Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 298913" data-attributes="member: 2011">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&nbsp; 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).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 298913, member: 2011"] 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). [/QUOTE]

Verification