See Invisibility

[kreynolds]

True seeing states that it allows you to "see through an illusion."

Yes.

That obviously means the illusion becomes opaque? Right!?

If you interpret "see through an illusion" literally, as one of my fellow DMs does, then no, as the illusion disappears.

It could also be interpreted literally to mean that the illusion becomes transulcent, but not to translucent that it's really difficult to pick out details, but not too opaque that it would interfere with your line of sight, yet transulcent enough that enemies behind the illusion are not granted cover or concealment, and on, and on, and on. See? It's a bitch to explain that interpretation, which is probably why I don't interpret it to mean that illusions become transparent, because invariably, someone will ask "How transparent?"

 

[KarinsDad]

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

Bull.

You are very good at twisting words, but you never step up to the plate and answer a simple question.

It happens virtually every time you and I get into a heated discussion. You do not follow the logic of the discussion in order, you just make claims and then do not back them up.

You consider it reiterating yourself when you cannot conceive of the fact that someone else read what you posted, understood it, and is asking for one specific detail that you are unable or unwilling to supply. Instead, you get into a huff about repeating yourself. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, I'm asking for a detail you are unable to understand that you did not supply.

Instead, you just repeat yourself yet again and avoid the question yet again.

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

Again, bull.

Did you forget writing this?

"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."

"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.

You cannot claim that "you do not actually know the object you are looking at is illusioned" (as quoted above) and that it negates "Because you are aware of the illusion" (as quoted here).

You cannot be both aware of it and not aware of it.

We just had this long discussion because you said something, went back on it, and then did not inform anybody.

Your actual (or at least current) possibility is #2, but you lead us to believe that it was possibility #3 with the statement you made above about the offset being that you are unaware of the illusion.

In fact, it has been mentioned about a half dozen times that you believed that the character is unaware of the illusion in your interpretation and you did not once correct that, until you answered Anthron and Mal Malenkirk late this afternoon.

Now suddenly, you are claiming that #3 is how your DM runs it, not how you run it.

Good move Slick. You just wasted everyone's time.

I really do not mind people who disagree. In fact, that's what makes the board cool since it gives you different perspectives.

But, when people play these bull word games and don't live up to the fact that they said one thing at one point and then changed their mind, it's just totally lame.

Yeah, your DM runs it that way. Uh huh. Good one KR. Next you'll be trying to sell land in Amn. Yeah, we all think that the first interpretation you wrote was actually how your DM runs it the entire time.


Now that we know your actual interpretation (#2), there is nothing to discuss. It's a reasonable one.

I do not think that #3 is reasonable unless you can explain why True Seeing negates outside of the visual range of illusions without you knowing that an illusion is actually there, but you and I disagree on that (or, at least you have never answered why). C'est la guerre.

 

[kreynolds]

Again, bull.

Did you forget writing this?

"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."

I didn't forget writing that at all. You'll note that I never said that's how I run it. That's how it's been run for me. I even stated so in my following post right after that. I guess you missed it.

You cannot claim that "you do not actually know the object you are looking at is illusioned" (as quoted above) and that it negates "Because you are aware of the illusion" (as quoted here).

Of course I can, and I explained it up above.

You cannot be both aware of it and not aware of it.

See previous answer.

We just had this long discussion because you said something, went back on it, and then did not inform anybody.

I never went back on it. Pay attention.

Your actual (or at least current) possibility is #2

That's how I run it in my games, yes, though I don't mind #3, but I still don't use it (too many complications involving fellow party members being harmed by an illusionary ogre and me being unable to warn them because I'm not aware of it's existence, and that's just one example).

but you lead us to believe that it was possibility #3 with the statement you made above about the offset being that you are unaware of the illusion.

That is how it is run in the game I play in, with my character that has True Seeing, as I stated previously. It's not my fault you overlooked it.

In fact, it has been mentioned about a half dozen times that you believed that the character is unaware of the illusion in your interpretation

I never stated that was my interpretation. Not once. You repeatedly proclaimed that it was my interpretation, but I never said it was. Pitiful.

and you did not once correct that

There was nothing to correct, wonderboy. If there was, then you need to go back and correct your posts. You made the claim that it was my interpretation. I didn't.

Now suddenly, you are claiming that #3 is how your DM runs it, not how you run it.

I proclaimed that long before now. In fact, I proclaimed that in my 5th post on this thread.

Good move Slick. You just wasted everyone's time.

No. You just wasted mine. Pay attention.

I really do not mind people who disagree. In fact, that's what makes the board cool since it gives you different perspectives.

I agree.

But, when people play these bull word games

What word games? The only word games that I'm aware of are where you repeatedly stated that #3 was my interpretation, when in fact, it never was, as illustrated by my 5th post.

and don't live up to the fact that they said one thing at one point and then changed their mind, it's just totally lame.

See previous answer.

Yeah, your DM runs it that way.

Yup. See previous answer.

Uh huh.

Awesome! You're finally paying attention!

Good one KR.

I wasn't aware that I made a joke. Perhaps next time you shouldn't make assumptions about what I claim when my earlier posts already suggest otherwise. Now that's funny!

Next you'll be trying to sell land in Amn.

Are you kidding? The markup out there is rediculous! That, and with the magic item monopoly they have, not to mention the nasty local Barons, I'll pass on Amn! I played Baldur's Gate II! I know how crummy it is in Amn! Hell, did you know that at one time they banned the use of magic in public without a license! Crazy.

Yeah, we all think that the first interpretation you wrote was actually how your DM runs it the entire time.

Good. You should.

Now that we know your actual interpretation (#2), there is nothing to discuss. It's a reasonable one.

Exactly. That's why I handle it that way in my games, because I find it reasonable. I also find #3 reasonable, though it can cause small problems. Actually, not really problems, but more like irritants. Also, it is because I find #3 reasonable that I have been defending it. We never got to how I run it until Anthron suggested that #3 is how I run it, which promted me to correct him. You never asked how I run it (even though I already stated that was how one of my fellow DMs runs it), but it doesn't matter anyway. The point is that I don't have a real problem with #3, and I see it as a valid interpretation, as I have seen it first hand.

I do not think that #3 is reasonable unless you can explain why True Seeing negates outside of the visual range of illusions without you knowing that an illusion is actually there, but you and I disagree on that

I know you don't think it's reasonable.

(or, at least you have never answered why).

I tried. I'll try again later.

C'est la guerre.

Whut!? Say, boy! We country folk ain't learned like ya'll!

 

[KarinsDad]

I didn't forget writing that at all. You'll note that I never said that's how I run it. That's how it's been run for me. I even stated so in my following post right after that. I guess you missed it.

Post 4

“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.”

Post 5

“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.”

In post 4, you claim that you do not know that the object you are looking at is illusioned. This as a counter to my statement “I rule in favor of usability and playability.” So, you are implying that not knowing about the illusion is more playable. That may have not been your intent, but that’s how it reads when you disagree with a statement and then give another statement on how True Seeing works.

In post 5, you indicate that your DM does it that way too.

And, the rest of us were suppose to intuit from these two statements of agreement with each other and the implication that not knowing about the illusion is more playable, that your position was totally different from what you were espousing here in two back to back posts.

You gotta be clearer than that if you want people to not get frustrated at you. Not once did you state "But, I do not run it that way" in either of those posts. Remember, people cannot read your mind here, they can only judge you based on what you write and how you write it. From personal experience, you write stuff that implies things that you probably do not mean.

In any case, it’s moot. We now know you believe in interpretation #2.

Game on!

 

[hong]

Good one KR. Next you'll be trying to sell land in Amn.

As long as it's not in Saradush. All of us Bhaalspawn trashed that city but good.

 

[kreynolds]

You gotta be clearer than that if you want people to not get frustrated at you.

No. I don't. Just don't get all bent outta shape and pissed off when you start making assumptions, thus making a total ass outta yourself.

Not once did you state "But, I do not run it that way" in either of those posts.

Of course not. Know why? We weren't talking about how I run it! How I run it isn't even an issue. I was defending #3 because I don't have a problem with it, and I still intend to defend it, as soon as I can put together another answer for you. How I run it was never the issue. Kriste, your dense.

 

[KarinsDad]

No. I don't. Just don't get all bent outta shape and pissed off when you start making assumptions, thus making a total ass outta yourself.

It's not about making assumptions. It's about being man enough to admit when you posted something misleading as opposed to pretending you actually meant something different than you said. The intent of your posts does not matter if people do not understand your intent. You will be the only one who understands your intent.

As for asses, look in the mirror pal. If you do not understand that everyone thought you supported #3 until a day later, then you are more closed and single minded than I thought. You sound like a broken record.

Of course not. Know why? We weren't talking about how I run it! How I run it isn't even an issue. I was defending #3 because I don't have a problem with it, and I still intend to defend it, as soon as I can put together another answer for you. How I run it was never the issue. Kriste, your dense.

In your mind, we were not talking about how you run it. But, by what you posted, EVERYONE else thought that method was your opinion.

And, you are still talking about how it is not “how you run it“. Get a clue. We understood that several posts ago. We are not the dense people here. The rest of us are not the ones not understanding here.

We are not the ones harping on “that’s not how I run it” as some form of inane potential defense or mantra for not being clear in your posts. You sound like a drowning man hoping a roll of toilet paper will keep him afloat.

The only issue is that regardless of that, that is not what you posted in posts 4 and 5. Regardless of intent, you implied something which you now claim is not what you meant.

Whatever.

Grow some long ones pal and fess up when you are unclear. People will respect you more then this counter-attack crap calling people asses and dense.

And, regardless of what you think, I’m not trying to get on your case here. When you are not posting new Feats about other people bitching and moaning or getting into long winded heated debates over you said this, I said that, you actually post good stuff a lot of the time. You just have to sometimes take a deep breathe and realize that not everyone else is full of it. Most of the time, they’re not. Message boards are inherently unclear and people are sometimes going to misunderstand what you mean. That does not make them dense, it means that you are probably unclear or that you are reading more into what you write than they are. Live with it and take it with a grain of salt.


And, answer the freaking question as opposed to thinking that someone will understand what you meant from some post a day earlier. People respect a quick and clear response more than this “I already answered that“ crap. People do not have the time to wade back through 50 posts in order to find one sentence buried in a paragraph somewhere. Or, at least not people with < 3700 posts. Message board etiquette. Help your audience out.

 

[kreynolds]

It's not about making assumptions.

Yes it is. You did it. You were wrong. Now you're pissed off. Don't take it out on me.

It's about <snip>

You being pissed. So you screwed up. So you made a mistake. So you made an assumption, and oops, it was wrong. Get over it. I am.

And, regardless of what you think, I’m not trying to get on your case here.

I don't think you're trying to get on my case. I think you're trying to save your own ass. You're making a desperate attempt to pull yourself out of that "Wow, did I just ph*k up" hole and you are trying to do it at my own expense. Try it on someone else.

When you are not posting new Feats about other people bitching and moaning or getting into long winded heated debates over you said this, I said that, you actually post good stuff a lot of the time. You just have to sometimes take a deep breathe and realize that not everyone else is full of it. Most of the time, they’re not.

I can always appreciate a good morality lesson.

Message boards are inherently unclear and people are sometimes going to misunderstand what you mean.

Fine. You admit you misunderstood what I was saying. You admit you made an assumption. Does that mean you will stop being a dick to me for your screwup?

And, answer the freaking question as opposed to thinking that someone will understand what you meant from some post a day earlier.

*sigh* We've gone over this already.

People respect a quick and clear response more than this “I already answered that“ crap.

Then maybe you should read the response. If you did read it, but don't like it, be straight up and ask for rewording. You might get it. Probably not. But you might.

People do not have the time to wade back through 50 posts in order to find one sentence buried in a paragraph somewhere.

Why not? It's courteous to actually read one's argument before you challenge them.

"Hey, you! That's not how that works!"

"Uhhh...I know. I didn't say it was. In fact, if you look up, you'll see that I said quite the contrary."

"oh....sorry."

I've seen this happen around here, and I've even pulled boneheaded crap like this myself when I wasn't paying attention.

Look, I get saying "I already answered" (or a variant of that), because I honestly figured that my answer was simple enough for you to comprehend. Apparently it wasn't, so I'll try and rephrase my answer to #3 again.

Or, at least not people with < 3700 posts.

What does that have to do with post count? It's called courtesy. See previous answer.

Message board etiquette.

Oh, don't even talk to me about etiquette, mister "bull"

Help your audience out.

I do my best, mostly. Are you chilled out now?

 

[KarinsDad]

I do my best, mostly. Are you chilled out now?

I thought I was chilled out. I thought I wasn't the person saying things like “It was thin and without merit!” and “Then, quite frankly, your players are dumb as rocks.” and “Then I guess I only think that you're a baboon” and “I "dummied" up my answer enough that even a baboon can understand it now.”. You started all of that crap way before I started in with the bull comments.

And, the reason that Celebrim stated “...don't accuse me of being the one with shallow reasoning.” was because you kept calling all counter positions thin, but that one flew over your head. He recognized this tendency in you to put in little arrogant jabs with your responses, well before a thread erupts into flame. In fact, it is your lack of clarity and your little jabs that typically cause threads to erupt into flame.

And, you wonder why I talk about Message Board etiquette to you?


And finally, if you state that the rule is x and then state that your DM runs it this way, expect everyone to think that what you posted is what you meant. It’s impossible to intuit that you run it differently if you make statements like that. Be a man and admit when you make a mistake.

 

[kreynolds]

I thought I was chilled out.

Hardly. You're whining like a little girl, dude. It's sad.

I thought I wasn't the person saying things like “It was thin and without merit!” and “Then, quite frankly, your players are dumb as rocks.” and “Then I guess I only think that you're a baboon” and “I "dummied" up my answer enough that even a baboon can understand it now.”. You started all of that crap way before I started in with the bull comments.

What does that have to do with you crying like a girl? If I made you cry because my posts were harsh, I apologize.

And, the reason that Celebrim stated “...don't accuse me of being the one with shallow reasoning.” was because you kept calling all counter positions thin

No. I was countering all of your positions as thin. I hadn't countered his yet.

but that one flew over your head.

See previous answer.

He recognized this tendency in you to put in little arrogant jabs with your responses

If you want to call them jabs, fine, but they were only in regards to you, and only because your initial argument was lame in my eyes. I'll admit, however, that "jabs" are not necessary. I apologize.

well before a thread erupts into flame.

Actually, it didn't really erupt into flame until you threw a temper tantrum because you made an assumption about something I didn't even say. Then, when I illustrated that it was your own damn fault, you got even more pissed off. Hey, I understand. If I made a mistake that big, I'd be pissed too.

In fact, it is your lack of clarity and your little jabs that typically cause threads to erupt into flame.

Possbily.

And, you wonder why I talk about Message Board etiquette to you?

Yes. You weren't even courteous enough to read my posts before you started throwing wild accusations around. Perhaps you were so wrapped up in "winning" the argument, whatever that means, that you completely missed very important parts of my posts, and saw only what you wanted to see. Perhaps you simply didn't care. Perhaps you just missed it on accident. Just like the Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.

And finally, if you state that the rule is x and then state that your DM runs it this way, expect everyone to think that what you posted is what you meant.

So, let me get this straight. If I state that the rule is #3, and then state that my DM runs it this way, I should expect you to take that at face value? No kidding!?! So what's your malfunction then? That's exactly what I meant! I said the rule is #3, and I said my DM runs it this way, but somehow, you read that as something completely different.

It’s impossible to intuit that you run it differently if you make statements like that.

Oh give me a break, man. If I didn't say that was how I run it, and if the topic of how I run it hadn't even come up yet, how can you intuit that if you were paying attention? Now that is thin.

Be a man and admit when you make a mistake.

As soon as I make a mistake, I will. If you want an apology, fine.

I'm sorry you got pissed off because you screwed up.