See Invisibility

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: See Invisibility

This is precisely why See Invisibility should not totally negate the invisibility, rather it should allow you to see through the invisible target.

Think of it as making the invisible target transparent.

Character One has See Invisibility up.
Character Two does not.

Character One sees a brick wall.
Character Two sees the Dragon waiting on the other side of the brick wall.

I do not think that Character One should be penalized on information that he would normally have, just because he has a divination spell up to give him other information.


The first part of the See Invisibility spell implies that you cannot see through the brick wall with the phrase "normally visible".

"The character sees any objects or beings that are invisible, as well as any that are astral or ethereal, as if they were normally visible."

However, when you read the rest of the spell:

"The spell does not reveal the method used to obtain invisibility…",

this implies that you get the information that something is invisible, just not the method of invisibility. This sentence would not really be needed if you did not know that something was actually invisible. Taking these two sentences together implies to me that you see both, an indication that something is invisible along with the ability to see it normally.

Hence, with the brick wall example, I think a colored transparent interpretation is best. Otherwise, you are penalizing a character for having a divination spell up. IMO.

Dude. That was thin.

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: Re: Re: Re: See Invisibility

Dude. That was thin.

Yeah maybe.

But, Mage Armor puts a force field around characters.

Does that mean that they cannot touch anything?

I rule in favor of usability and playability.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: See Invisibility

Yeah maybe.

There ain't no maybe about it! It was thin and without merit! (I'm not yelling. More like amazement.)

But, Mage Armor puts a force field around characters.

Does that mean that they cannot touch anything?

Of course not. Besides, the spell description doesn't state that you can't touch anything.

I rule in favor of usability and playability.

I'm not sure that you are in this case. Take True Seeing, for example. With True Seeing, you automatically see all illusions, shapechanged creatures and objects, polymorphed creatures and objects, etc, etc, etc, as they truly are. That's pretty damn powerful, so there must be something to offset that power. Do you actually know that the object you are looking at is illusioned, shapechanged, polymorphed, etc? No. That's the offset.

If you're walkin' down a dungeon corridor and you see an obvious spike pit (which is actually illusioned over to look just like the floor) in the middle of the hall, and you simply step around it without alerting your companions, they might fall in because they cannot see what you can. They see a solid floor. You see a pit. There is nothing to alert you that the pit has an illusion on it. If you had Detect Magic going, or the See Magic monster ability, along with True Seeing, then you would know something was up. You would see an obvious pit with a magical aura at the top of it.

That's the offset.

So, is True Sight or True Seeing balanced in regards to useability and playability? IMHO, yes they are, and so is See Invisibility.

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: See Invisibility

I'm not sure that you are in this case. Take True Seeing, for example.

...

That's the offset.

So, with True Seeing, I see a wimpy wizard looking man (i.e. spell component pouch) over there, not the 15 foot giant he is polymorphed into. When he walks over to me, I have no clue that he is going to hit me for 15 points of damage with his fist.

Ok. That's fine for your game, but not for mine. I wouldn't pull tricks like that on my players.

Plus it's a pain in the butt.

Either you put a giant figure on the board and pass a note to the guy with True Seeing that he sees a man and force him to pretend he does not know anything about a giant.

Or you put a man figure on the board and pass a note to the other 4 players that they see a giant and force them to pretend they do not know its a man.

Much easier to pass a note to the guy with True Seeing that he sees a man illusioned somehow as a giant and let him decide what to do about it.


Or even worse, Mirage Arcana.

"Damn, I walked into a tree. Damn, I walked into another tree."

Although this may be funny to the DM and the other players, it isn't to the player with the True Seeing up.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: See Invisibility

So, with True Seeing, I see a wimpy wizard looking man (i.e. spell component pouch) over there, not the 15 foot giant he is polymorphed into. When he walks over to me, I have no clue that he is going to hit me for 15 points of damage with his fist.

Ok. That's fine for your game, but not for mine. I wouldn't pull tricks like that on my players.

Then, quite frankly, your players are dumb as rocks. What player wouldn't shout out, "Oh crap! It's a Giant!" or "Great...<grumble>...I hate giants"? (The second comment would probably come from one of my characters )

Granted, I see your point, and in fact, I've seen it illustrated in game, but it surely isn't a game breaking problem. I have a character that possess the True Seeing ability, as well as the See in Darkness ability, and role-playing him is quite interesting. He doesn't see shadows of any kind, so there's a rogue pressed against a wall hiding in a shadow, my character sees this wierd guy just hugging the wall for some reason, and in plain sight no less. It makes for really interesting role-play and doesn't screw up the game.

Thin.

Plus it's a pain in the butt.

Either you put a giant figure on the board and pass a note to the guy with True Seeing that he sees a man and force him to pretend he does not know anything about a giant.

Or you put a man figure on the board and pass a note to the other 4 players that they see a giant and force them to pretend they do not know its a man.

Man, if those are your only troubles in life, I frickin' envy you. Just pick one.

DISCLAIMER: Be smart and pick the first one. Altering one player's perceptions over all of their perceptions is no doubt the better choice out of the two.

Much easier to pass a note to the guy with True Seeing that he sees a man illusioned somehow as a giant and let him decide what to do about it.

It's also easier to just deny a player a saving throw to speed up the combat session.

Thin.

Or even worse, Mirage Arcana.

"Damn, I walked into a tree. Damn, I walked into another tree."

Although this may be funny to the DM and the other players, it isn't to the player with the True Seeing up.

Mirage Arcana is based upon Hallucinatory Terrain. Hallucinatory Terrain allows a Will save (disbelief). True Seeing bypass the illusion completely, so there isn't anything you even need to save against. Your eyes reveal the truth to your mind, the truth that there is not a forest in front of you, thus there is nothing for you to bump into.

Thin.

Come one, dude. Your argument is based upon play preference and not the rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: See Invisibility

Mirage Arcana is based upon Hallucinatory Terrain. Hallucinatory Terrain allows a Will save (disbelief). True Seeing bypass the illusion completely, so there isn't anything you even need to save against. Your eyes reveal the truth to your mind, the truth that there is not a forest in front of you, thus there is nothing for you to bump into.

Thin.

Come one, dude. Your argument is based upon play preference and not the rules.

Err, True Seeing does not bypass the illusion completely. You see through illusions. True Seeing only affects the visual portion of an illusion. If it affected other portions, it would state so.

According to your first definition of True Seeing, you would not see the illusion at all. But, if you fail the will save, you can still touch it or smell it. Hence, you could easily walked into an illusioned tree that you do not see.

I'm not sure I'm the one with the thin position here.

And yes, play preference is important. Awkward rules (and this one is debatable) should be thrown out. Since you cannot put down a figurine which looks like a man to one player and a giant to another, that's awkward to force a player to play without metaknowledge that your placement of a figurine induced.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: See Invisibility

Err, True Seeing does not bypass the illusion completely.

Of course it does.

You see through illusions.

Exactly.

True Seeing only affects the visual portion of an illusion.

That's all it needs to effect. Like I said, the illusion doesn't effect you, as you know that it doesn't exhist, thus the spell doesn't effect you, thus you don't bump into anything.

Not thin at all.

 

[Celebrim]

"I'm not sure I'm the one with the thin position here."

KarinsDad: Not that it matters, but I'm pretty sure you aren't. The examples you are using might be a bit exagerrated to make the point, but its not like they or something like them wouldn't come up in the course of play. Also, as a DM, I tend to rule that the PC's can do whatever I would like my NPC's to do at some point, and I would not like any critter potent enough to have True Seeing to not notice that the PC walking toward him was shapechanged into a Storm Giant (or some such).

Also, I'm a Tolkien fan (as you might have guessed), and I'm prone to remember a scene from the Trilogy whenever a discussion like this comes up.

"He [Frodo] waited for an opportunity, when the talk was going again, and Tom was telling an absurd story about badgers and their queer ways--then he slipped the Ring on.

....
....

'Hey there!' cried Tom, glancing towards him with a most seeing look in his shining eyes 'Hey! Come Frodo, there! Where be you a-going? Old Tom Bombadil's not as blind as that yet..."

I suppose it is possible that old Tom B. only detected that Frodo was invisible through secondary clues (the ring is on his finger, Merry can't see him, etc.) but I prefer to think that Tom B. (and any one else potent enough to have True Seeing) sees exactly what is going on at every level that it is going on. If you prefer to think otherwise, I suppose you are free to (you as a DM are free to do anything), but don't accuse me of being the one with shallow reasoning.

 

[kreynolds]

...don't accuse me of being the one with shallow reasoning.

Nobody has been accused of shallow reasoning. That must have been a preemptive request.

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: See Invisibility

That's all it needs to effect. Like I said, the illusion doesn't effect you, as you know that it doesn't exhist, thus the spell doesn't effect you, thus you don't bump into anything.

According to your definition of See Invisible and True Seeing, you are totally unaware that the invisibility or illusion is even there.

Just because you are unaware of something does not mean that it does not exist.

You cannot have it both ways.

Either the illusion is still there and the non-visual portions of it can affect you because you are totally unaware of it visually, or it cannot affect you because you are aware of it visually (as an illusion) and automatically make your save.

If you are aware of it, your definition of True Seeing not allowing you to perceive the illusion must be false. How can you be aware of something that you cannot perceive?

So, either your definition is false, or the touch portion of the illusion can affect you.

If you can come up with an interpretation that allows you to not perceive the illusion at all with True Seeing and also know that it exists so that you automatically save, I'm willing to listen.

But, those sound mutually exclusive.