Nystuls Magical Aura

[Hypersmurf]

Teleport a sightless locking helm onto his head?

"But with the blast-shield down I can't even see - how am I s'posed to fight?!"

-Hyp.

 

[Mephistopheles]

What does gaze attacks have to do with...

What gaze attacks have to do with true seeing and wall of force is that it is an example of an effect that can cross a wall of force and it happens to be a visual effect, perhaps supporting the ability of true seeing to penetrate a wall of force. After doing some FAQ and spell browsing, though, I'm having some trouble resolving this question. I'll list a few points I looked at and some things I found a little ambiguous.

1. From the Main FAQ:

A wall of force blocks line of effect, just like any other solid barrier.

2. From the true seeing spell description:

True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects. It in no way confers X-ray vision or its equivalent.

3. From the wall of force spell description:

Spells and breath weapons cannot pass through the wall in either direction...

#1 establishes that wall of force is a solid barrier, equivalent to a mundane wall that would block line of sight in addition to blocking line of effect, although a wall of force only blocks line of effect.

#2 establishes that true seeing cannot penetrate solid objects. I think this is a little ambiguous where wall of force is concerned as it is not solid as far as blocking line of sight is concerned but it is solid as far as blocking line of effect is concerned. The mention in the very next sentence that true seeing does not confer X-ray vision seems to imply that by "solid objects" it means objects that would block line of sight.

#3 establishes that spells cannot pass through a wall of force. However, in the case of true seeing is the spell actually required to pass through the wall of force to function? The detection spells (detect magic, etc) are described as emanations which are able to break the rules for emanations in some cases but not others, and I'd probably argue that wall of force is a type of barrier they cannot penetrate. See invisibility is described as affecting a cone area in 3.0, but has been changed to a personal range with no area of effect in 3.5. True seeing is not described as an emanation and has no area of effect. It affects the recipient and extends to a range of 120 feet. This means it doesn't require a line of effect, although as established by #2 it does require line of sight. So is the spell actually required to pass through the wall of force or does it work solely on the caster to alter perceptions?

At this point I'd probably conclude that in 3.0, of the spells discussed only true seeing would work across a wall of force, and in 3.5 see invisibility and true seeing would work across a wall of force. Any official rulings or alternative interpretations with justification out there?

 

[KarinsDad]

What gaze attacks have to do with true seeing and wall of force is that it is an example of an effect that can cross a wall of force and it happens to be a visual effect, perhaps supporting the ability of true seeing to penetrate a wall of force.

It explicitly allows gaze attacks to penetrate, but not most other spell effects.

...

At this point I'd probably conclude that in 3.0, of the spells discussed only true seeing would work across a wall of force, and in 3.5 see invisibility and true seeing would work across a wall of force. Any official rulings or alternative interpretations with justification out there?

A well thought out response.

However, Range is called out as "A spell's range is the maximum distance from you that the spell's effect can occur".

True Seeing states "The range of True Seeing conferred is 120 feet."

The only difference between Wall of Force and Antimagic Field is that Antimagic Field suppresses any magic or spell effect and Wall of Force prevents spell effects from passing it.

Would you allow True Seeing to see past an Antimagic Field and see past an illusion on the other side?

If not, then why would you allow True Seeing to see past a Wall of Force and see past an illusion on the other side? Both spells stop the spell effect, they just do it in different manners.

If you would allow True Seeing to see past an Antimagic Field and see past an illusion on the other side, what would be your justification?

Granted, Wall of Force does allow certain spell effects to pass through it, but why would you allow any spell effect to pass through which is not one of the ones listed as allowed?

Gaze attacks are explicitly called out as an exception to this. Why? Well, possibly because gaze attacks are typically supernatural abilities and not spell or spell-like effects. True Seeing, on the other hand, is not a supernatural ability, it is a spell.

The reason I think that True Seeing has to have an effective line of effect is due to:

1) It has a range limit of 120 feet.

2) It allows you to see the true shape of polymorphed creatures. Polymorphed creatures give off light just like normal creatures. They are transformed creatures. There are no imperfections in that light (like an illusion) which a True Seeing spell could decipher as the true shape of the creature. So, in order to discern the true nature of a Polymorphed creature, the magic (or effect) of the True Seing spell would have to penetrate the Wall of Force to get to the Polymorphed creature and discern that the magic is Transmutation, etc. If, on the other hand, Polymorphed creatures gave off a magical aura that the True Seeing spell could decipher, than that aura (being a magical aura) would be stopped by the Wall of Force as well.

Either way you look at it, True Seeing has to somehow get past the Wall of Force to perform its divination (just saying "it's magic" doesn't quite cut it with regard to other spells that have line of effect).

3) "True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects. It in no way confers X-ray vision or its equivalent." What about a perfectly clear Wall of Ice? It is a solid object. The phrase "does not penetrate" implies that it cannot get past it. If it cannot get past a clear Wall of Ice, why should it get past an invisible Wall of Force? Both are solid objects. Granted, the inference from the second sentence might be "True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid translucent objects." But, it does not actually state that. It is an interpretation to infer it.

Without the explicit qualifier of "translucent", I do not think you can definitively infer translucent from the sentence after it. That sentence could be an inference, or it could just be an example.

4) "A target is in line of sight if no obstructions are between you and the target." Clearly, a Wall of Force is an obstruction, even though you can see through it. A line of sight argument is fine if you think that True Seeing has no effect at all (i.e. it just changes the caster to divine through osmosis), but True Seeing does not state that it works for line of sight. It states that it cannot penetrate solid object, nor does it give x-ray vision.


In any case, it is not clear cut. It is open to interpretation.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Well that sure sucks...

Any hints how to go about trying to fool people with True Seeing then?

Since everyone knows divinations, it seems Illusionists are having a hard time in the high levels, especielly when True Seeing is a must-have spell.

Well, this wont fool them but it will chap them. Perhaps have a symbol of death spell that is covered up by an illusion and have it set so that it only goes off if it is seen. The first person with true seeing that comes will see through the illusion to the Symbol of Death or whatever symbol spell you choose and BAM!, dead diviner. Even if it doesnt kill them it will keep them on their toes as they explore your fortress of solitude or whatever it is you are trying to protect with your illusions.

 

[Kodam]

Windows?!

Hi!

True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects.

If you take this literally, True seeing doesn't work when you're looking out of a window!

Perhaps it should read instead
"True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects if they're not transparent".

Kodam

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, this wont fool them but it will chap them. Perhaps have a symbol of death spell that is covered up by an illusion and have it set so that it only goes off if it is seen. The first person with true seeing that comes will see through the illusion to the Symbol of Death or whatever symbol spell you choose and BAM!, dead diviner. Even if it doesnt kill them it will keep them on their toes as they explore your fortress of solitude or whatever it is you are trying to protect with your illusions.

This is a GREAT idea!

 

[KarinsDad]

If you take this literally, True seeing doesn't work when you're looking out of a window!

Perhaps it should read instead
"True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects if they're not transparent".

Perhaps it should, but it doesn't. Until it does, I'll take the slightly more limiting literal interpretation which restricts True Seeing ever so slightly. Ditto for the magic spells that do not work with it.

 

[Mephistopheles]

The only difference between Wall of Force and Antimagic Field is that Antimagic Field suppresses any magic or spell effect and Wall of Force prevents spell effects from passing it.

Enough effects can get around a wall of force that I wouldn't compare it to an antimagic field. I think you may be speculating here.

Gaze attacks are explicitly called out as an exception to this. Why? Well, possibly because gaze attacks are typically supernatural abilities and not spell or spell-like effects. True Seeing, on the other hand, is not a supernatural ability, it is a spell.

I don't think whether they are spells or spell-like or supernatural has any bearing on this. You're contradicting your comparison of wall of force and antimagic field as the latter suppresses spells, spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities. Additionally, there are enough creatures with true seeing as a supernatural ability to void this point.

Of your specific points I think #2 is the most convincing. I don't have any counter to it right now and it's the best example you've provided to explain why true seeing would actually need to "touch" something to modify the recipient's perception of it. Points #3 and #4 both depend on resolving the ambiguity of "solid objects" in the true seeing spell description to determine the result and so remain unresolved.

In any case, it is not clear cut. It is open to interpretation.

Well, we're in complete agreement on this point at least.