See Invisibility

[Anthron]

Kreynolds, the thing about your argument about true seeing that I think makes it unusable, though it makes perfect sense when looked at it from a mechanics point of view, is it would have some very strange effects while in game.

How would you describe a human wizard polymorph into a cheetah running at top speed? Would they just look like a normal human running at incredible speeds or would they be down on all fours?

What would it look like if the same wizard were shape changed into a Remorhaz swallowing someone whole?

How about a polymorph great wyrm gold dragon in inn? To a person with True Seeing standing outside the inn see the dragon? That seems like it would break the rule of not seeing through opaque objects.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Contrary? No, the wording for each is merely there to help us understand what True Seeing affects, not to restrict our interpretation of how it is perceived.

Invisibility (the spell) is a Glamer Illusion. It is a visual image, just like any other visual illusion. There is nothing special about it per se. But, you have a different definition of how an illusion of invisibility and some other illusion is perceived with True Seeing.

Yeah, so we could special case it to death, but why bother when one simple explanation handles it all?

My interpretation: You see the image that the negated spell shows you (invisibility image, illusion image, or polymorph image), and you see the image if the negated spell was not there (actual creature, light hidden by illusion, or actual polymorphed creature). It's a double image regardless of what was negated.

So yes, if you are comfortable with your multiple interpretations based on the cause of the negated spell, that's fine.

And, that is required somewhat in order to bend the True Seeing spell around the concept that for Invisibility, even though it is an illusion, you do not see the image the Invisibility shows you at all. But, you do see that for other types of illusions. Invisibility is a special case for you when the source is an Illusion (e.g. Invisibility spell).

 

[kreynolds]

Kreynolds, the thing about your argument about true seeing that I think makes it unusable, though it makes perfect sense when looked at it from a mechanics point of view, is it would have some very strange effects while in game.

First of all, I don't run true seeing that way. I never said I did. I said it has been run that way for me. There's a big difference between the two.

In my games, those that I run, I don't do it that way, but I don't necessarily have a problem with it. Technically, that way sounds more solid than my way, which is...

How would you describe a human wizard polymorph into a cheetah running at top speed? Would they just look like a normal human running at incredible speeds or would they be down on all fours?

If I was running the game, you would see the cheetah, but you also see the human wizard in your mind, though not in your actual sight. You would know the cheetah to be human, and you would know what he looked like, but the images aren't layered, simply to avoid unneccesary complications.

What would it look like if the same wizard were shape changed into a Remorhaz swallowing someone whole?

Again, you would see a Remorhaz swalling someone, yet in your minds eye, you would see the wizard. You would know the Remorhaz to be human, yet the image of the human does not get in your way, so you see the Remorhaz in all it's glory.

How about a polymorph great wyrm gold dragon in inn? To a person with True Seeing standing outside the inn see the dragon? That seems like it would break the rule of not seeing through opaque objects.

This last part was pretty broken english. Can you try again please?

 

[kreynolds]

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

Hehe, I just found this post buried back there.

Why would you pester your players with such a dubious interpretation?

I never said I did. I don't run it that way.

And more importantly, why must there be an offset?

Again, I don't run it that way, but neither do I have a problem with it being run that way for my character. It's not a big deal and the game is still really fun.

AFAIAC, any divination spell that allows you to see past an illusion also gives you the knowledge of the existence of the illusion itself.

That's how I would run it, but I never got a chance to bring it up.

How about this one; A colossal red dragon is polymorphed into a noble and visits a tavern. A wizard with true seeing sees his true form. What does he see? A dragon that is bigger than the tavern? Does the wizard sees himself inside the belly of the dragon?

Not if I ran the game. See cheetah post above.

The way it would look to my character though, is that he would see a big ol' dragon half out of the inn (if the dragon is big enough, of course), an inn with an undamaged roof no less. He sees the true form of the dragon, but not the illlusion itself. See my third reply for why it doesn't bother me in that instance.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

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.

Unfortunately, this does not answer that specific question, hence, my asking you multiple times.

You use the word senses repeatedly here. But, True Seeing only negates one sense. That is the question you are repeatedly avoiding. How does it work on multiple senses when the spell only indicates one sense.

True Seeing does not tell you that the man Polymorphed into a Giant has a squeaky little voice as opposed to the bellowing roar you hear. It does not affect the audio portion of that, nor of illusions.

You cannot use two different interpretations.

Two possibilities:

1) You are unaware that True Seeing negated the visual portion of the illusion.

This case is identical to a Silence spell on an illusion. The visual portion of the illusion does not exist for you, just like the audio portion of the illusion does not exist for someone in Silence.

You do not autosave the rest of the illusion since True Seeing did not inform you of an illusion.


2) You are aware that True Seeing negated the visual portion of the illusion.

You autosave. Why? Because you are aware of the illusion.


Your claim is that possibility #1 is what True Seeing does for you, but that answer #2 (autosave) is the result.

Possibility #1 and Answer #2 are mutually exclusive. They are only not mutually exclusive if you can adequately answer the question:

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


If you can give a reasonable answer to this question, you could have a third possibility of:

3) You are unaware that True Seeing negated the entire illusion.

You autosave. Why? Because none of the illusion exists for you in any way, shape, or form.


But again, you have yet to answer that question. Without a reasonable answer to the question, possibility #3 does not exist except as KRs non-substantiated opinion.

And, I am quite convinced that you will avoid and try to side step that question yet again. You've done it about four times now.

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

Well, actually, you only thought you gave a real answer to the question. In reality, you keep avoiding it like the plague.

And, since you asked what I wanted, I told you. Only have yourself to blame.

 

[Anthron]

This last part was pretty broken english. Can you try again please?

Sorry about that, trying to post at work isn't the best thing to do.


Reworded version:
How about a polymorphed great wyrm Gold Dragon sitting in an inn? Would a person with the True Seeing spell affecting him see the full dragon while standing outside the inn? That seems like it would break the rule of not seeing through opaque objects.


That was also answered in your other post since they all were solved with more or less the same answer. That is also how I would interpret those situations.

The way I interpret the spells True Seeing is that is does not alter your normal vision, it simply lets you see the truth of what you see. You still see illusions you just see through the deceptions that they create.

I believe that seeing through invisible objects does not violate the rule of not being able to see through opaque objects since the invisibility spell makes the object transparent. IMO the see invisibility spell does not negate the invisibility spell, it allows you to perceive invisible objects through sight though they are still invisible thus the image beyond the object is percived also.

 

[kreynolds]

Unfortunately, this does not answer that specific question

No. It answers the question. You just don't get it.

2) You are aware that True Seeing negated the visual portion of the illusion.

You autosave. Why? Because you are aware of the illusion.

This is how I handle it in my games.

See previous "cheetah" post for more info.

Your claim is that possibility #1 is what True Seeing does for you, but that answer #2 (autosave) is the result.

Wrong. That claim is how it's been run for me, not by me.

Possibility #1 and Answer #2 are mutually exclusive.

No they aren't.

They are only not mutually exclusive if you can adequately answer the question:

I did.

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

Fine. Let's try this again...

You are standing there with a Hallucinatory Terrain in front of you. You have True Seeing going. You do not see the illusion. Why? True Seeing negates the illusion. Hallucinatory Terrain allows a save (disbelief) when you interact with it. There is no interaction needed on your part because you see through the illusion. Your magic cancels out the terrain's magic, thus, the spell fails against you.

According to the DM that runs this game that my character exhists in, when I look at the Hallucinatory Terrain, it automatically fails against me for the aforementioned reasons. The True Seeing spell allows my mind to recognize the truth of what I see, and if the truth of what I see is that there is not a forest in front of me, then there is not a forest in front of me, thus the spell fails. If the truth of what I see is that there is not a Great Red Dragon in front of me, even if I could hear the roar (which I can't, because there isn't even a dragon there), then there is not a Great Red Dragon in front of me.

In that game, with my character, I simply don't see illusions, as they have no affect on me. I also don't hear the audibal portions of the illusion either. Why? The spell failed, for the aforementioned reasons. I don't feel the tactile portions of the illusion either. Why? The spell failed, for the aforementioned reasons. I don't smell the scents of the illusion. Why? The spell failed, for the aforementioned reasons.

That's not how I run it, but I never had the chance to explain that, as you locked onto how it is run for me like a rapid dog, so we've spent this entire time discussing how I don't run it, but how it is run for me. Do I have a problem with how it is run for me? No. The game is fun and my True Sight ability still works. It works differently, but it works.

I can easily see the way it is run for me as being one interpretation of the spell description, and an accurate one at that. However, my own method is also accurate per the spell description. But how I run it hasn't come up until now.

If you can give a reasonable answer to this question

Which I did, whether you like it or not.

you could have a third possibility of:

3) You are unaware that True Seeing negated the entire illusion.

You autosave. Why? Because none of the illusion exists for you in any way, shape, or form.

That's what I've been telling you.

But again, you have yet to answer that question.

Yes, I did, but again, you just didn't get it.

Without a reasonable answer to the question

Whether or not my answer was "reasonable" is your opinion. It could be that you were too preoccupied with simply arguing to pause and consider exactly what I said.

possibility #3 does not exist except as KRs non-substantiated opinion.

"non-substantiated" to you, simply because you didn't get it.

And, I am quite convinced that you will avoid and try to side step that question yet again.

You're wrong. I "dummied" up my answer enough that even a baboon can understand it now.

You've done it about four times now.

Whatever.

Well, actually, you only thought you gave a real answer to the question.

Then I guess I only think that you're a baboon. My answer makes sense to me. If it doesn't make sense to you, that doesn't mean a damn thing, except that you're having an unusually difficult time understanding it.

In reality, you keep avoiding it like the plague.

What I have been "avoiding like the plague" is repeating myself. I hate that.

And, since you asked what I wanted, I told you. Only have yourself to blame.

No. What you want is an answer that you like, which you're not going to get. You want me to agree with you on your viewpoint of See Invisibility and True Seeing, and I won't. Know why? Because I believe that I'm right and you're wrong. So, why the hell would I agree with you if you're wrong? I wouldn't.

Of course, you might also simply want a so-called "clear cut" answer, though I already provided one. So, I've been forced to give you an answer worthy of a D&D for Dummies book.

If my latest answer isn't enough for you, I don't know what else to tell you except to seek help.

For god's sake, tell me this is finally over.

PS: At the very least, this is somewhat entertaining.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think the "knowledge" interpretation is the best one (since it basically is similar to the double image one).

You see what the original magic (polymorph, invisibility, an illusion) shows you. A creature, nothing, a scene.

True Seeing does not change the light that your eyes see.

But, because of the True Seeing (or See Invisibility), you mind tells you that:

The creature is actually a polymorphed man that looks like this.

Nothing is actually an Invisible creature that looks like this.

The scene is an illusion, but this is what is actually there without the illusion.

This solves virtually all of the problems (as does the double image interpretation), it is just merely a different spin in that the knowledge is imparted to the character via the Divination spell.

Is there any example that this does not solve?

The only one I can think of is Invisible Dire Bear that is really an illusion (i.e. an illusion with touch, audio, and smell components, but not visual ones). This requires that True Seeing affect the entire illusion, not just the visual components. But, in a knowledge interpretation, that is easy to follow, even though True Seeing does not state that (it does not state a knowledge interpretation either).

 

[kreynolds]

I believe that seeing through invisible objects does not violate the rule of not being able to see through opaque objects since the invisibility spell makes the object transparent. IMO the see invisibility spell does not negate the invisibility spell, it allows you to perceive invisible objects through sight though they are still invisible thus the image beyond the object is percived also.

Even though your interpretation of See Invisibility sticks with my interpretation of True Seeing, I still disagree. I interpret See Invisibility to allow you to fully see the invisibile object, thus you can't see through it. You may know it's invisibile, but to your eyes, it is not.

Either way works just fine.

 

[doktorstick]

True seeing states that it allows you to "see through an illusion." That obviously means the illusion becomes opaque? Right!?