave yourself that ability.

The ironic thing about this, of course, is that there is a Crystal Ball With True Seeing in the DMG. So, you cannot do this with the spells, but you can do it if you explicitly craft an item with those exact same spells. When it comes to stuff from WotC, the left hand sometimes doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

But, your literal interpretation of no spells whatsoever is perfectly reasonable (just not much fun for players who like versatile spells and spell combinations to play the game with).

 

[Oni]

It is in the 3E book, not the SRD.

But, your literal interpretation of no spells whatsoever is perfectly reasonable (just not much fun for players who like versatile spells and spell combinations to play the game with).

What's more fun is of course something up to debate as well, especially if we consider the original poster of this thread who was/is worried about True Seeing trumping the entire school of illusion and primary focus of his character.

Personally when you have an occurance like that I think you've gone over the boundary between versatile and creative to broken and boring.

Of course to each their own, that is just my reasoning for taking such a hard line on this particular spell.

 

[KarinsDad]

What's more fun is of course something up to debate as well, especially if we consider the original poster of this thread who was/is worried about True Seeing trumping the entire school of illusion and primary focus of his character.

Except that it does not trump the entire school of illusion.

It trumps the visual portion of that school.

For example, Lightning Bolt and Fireball are instantaneous spells. Using Shadow Evocation, True Seeing would allow you to know they are illusions, but not instantaneously (at least by any reasonable DM who had an illusionist PC in the group). At best, opponents might get the +4 bonus to their save for being aware that it is an illusion.

An opponent with True Seeing, fine. Cast Shadow Conjuration of a circular Wall of Iron around him. Since the Wall is quasi-real, it will prevent that opponent from seeing beyond it at other illusions. He will know that the wall is an illusion, but will not be able to see beyond it because the wall is also made of shadow matter.

Cast Phantasmal Killer or Weird at True Seeing opponents. These spells are not visual, rather they are in the mind of the recipient. You cannot see within your own mind, not even with True Seeing.

Put illusions more than 120 feet away, beyond the visual range of True Seeing.

Cast Greater Dispel Magic before casting illusions or after an opponent appears to have cast True Seeing.

Cast illusions without visual components. Sounds can be used to great affect to influence others, especially in eerie settings.

Attempt to encounter enemy spell casters multiple times per day. True Seeing has a duration of one minute per level. A half hour later, most spell casters will no longer have the spell up. In fact, try to suck those True Seeing spells out of enemy spell casters by having obvious illusions or by having invisible allies. Once they appear to be able to see your allies (by making a Spell Crafting check when an opponent spell caster casts True Seeing, or by them just noticing your Improved Invisible allies), then retreat (teleport away, etc.) and come back later.


Finally, talk to the DM. Make sure he is aware of how disruptive True Seeing is to the game and how although opponents who are ready for combat should have it, a lot of other spell casters who are not necessarily prepared for fighting might not.

 

[Hypersmurf]

For example, you are in a dark cavern. It is naturally dark (not a darkness spell). You cast Darkvision. You can now see.

You cast True Seeing. With your interpretation, the True Seeing does not work. Why? Because you are not seeing naturally, you are seeing via magic.

Hence, the Darkvision does not enhance True Seeing. But, the dwarven cleric standing next to you with natural Darkvision can cast True Seeing and use it effectively.

Uh, from the description of True Seeing: "The subject sees through normal and magical darkness... The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet."

So Darkvision is kinda unnecessary. You can see 120 feet in full colour with True Seeing, while the dwarf can see 60 feet in black and white with his natural Darkvision...

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Double Post.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Uh, from the description of True Seeing: "The subject sees through normal and magical darkness... The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet."

So Darkvision is kinda unnecessary. You can see 120 feet in full colour with True Seeing, while the dwarf can see 60 feet in black and white with his natural Darkvision...

Good point. Forgot about that.

Course, that's another interesting thing. It sees the true form of magic in all cases except for normal darkness. Hence, although it states that it does not "spot creatures that are simply hidden" (like Rogues), presumably you can see normally through normal darkness, hence, hidden creatures hiding in darkness (not behind something) would be fairly obvious in darkness. Hence, although it states that it would not help against hidden creatures, it does if they are merely "hiding in darkness or shadow" (and not behind something).

This, of course, leads to questions concerning whether this affects the supernatural ability of Shadowdancers to Hide in Plain Sight, etc.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Good point. Forgot about that.

'course, apart from the unfortunate choice of example, the point is valid for all the other spells that don't synergise with True Seeing

You left off one other way to combat True Seeing - corner the saffron market.

If you can control every source of saffron (since getting a monopoly on either fat or mushroom powder would be tough), you can prevent anyone from making the ointment needed for the material component...

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you can control every source of saffron (since getting a monopoly on either fat or mushroom powder would be tough), you can prevent anyone from making the ointment needed for the material component...

Remember, those are rare mushrooms.

Or even, create a high level spell that can only destroy that material component in a 30 foot radius with a nasty high save DC (since it does nothing else but that).

Better yet, freeze that ointment in the spell casters eyes into a solid form (True Seeing cannot see through solid objects). That way, you blind the caster and take away his True Seeing at the same time.

Teleport a sightless locking helm onto his head?

For clerics, transform their helmet into a large pot (with an appropriately small neck). Or, just have a spell that flips their helmet around on their head so that the eye slots are in the rear (and tightens the chin strap).

Summon a monster that likes to swallow enemies whole.

The possibilities are endless if you create new spells.