See Invisibility

[KarinsDad]

You need to read the thread more carefully. I never said that See Invisibility actually revealing invisible targets was thin. Not once. Not ever.

You are not responding to his statement.

Like myself, he indicates that you should not lose information.

Invisible Wall, you still see through it. But, you also see the wall.

Otherwise, you lose information.

What I did say, however, is that See Invisibility does not allow you to see through the invisibile creature or object, as if they were translucent. KarinsDad's argument against that is what I called thin.

But, how else can you not lose information?

With your "thin" interpretation, you do.

I tend to not rule where my players would get upset over how I interpret the spell. So, I interpret it to mean that they maintain all of the information with the spell as without it. Then, they do not get upset and we all have fun.

"What do you mean I could not see through the Invisible Wall and see the Dragon on the other side, just because I had See Invisibility up?"


How about a Wall of Force? It suddenly becomes opaque?

Thin.

 

[kreynolds]

You are not responding to his statement.

Yes I did.

Like myself, he indicates that you should not lose information.

Right. And I think you are wrong.

Invisible Wall, you still see through it. But, you also see the wall.

Not from where I stand. I don't interpret it that way. Look at it like this...the frickin' spell even states that you cannot see through solid objects...

It does not reveal illusions or enable the character to see through opaque objects.

...but I guess that means nothing to you. *shrug*

Otherwise, you lose information.

So what? Not losing information is not a feature of the spell. This is your bit. You added this.

But, how else can you not lose information?

What the heck information do you need? You see the invisible creature. That's what the spell does. Whatever other information you want is not covered by the spell.

With your "thin" interpretation, you do.

See previous answer.

I tend to not rule where my players would get upset over how I interpret the spell.

Fine. Then you admit that you alter the rules to suit you and your players, and then you have the audacity to base your argument on a house rule.

So, I interpret it to mean that they maintain all of the information with the spell as without it.

Fine. But that's a house rule.

Then, they do not get upset and we all have fun.

This isn't even pertinent to the subject. Try to stay on topic.

"What do you mean I could not see through the Invisible Wall and see the Dragon on the other side, just because I had See Invisibility up?"

My response? "Because the See Invisibility spell allows you to see that solid brick wall right in front of you. In case you had forgotten, a solid brick wall is a bit difficult to see through, now grab me a coke on your way out."

You may like to entertain children, but I don't.

How about a Wall of Force? It suddenly becomes opaque?

Lame. What happens when you look at an Invisible Stalker while you have See Invisibility up? Or True Seeing, for that matter?

 

[KarinsDad]

Not from where I stand. I don't interpret it that way. Look at it like this...the frickin' spell even states that you cannot see through solid objects...

I was wondering if you were taking that sentence out of context and using it to support your position.

The entire purpose of the "cannot see through solid object" sentences in both spells is to indicate that they do not give you any enhanced visual capability to see hiding creatures, through fog or concealment, etc. due to the location of that sentence in each spell description (i.e. when discussing concealment).

It is not to indicate that the Invisibility is totally canceled for the character so that he loses the ability to perceive what the illusion is displaying. You are using it to mean that, but that's not the context of the sentence based on where it is located within the spell descriptions.

If this is your basis for your position, all I can say is: not even thin, anorexic.

PS. You still haven't answered the critical question:

Why does True Seeing pierce the entire illusion in your interpretation when it only talks about visual elements in the spell description?

 

[kreynolds]

The entire purpose of the "cannot see through solid object" sentences in both spells is to indicate that they do not give you any enhanced visual capability to see hiding creatures, through fog or concealment, etc. due to the location of that sentence in each spell description (i.e. when discussing concealment).

It is not to indicate that the Invisibility is totally canceled for the character so that he loses the ability to perceive what the illusion is displaying. You are using it to mean that, but that's not the context of the sentence based on where it is located within the spell descriptions.

If this is your basis for your position, all I can say is: not even thin, anorexic.

Like I said, we simply don't agree on this.

PS. You still haven't answered the critical question:

Why does True Seeing pierce the entire illusion in your interpretation when it only talks about visual elements in the spell description?

I already answered this question. You don't like my answer. What do you want?

 

[Voadam]

I'm with Kryenolds on how see invisible works. It shows you invisible things as if they are normally visible, and visible opaque things are opaque.

from the srd:

See Invisibility

Divination
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area: Cone
Duration: 10 minutes/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

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.

The spell does not reveal the method used to obtain invisibility, though an astral traveler is easy to identify if he has a silver cord. It does not reveal illusions or enable the character to see through opaque objects. It does not reveal creatures who are simply hiding, concealed, or otherwise hard to see.


It does not allow you to see through opaque objects (the invisible wall).

 

[Voadam]

With true seeing you see an invisible creature's normal state, and you see through an illusion. That sounds like you won't notice invisibility, but making illusions transparent or translucent both work and would depend on how the DM interpreted seeing through.

The really part is the polymorphed creature. I generally think of a translucent form overlay for seeing the true form (I haven't decided about size). Normally I would think the current shape is the current true form as that is the form that can be interacted with, etc. but that just doesn't work here.

from the srd:

True Seeing

Divination
Level: Clr 5, Drd 7, Knowledge 5, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 1 minute/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

The character confers on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are. The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. Further, the subject can focus her vision to see into the Ethereal Plane. The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet.

True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects. It in no way confers X-ray vision or its equivalent. It does not cancel concealment, including that caused by fog and the like. True seeing does not help the viewer see through mundane disguises, spot creatures who are simply hiding, or notice secret doors hidden by mundane means. In addition, the spell effects cannot be further enhanced with known magic, so one cannot use true seeing through a crystal ball or in conjunction with clairaudience/clairvoyance.

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

 

[KarinsDad]

Like I said, we simply don't agree on this.

That's cool.

I already answered this question. You don't like my answer. What do you want?

I keep telling you that I cannot find a specific answer to this question.

You keep avoiding this question.

So, what I want is for you to answer this specific question with an answer other than, "that's how I think it works" or "I already answered that question.".

 

[KarinsDad]

The really part is the polymorphed creature. I generally think of a translucent form overlay for seeing the true form (I haven't decided about size). Normally I would think the current shape is the current true form as that is the form that can be interacted with, etc. but that just doesn't work here.

And, that's the crux of the issue.

The only answer that handles polymorph is to see two images (at appropriate sizes, hence, there has to be some form of double image or translucent images), the real one and the enspelled one, and to know which is which.

Course, this implies that True Seeing does this for every spell it affects.

 

[kreynolds]

That's cool.

Cool.

I keep telling you that I cannot find a specific answer to this question.

I answered it, one of many times, here...

Simple. Hallucinatory Terrain allows a disbelief Will save. If your True Seeing completely pierces the illusion, rendering it useless against you, how can it possibly effect you? It can't. An illusion, such as Hallucinatory Terrain, which is a glamer, tricks your senses into believing something is there that is not. True Seeing allows you to see beyond this lie. How can a spell such as this affect you in any way if your senses automatically recognize it to be false? Simple. It can't.

...but you didn't like it. Nothing I can do about that. *shrug*

You keep avoiding this question.

Actually, I was attempting to not waste my time by posting my answers for you again and again and again when all you had to do was go back and read them.

However, I do recognize that if you didn't like the answer the first time, it's not likely that you'll like it the second time, so why bother reading it again, and for that matter, why bother asking for my answer again when you already know that you won't like it because you didn't like it the first time? See? Waste of time.

So, what I want is for you to answer this specific question with an answer other than, "that's how I think it works" or "I already answered that question.".

Heh. Now that's funny. I only gave those two answers after I already provided the answer in the first place.

 

[Voadam]

And, that's the crux of the issue.

The only answer that handles polymorph is to see two images (at appropriate sizes, hence, there has to be some form of double image or translucent images), the real one and the enspelled one, and to know which is which.

Course, this implies that True Seeing does this for every spell it affects.

I disagree with your last statement.

from true seeing:

sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things.

Seeing invisible things normally, seeing through an illusion, and seeing the true form of polymorphed creatures can be three separate types of effects.

I stated above how I interpret these three things (invisibile is now as it would be normally if visible, illusions are translucent and polymorph creates a connected overlay) and it seems contrary to the wording of the spell to apply one effect to the listed different effects.