Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 1193086" data-attributes="member: 2011">It explicitly allows gaze attacks to penetrate, but not most other spell effects.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.</blockquote>

Verification