I'll open with the spell itself:
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (an eye ointment that costs 250 gp)
EFFECT
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 min./level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
DESCRIPTION
You confer 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 its vision to see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extra-dimensional spaces). 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 negate 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.
(I didn't feel the need to link the school, classes, domain, subdomain, bloodline, elemental school, action type, or saving throw type.)
So, I have a character (Inquisitor) who just gained access to level 5 spells, and he took this as one of his known spells. This is in the Carrion Crown adventure path, for whatever that's worth. We've just finished up the Ashes at Dawn portion, and one of the characters willingly became a vampire. They also took great efforts to magically disguise this fact. This protects her from my Eerie Sense feat, but will not protect her from True Seeing. That's not the question, but just some information. Woe to her when I have reason to actually cast True Seeing!
However, in order to bolster our levels a bit (we had fallen a little short of the recommended level for the final module), the GM sent us on a little side quest. During this quest, one of the other players became possessed by a demon (not voluntarily). While considering the repercussions the vampire player is going to have to deal with when I (inevitably) utilize True Seeing, I began puzzling over a question, one for which I have been unable to garner an answer:
If a being is under the effects of a curse (such as lycantropy) or a possession (as by an extra-planar entity), would True Seeing reveal this to the character utilizing the spell? On a side note, does True Seeing reveal any effects which may be influencing or effecting a creature or object if that effect causes the affected creature/object to behave or function in a manner contrary to its nature (such as Confusion? The spell states the subject gains "the ability to see all things as they actually are." Would True Seeing allow the subject to see a possessed character as both themselves and the possessing demon? Or reveal that a creature is weakened due to a curse? Or that they are acting crazy because they are under the effects of Confusion or a magical/supernatural insanity?
So basically, what is defined as seeing "all things as they actually are"? A character possessed by a demon is "actually" possessed by a demon. That's their current reality. The same goes for curses, magically inflicted insanity, spells which cause a creature to act contrary to its nature (such as Dominate Person/Monster), etc. These are a part of their current reality. If you take that a step further, ANY magical effect on a creature or object is affecting its current reality, or "as it actually is."
My main concern here, of course, is whether or not True Seeing will detect a magical/supernatural curses and possessions. Influences which alter the nature of a being, such as Confusion, Charm Person, Dominate Monster, etc, would simply be an added bonus.
Thoughts?
|
Why you assume that true seeing would automatically detect that your friend character has become a vampire?
You see things as they are, but a vampire don't have a glowing sign saying "vampire".
Recognizing him as a vampire will require a successful knowledge check, probably against a disguise check of the vampire character.
Otherwise you could notice that he is paler than usual, but nothing more.
Possession ... the old version (1st/2nd edition) of true seeing would have discovered that immediately, but now it is way less clear.
There is nothing in the spell text that say that you see the soul/soulf present in the body.
The possessed creature is:
- under blur or displacement effects? No
- invisible? No
- the possessing demon is invisible? ... depend on what he used, but if it is a form of magic jar the reply is No.
- an illusion? No
- polymorphed, changed, or transmuted? No
- in the Ethereal Plane? Again, it depend on how the possession was achieved, but if it is magic jar, No.
The vampire thing: She is under persistent effects such as Disguise Self (maybe), Fleshy Facade, and Protective Penumbra to conceal her vampiric nature. While it does nothing for the Protective Penumbra, True Seeing will see through illusions (Disguise Self), and reveal those under under the effects of polymorph spells (Fleshy Facade) as they actually are. True Seeing does not say "make a roll to see reality", you just see it.
By the way, my Inquisitor is entirely built around identifying, hunting down, and destroying undead. That is his entire schtick. If True Seeing revealed a party member to be more pale and gaunt than they usually appear, at the very least, don't you think that would raise NUMEROUS flags for the character who has devoted his life to the elimination of undead!? Especially since the vampires in Caliphas offered to turn any party member who wanted to be a vampire. At the very least, it would warrant casting Detect Undead to get that chance of seeing through the Fleshy Facade (the spell says it warrants a save to bypass in that circumstance). I digress.
Just because the spell calls out a few EXAMPLES, that does not limit the spell to those specific examples. The first line of the spell says "sees things as they actually are." That is open to some interpretation, for which it gives a few examples.
I was hoping there was an official ruling. You stated the old version would see it, guaranteed. I've been playing since 1st edition, and I'm well aware of this, and this does influence how I feel certain spells should function. What is "seeing things as they actually are"? Someone who is a Demon-Possessed Creature actually IS a demon in a non-demon meat suit.
There are numerous arguments that can go both ways. Does a curse give a character a gimpy leg, or make them ugly? True Seeing should see through that. The problem here is that any effect that could alter normal reality could be argued as potentially detectable by True Seeing. Spells from the schools Abjuration, Transmutation, Illusion, and Enchantment, as well as any effect with the Curse descriptor or which otherwise changes reality on a temporary level (even Permanency is temporary, as it can be undone) could potentially be subject to True Seeing. 5th/6th level spells should be fairly powerful. Especially when they have a singular purpose.
Do you think a smiling person who is actually sad registers as sad via True Seeing? Because that's the absurd result you'er heading towards. You see things as they really are, as in some magical effect is distorting your sight. (Uh, plus regular darkness.) That's it. And that's plenty!
I realize the concept could get really absurd. I wouldn't go that far, but was stating I could see an argument for such things.
The real question came down to MAGICAL AND SUPERNATURAL effects which influence the reality of the target, not mundane effects. Donning make-up, a fake mustache and a wig to create a mundane disguise (Disguise skill), adopting a fake limp and impersonating a regional accent (Bluff skill), or concealing a dagger up your sleeve (Sleight of Hand skill), as far as I can tell, would not be affected/detected by True Seeing as they are mundane effects which don't really alter reality. By extension, your example of the sad person pretending to be happy (Bluff skill, again) would not be affected/detected by the spell.
However, a monster/NPC/PC acting against their nature due to the influence of a magical compulsion effect might be a grey area. The spell allows the recipient to see things as they actually are. That's a powerful statement for a single-purpose spell that is (traditionally) acquired at level 12 or higher. Two-thirds of your magical career to get to that level of magic. It should be fairly powerful. On the same power level, and in a similar vein, is the Analyze Dweomer spell, which allows the caster to know EVERY DETAIL about any and all magical items and effects withing line of sight (no range limit, perse) as a FREE ACTION, for a minimum of 12 rounds. I'm not asking if True Seeing actually identifies the effect that's causing the perception of reality to be altered. Rather, will True Seeing allow the recipient to see, at the very least, that a magical effect is altering the target's reality?
I think demon possession is an interesting subject for this spell, as the subject being viewed is actually two beings. One is the host, which everyone sees. The other is a demon, disguised as the host. I'll try a simpler example. The Merge with Familiar spell allows the caster to caster to merge their familiar into their own body. Would True Seeing reveal this, showing both the caster and familiar when merged? If so, and I believe it would, this sets a precedent for the demon possession example. Granted, this is a transmutation effect which physically alters the two combined subjects of the spell, but it's not much different than demon possession, which also physically alters the host (at the very least, by increasing ability scores, granting poison and electrical resistance, and bestowing damage reduction, during the possession).
I don't expect True Seeing to have any influence over mundane effects. An enemy with a +30 stealth bonus because they're super freaky sneaky isn't going to be any easier to spot with True Seeing (provided they aren't also using Invisibility). It isn't going to see through the ruses of the most gifted charlatan in the realms. Or reveal the most talented master of disguise. Or detect a guy standing behind a tree. The things to which I'm referring are specifically effects which MAGICALLY OR SUPERNATURALLY alter the behavior or nature of a target to something other than its normal state. If another spell of the exact same level can completely identify every single magical item and effect within line of sight with 100% accuracy, down to the number of charges remaining, the caster level of the item or effect in question, etc, etc... then surely True Seeing can let the recipient know, at the very least, that "something is magically or supernaturally influencing Bob" who is demon-possessed or cursed or under a compulsion. "Something" is a pretty vague word, but could be enough to give cause for further investigation. For the record, if Bob is being influenced by blackmail from the local Thieves' Guild, True Seeing would not reveal that... it's a mundane effect.
Do you think a smiling person who is actually sad registers as sad via True Seeing? Because that's the absurd result you'er heading towards. You see things as they really are, as in some magical effect is distorting your sight. (Uh, plus regular darkness.) That's it. And that's plenty!
For the record... No, that's not plenty. That's barely better than a combination of Detect Magic (without actually revealing magical auras or allowing identification of magical effects), See Invisibility, and Low-Light Vision (just to see through the mundane darkness). My character has 120' Darkvision. He has persistent Detect Magic. He has a magic item that confers persistent See Invisibility. So, by your assertion, True Seeing is all but worthless to him. I'd be better off letting the wizard use Analyze Dweomer, and be done with it.
No. That's garbage. A same level spell can instantly give every statistic on every magical item and effect within line of sight with 100% accuracy as a FREE action, but True Seeing can't reveal that "something" is magically or supernaturally influencing a target? Why would anyone ever cast True Seeing when they could replicate it (in some way better, in some ways a little worse) with a few lower level spells? True Seeing has to be better, and not just by a little bit.
Detect Magic is garbage in combat. It also doesn't let you see through illusions or transmutations to see what's actually there. Three rounds with Detect Magic tells you that woman is under the effects of some transmutation, maybe a buff like Owl's Wisdom. True Seeing tells you instantly it's a Succubus.
Analyze Dweomer can't tell you it's a Succubus, just that's it's under an Alter Self effect. Nor could it tell you that an enemy is hiding in ambush behind an illusionary wall rather than an empty hallway. Nothing but True Seeing can do that. It's a good spell.
The possessed creature is:
- under blur or displacement effects? No
- invisible? No
- the possessing demon is invisible? ... depend on what he used, but if it is a form of magic jar the reply is No.
- an illusion? No
- polymorphed, changed, or transmuted? No
- in the Ethereal Plane? Again, it depend on how the possession was achieved, but if it is magic jar, No.
I don't know what effect or spell was used, if any, to cause the demon possession. What I do know (metagaming knowledge) is that both the demon AND the host occupy the host body simultaneously. The demon talks to the host (in her head). The demon influences her actions. Occasionally, the demon takes control of the host body, putting the host soul/mind/whatever in the backseat, but still there. Both individuals are occupying the host body at the same time. Our games do use a lot of GM FIAT when it comes to the rule of cool. If the GM wants a good story effect and nothing in the official materials does it exactly the way they want it to work, that's when GM FIAT comes into play. It's quite possible there is no official Pathfinder spell or supernatural power in play here, that it is instead something completely made up by the GM. In these situations, we must think outside the box (system RAW), and delve more into the RAI and creative uses of how things could or might work.
This is the entire reason for my questions here. I'm a creative thinker. I base a lot of my interpretations of gaming materials on the RAI and descriptive texts, preferring to not let the rules get in my way unless they specifically call out against something. This is why I was looking for some official ruling. If there is an official ruling that states True Seeing will not reveal when someone is being possessed, or when they are being magically or supernaturally influenced against their nature. What exactly can True Seeing "see"? What can it not "see"? I would concede that if a character were influenced by a compulsion, such as Dominate Person, and was instructed to "act normal", the GM should hand-wave that True Seeing doesn't reveal the compulsion. If I wanted to be more "rulesy", I'd suggest a Bluff vs Sense Motive, but only if the subject of True Seeing were specifically analyzing the individual under the compulsion. A cursory glance which included the compelled individual in the field of view would not reveal the compulsion because of the mundane deception being used to disguise it.
A demon possession is more complicated than the compulsion example. In the compulsion example, the source of the compulsion is not occupying the compelled individual. A demon possession involves a demon actually occupying the individual.
As far as Magic Jar... why do you assert that True Seeing would not reveal this? True Seeing reveals things to be as they actually are. With Magic Jar, the caster is occupying a meat suit. The meat suit is NOT the host anymore, it is now the caster of Magic Jar. It just LOOKS like the host (and possesses its physical qualities). I believe that True Seeing SHOULD reveal the meat suit to actually be the individual who is occupying the meat suit. Explain why you believe the contrary. My explanation is that the meat suit is no longer the host, it now IS the caster of Magic Jar. That's the reality.
Detect Magic is garbage in combat. It also doesn't let you see through illusions or transmutations to see what's actually there. Three rounds with Detect Magic tells you that woman is under the effects of some transmutation, maybe a buff like Owl's Wisdom. True Seeing tells you instantly it's a Succubus.
Analyze Dweomer can't tell you it's a Succubus, just that's it's under an Alter Self effect. Nor could it tell you that an enemy is hiding in ambush behind an illusionary wall rather than an empty hallway. Nothing but True Seeing can do that. It's a good spell.
Detect Magic will still tell you something has a magical aura without any real effort (unless it's invisible... and you don't have See Invisibility active). Will it see through an illusion or transmutation? No. Will it tell you they have a magical aura? Yes. True Seeing has a slight edge here, but not a big one, in my opinion.
Analyze Dweomer (Detect Magic on crack) will tell you, the instant you look at them, that they are under a caster level 12 Alter Self effect with an indefinite duration. Does that raise any flags!? It will also tell you that the wall is an illusion, and all the details of that illusion, as soon as you come within range (my bad... analyze dweomer has a range limit, not line of sight). True Seeing has a slight edge with range and the ability to see through it, but that's only a small edge if you can tell it's an illusion in the first place.
True Seeing shouldn't just be a "good" spell. For it's level, it should be a great one! If the succubus is in disguise (Change Self -> Alter Self), it's trying to deceive the party. Let the party face talk to the succubus while the guy with Detect Magic active analyzes the magical aura. Not as good as True Seeing through it, but after a few rounds (18 seconds of talking), the Detect Magic guy knows there is a deception. If that same guy is an Inquisitor (and in my case, he is), he can then Detect Alignment (say, EVIL) at will. The succubus will definitely detect as evil. Now we know there is a deception and it is evil. Most parties don't need a whole lot more to decide to roll initiative. It's not as good as True Seeing, but I don't feel True Seeing is a whole lot better. Saves you a few rounds of conversation, in this situation. Or of analyzing the illusory wall and then attempting a Dispel Magic (one of my known spells). True Seeing should be more than just a little better than other (considerably lower level) methods. And it should do considerably more.
I could argue that Detect Magic would let me know that the disguised Vampire has a magical aura, but that is a given at level 13. We're dripping with magical gear! True Seeing is much better in this situation, yes. I could also argue that Detect Magic would reveal a magical aura on the demon-possessed character, but the same caveat applies. Magical gear. Why would I bother looking further into that, unless I see the character do something inherently evil and against their nature? True Seeing should help here, bypassing those caveats.
For True Seeing to be significantly superior (as it should be) to the likes of Detect Magic, See Invisibility, and Low-Light/Darkvision, it has to be TRUE Seeing. It has to see what is true, with absolute accuracy (barring mundane deceptions, which are also true as they are actually REAL), 100% of the time. This is a powerful divination effect which reveals "all things as they actually are" (within 120'). A character possessed by a demon actually IS both the character AND the demon. A character cursed to have a gimpy leg actually has a perfectly good leg, but is magically altered to be gimpy. Compulsions are more complicated, but a combination of Detect Magic and True Seeing should reveal that the character is under some magical influence without too much investigation. Obviously, Analyze Dweomer is the ultimate trump card with these situations, as it tells you EXACTLY what's going on (as far as magical effects), but True Seeing should at least let you know that "something" is going on, magically, that is altering the norm.
Here's the operative text of the true seeing spell:
1) sees through normal and magical darkness
2) notices secret doors hidden by magic
3) sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects,
4) sees invisible creatures or objects normally,
5) sees through illusions
6) sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things.
7) see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extra-dimensional spaces)
What it does not do:
1) penetrate solid objects.
2) confers X-ray vision or its equivalent.
3) negate concealment, including that caused by fog and the like.
4) help the viewer see through mundane disguises,
5) spot creatures who are simply hiding,
6) notice secret doors hidden by mundane means
Now, to your question: In regards to lycanthropy: lycanthropy is not a "transmutation" effect (like polymorph). However, the spell does say that it sees the true form of "changed things". Obviously the animal/hybrid form of a lycanthrope would fall under this category -- ergo, you'd be able to determine that the alternate form is really your companion if you saw her as a lycanthrope. However, what you would not do, is determine that they have an alternate form just by looking at them if they are in their normal state.
Now, with possession, there is no physical manifestation of possession that is being hidden in any fashion as far as I'm aware (like an illusion of some kind). Ergo, true seeing would be useless in detecting possession.
The "sees things as they truely are" is fluff text -- you said it yourself, it is open to a wide variety of interpretations.
But true seeing does have it's limitations: it can't even detect magic auras, or traps not hidden through magic.
The key component of true seeing is that it pierces obfuscation -- it doesn't prevent deception of all kinds.
A rogue or ranger with hide in plain sight (ex) can stand right in front of you and still be hidden even if you have True Sight.
True Seeing should negate any magical disguises, but I am also assuming the vampire has nonmagical disguise(the skill) in play also. IIRC, you have to have a reason to be suspicous to even get a perception check vs the disguise skill.
However if the vampire only has a magical disguise then yeah they appear as a vampire, but you should still need a knowledge check to identify them as one.
As for the possession true seeing should not be able to do anything about that.
True Seeing is a 6th level Sorc/Wizard spell that:
1. Has twice the range and same effect of Eyes of the Void, a 4th level spell. (Darkvision isn't the point of comparison, because it can't see through supernatural darkness.)
2. Completely obsoletes an entire school of magic up to level 9, including absolute immunity to Phantasmal Killer and Weird and "LOL, nice try" to a party trying to infiltrate under Veil.
3. Is the only method to see what an illusion or polymorph effect is hiding, rather than just that one is in effect.
It's fine. My only complaint is the material component cost, but that's dealt with by taking Fortune Teller so you can also use Divination/Commune for free.
Flavor text is not the rule. The mechanical text are the rules. That is why flavor is mutable so that you can fit it to your character. The spell only does exactly what the mechanics says it can do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are numerous arguments that can go both ways. Does a curse give a character a gimpy leg, or make them ugly? True Seeing should see through that.
I think you misunderstand the nature of reality itself. Most spells actually alter reality; they don't disguise it. As a simple example, the shatter spell will actually break a teapot; the teapot is "really" broken as a result of the spell. Similarly, a curse that "really" gives you a gimpy leg will not be revealed under true seeing because the reality is, well, that leg is gimpy. (Similarly, if you're killed by a fireball, you're "really" dead; it's not an illusionary death.)
Similarly, a person under the effects of a possession (or other enchantment) spell is still "really" a person and will be seen as such. A frog under the effects of an enchantment spell who is "really" a prince will be seen as a prince, but the enchantment spell is irrelevant to that.
As much a fan as I am of the d20 system, ever since the system focused more on the law of the letter (since 3.0), it becomes ever more difficult to actually be... CREATIVE. "Well, the spell doesn't say you can do it, so you can't do it" is the prevalent modus operandi nowadays.
Are you suggesting that a person possessed by a demon is not BOTH the demon AND the person at the same time simply because it's not an illusion or transmutation effect? Balderdash! I submit that IF an entity is occupying a vessel (that is, another entity's body), the vessel is nothing more than a ruse that obfuscates the reality of the occupying entity. In other words, my friend is my friend, but she is also the demon. The demon just looks like my friend. The fact that it is neither an illusion nor a transmutation does not change this FACT, nor does it change the FACT that this is being done through magical (not mundane) means.
The lycanthrope example... that's a fair call. It makes sense. I can easily accept that as a valid interpretation of the rules.
The gimpy leg curse example... I don't accept. The only reason that leg is gimpy is because it is altered by magic. While not an illusion or transmutation effect, the FACT is it is gimpy because persistent magic (not an instantaneous effect that leaves a lasting limp forever) which can be removed is causing the leg to be gimpy. Stating that True Seeing wouldn't reveal the fully functional leg is a much harder pill for me to swallow.
It really gets my ire going when the law of the letter is the only interpretation people are willing to accept. "It's not an illusion or transmutation, so it doesn't count. Neener-neener-neener!" Really? If I find an abjuration, evocation, necromancy, enchantment, divination, universal or (gods forbid) PSYCHIC spell which temporarily alters reality, True Seeing simply fails to see the truth because they are not officially illusions or transmutations? How limited. In usefulness, logical, and creativity, this is a limited way of approaching anything which might be prone to interpretation. Honestly, how many rules (feats, spells, etc) in Pathfinder are simply broken or useless because of poor design and the law of the letter (RAW), but in descriptive text should be awesome!? I've lost count. I sure hope my GM is less restrictive in his interpretation.
There is absolutely ZERO point to descriptive text or creative titles if the prevalent approach is to only use the rigid law of the letter, and nothing beyond. Does anyone here actually role-play, or do they just roll-play? I don't know why I ask questions here anymore. Everyone is a rules lawyer robot. This spell should be called "See Through Illusions, Transmutations, and Natural Darkness", but that still might be to flavorful! At least it seems to describe what everyone believes it can do.
ARGH!!! I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall!
You all win. True Seeing does nothing beyond see through illusions and transmutations. I should remove it from my list of knows spells, because it is going to do absolutely NOTHING for me that I couldn't already do with adequate skill ranks combined with lesser spells. It's a pointless spell.
As much a fan as I am of the d20 system, ever since the system focused more on the law of the letter (since 3.0), it becomes ever more difficult to actually be... CREATIVE. "Well, the spell doesn't say you can do it, so you can't do it" is the prevalent modus operandi nowadays.
That is always how the rules worked. Some GM's just play loose with the rules to allow to do more for the sake of "doing cool things".
However for those who are strictly by the rules they don't allow you any leeway, and in the rules section we tend to explain things this way and leave it up to the GM in question to decide if he wants to give more leeway or not.
I think you need to apply True Seeing to this thread so you can read clearly where we explained that it's not useless and it can't be duplicated by other effects.
By the responses I've seen, there are very few scenarios where True Seeing is a markedly superior option to using lesser spells in conjunction with skills. Most of the time, it seems it's just a little faster and more efficient. In my humble opinion, not a good enough reason to blow a 5th or 6th level spell slot (or one of your limited number of known spells, if you're a spontaneous caster).
I'll submit, I let myself get a little worked up, and for that I apologize. That doesn't change how I feel on the subject, however. I'd much rather use Detect Magic (cantrip/orison) to see that an illusion or transmutation is magical, spend a couple of rounds figuring out what it is, then cast Dispel Magic (Level 3 versus Level 5 or 6) to make the effect go away and allow all of my companions to see the reality. See Invisibility is level 2 (3 if you're a bard), and Glitterdust (level 2) counters that for everyone. Blur? Dispel Magic. Displacement? Dispel Magic. Transmutation? Dispel Magic. Illusion? Dispel Magic. A cantrip (Detect Magic), a level 2 spell (See Invisibility), and a level 3 spell (Dispel Magic) and trump just about anything that True Seeing can see reveal, and for the ENTIRE PARTY (not just the recipient). If you don't want to waste your time identifying the effect using Detect Magic, just cast Dispel Magic on the unidentified effect! It's not that difficult to get a permanent Detect Magic. At worst, you spend 12.5 gold on a scroll of Detect Magic, 3,825 gold to buy a scroll of Permanency, and use Use Magic Device to put it on yourself. Not a spellcaster? No problem! Drink a potion of Read Magic. You might spend a little more if you fail the first time. See Invisibility permanently? Increase the above by 137.5 gold for that. Raise the first price by 367.5 gold to get permanent Arcane Sight instead of Detect Magic! Permanent Detect Magic or Arcane Sight and See Invisibility will defeat many of the situations where True Seeing is useful. If you can cast Dispel Magic, that defeats the rest.
Dispel Magic for the win!
Can you see why I feel True Seeing should do more than simply what is expressed the rigid text examples? By the time you are level 12 or 13, you should have the funds available to get a couple of permanent enchantments. It's all the more easy if you're an Arcanist, Sorcerer, or Wizard, as all these spells are on your class list, thus requiring no UMD check. Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus, or Witch? Arcane Sight is on your list, so you only need to worry about the Permanency scrolls. Magus? Gotta roll UMD for that See Invisibility, too (I find that odd, as they are a gish class, and this spell would make fighting easier for them). Point being, with appropriate cash resources, you easily eliminate many scenarios where True Seeing is mildly superior, and if you can cast Dispel Magic (or UMD a wand of Dispel Magic), you can eliminate EVERY OTHER SCENARIO for you AND your comrades.
By the responses I've seen, there are very few scenarios where True Seeing is a markedly superior option to using lesser spells in conjunction with skills.
Well, no one is forcing you to use true seeing. There are lots of high-level spells that are still situational.
On the other hand, I defy you to find a skill or spell other than true seeing that will tell me what the original form of this (polymorphed) frog is without actually removing the spell (and possibly turning a now reconstituted pit fiend loose on the city)
Dispel magic is a very dangerous spell to use, because, first, it's unreliable (you have to make the caster level check) and, second, it actively removes the spell, which may not be good if the spell is there for a good reason. See invisible is a very good spell but does not penetrate illusion spells in general. Detect magic can detect magical auras but is much too slow to use in combat or in large groups. None of those spells, in turn, will actually provide protection from spells such as phantasmal killer.
And it's nice to have a single spell that will handle all of those divination needs.
The only scenarios I can imagine where True Seeing is FAR superior to the Detect Magic/Arcane Sight plus Dispel Magic/Greater scenario? Multiple staggered illusion and transmutation effects. Likelihood of this scenario happening often enough to worry about True Seeing? Minuscule. So much so, that I can't see the point of True Seeing. True Seeing needs to have a wider range of utility, again in my humble opinion, to be considered far superior to lower level options. Greater Dispel Magic (level 6, like True Seeing) can defeat multiple effects in a 20' radius for everyone in the party, making it still a better option than True Seeing.
The other factor here is economy. Any spellcaster worth their salt is going for the most bang for their buck. By the time you get 5th or 6th level spells, it's much easier to throw away some lower level spells, but those high level slots are too valuable to be selfish with. Unless True Seeing has far more utility than the rigid text examples, it's just not economical to waste a high level spell upon. If it lasted an hour per level? Okay, that would be a lot better. Ten minutes per level? Better, but now it's a maybe option. One minute per level? That's a couple of encounters if you're rushing the dungeon and have good reason to expect illusions and transmutations. The utility to economy just isn't good enough if you limit it to the few examples given in the spell text. This is (supposed to be) a POWERFUL divination. But it isn't. It's garbage if it can be trumped by lesser spells. And it can be. I'm not even all that well versed in all that is Pathfinder, and I can easily blow True Seeing away with lower level spells. And just core spells! I'm sure there are spells from other sources that would make the job even easier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only scenarios I can imagine where True Seeing is FAR superior to the Detect Magic/Arcane Sight plus Dispel Magic/Greater scenario?
Yes, yes, we've already established, more or less from the first post, that you lack imagination.
Unless True Seeing has far more utility than the rigid text examples, it's just not economical to waste a high level spell upon.
So don't waste the slot. No one's forcing you to. If you want to burn a 6th level slot on analyze dweomer instead, that's even more circumstantial. You could memorize guards and wards. Or, alternatively, you could go for "economy" and memorize summon monster VI if you think that's a better choice.
Pit Fiend is a frog. Are situations like this a common occurrence or very, very, EXTREMELY rare ones?
True Seeing isn't without it's EXTREMELY RARE uses, but they are just that. Apparently, it won't show me that the frog is simply possessed by a Pit Fiend, or Magic Jarred, or anything else that isn't explicitly an illusion or transmutation. Maybe the frog just has some kind of contingency summon cast on it, and attempting to cast Dispel Magic is the trigger (triggering before the Dispel is actually finished)! Now Dispel Magic does the same thing, but True Seeing was useless. I can think like an evil GM, too.
And from what I've read, Phantasmal Killer isn't trumped by True Seeing because it is a mind-affecting spell, not a visual illusion. It's in the mind's eye. Personally, I think that's lame, but I could understand that argument. I may not think it's right, but I'm pretty sure I read that that was the consensus.
It sure WOULD be nice to have a single divination spell that sees the truth of everything viewed, but True Seeing, apparently, is not it. Maybe it should be called Limited, Mostly, or Kinda True Seeing. Is there a more powerful version of this spell? I sure didn't see a "Greater" or even "Mythic" version anywhere.
No, Dispel Magic is not a guarantee. But if it works, it does work for everyone, which I feel makes it better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pit Fiend is a frog. Are situations like this a common occurrence or very, very, EXTREMELY rare ones?
At the levels where true seeing is a practical thing, shapeshifted baddies are relatively common -- and, as was pointed out above, detect magic is way too slow to be using in combat as a bad guy detector. ("Is there magic in that room?" "Yes, there is!" "How many magic things?" "Several, and one is now eating your face!")
And from what I've read, Phantasmal Killer isn't trumped by True Seeing because it is a mind-affecting spell, not a visual illusion.
You're wrong again. There's even a FAQ about It.
It sure WOULD be nice to have a single divination spell that sees the truth of everything viewed,
There is. It's called true seeing. Unfortunately, a frog possessed by a demon is truly a frog, and a person blinded by a curse spell is truly blind.
No, Dispel Magic is not a guarantee. But if it works, it does work for everyone, which I feel makes it better.
So use it instead. No one is forcing you to memorize a spell you don't understand.
The only scenarios I can imagine where True Seeing is FAR superior to the Detect Magic/Arcane Sight plus Dispel Magic/Greater scenario?Yes, yes, we've already established, more or less from the first post, that you lack imagination.
I'll let this slide, even though it is direct libel on my personal character, since I implied something similar in the form of a question earlier. Nevertheless, I asked it as a question, not as a statement or direct insult. I assure you, I have a lot of imagination. Apparently players aren't allowed to use that tool, though. It seems to be restricted to GMs who wish to slaughter their parties.
Unless True Seeing has far more utility than the rigid text examples, it's just not economical to waste a high level spell upon.
So don't waste the slot. No one's forcing you to. If you want to burn a 6th level slot on analyze dweomer instead, that's even more circumstantial. You could memorize guards and wards. Or, alternatively, you could go for "economy" and memorize summon monster VI if you think that's a better choice.
You are absolutely correct in that no one is forcing me to use or learn True Seeing. Analyze Dweomer is no more circumstantial than Detect Magic or Arcane Sight, which have far more utility than True Seeing, and Analyze Dweomer tells you every detail about a magical effect instantly. Details like "this is too powerful for me to bother trying to dispel" as just one simple example. Guards and Wards is a great spell that does a lot of things if you are playing the right campaign. I get that this example was intended to illustrate circumstantially useful spells, but I do believe it's far more powerful than True Seeing. Summon Monster VI is a great spell, too. As a wizard, more targets for the bad guys to waste their actions upon = party is winning. My character is an inquisitor, so those aren't options for him.
My point is that, no matter how useful you may or may not think True Seeing might be, it seems to be far more limited than it should be, when compared to alternatives and like-level spells. That is, if you restrict your train of thought to nothing beyond the examples given in the spell description.
|
The benefit of True Seeing is that it always works. Wasting a Dispel Magic on the enemy's Displacement sucks when you fail the CL check. True Seeing lets you or your ally see through all magical darkness, blur, displacement, illusions, without fail. In fact, when my crew realized we had forgot to have someone with daylight available, my oracle spammed True Seeing on the party to get them into the fight. Analyze Dweomer gives you an idea, True Seeing gives you a fact.
Pit Fiend is a frog. Are situations like this a common occurrence or very, very, EXTREMELY rare ones?At the levels where true seeing is a practical thing, shapeshifted baddies are relatively common -- and, as was pointed out above, detect magic is way too slow to be using in combat as a bad guy detector. ("Is there magic in that room?" "Yes, there is!" "How many magic things?" "Several, and one is now eating your face!")
And from what I've read, Phantasmal Killer isn't trumped by True Seeing because it is a mind-affecting spell, not a visual illusion.You're wrong again. There's even a FAQ about It.
It sure WOULD be nice to have a single divination spell that sees the truth of everything viewed,There is. It's called true seeing. Unfortunately, a frog possessed by a demon is truly a frog, and a person blinded by a curse spell is truly blind.
No, Dispel Magic is not a guarantee. But if it works, it does work for everyone, which I feel makes it better.So use it instead. No one is forcing you to memorize a spell you don't understand.
1. If a spell caster is using Detect Magic as a bad guy detector, they deserve to have their face ripped off. A slightly better option would be a permanent Arcane Sight. But if your adventurers aren't expecting everything to try to rip off their faces, they will learn to do so soon enough.
2. I hadn't read the FAQ on that, just ran across the debate on these here forums. I'll concede the point. That's good though! I want True Seeing to have more utility! That is why I posted here in the first place!
3. Even with the addition of the Phantasmal Killer caveat, True Seeing does not see all magically altered truth. If a lich uses Magic Jar to take residence in the party Wizard (the obvious choice because they will have everything necessary spell casting), how is the party wizard not now actually the lich? Is the person defined by their physical form, or the consciousness occupying the meat puppet? If a spell creates a persistent effect (such as blindness) that is not actually permanent, how is that different than a persistent effect that changes their physical form? The magic is causing something that is untrue to be temporarily true. Is the transmuted character any more able to shake off the baleful polymorph than the cursed blind guy? Is the effect any less real for them? No. These are both situations where the truth is altered for a limited duration, and both are reversible. I would concede that it would be more difficult to detect a subtle change, such as blindness being caused by an persistent effect versus person is a dog. Nevertheless, the fact of whether or not an effect is a transmutation doesn't make the effect any less "real" to the individual being affected. And that reality is false, as it is magically induced and temporary.
4. I use Dispel Magic plenty. I JUST gained access to 5th level inquisitor spells, and was really hopeful that True Seeing would have a lot more usefulness than it appears to have. I'm very disappointed with the apparent limitations of the spell. Were it more useful, I would still use Dispel Magic, but I would consider True Seeing to be a powerful tool in my toolbox. Not so much, now, it would seem.
I don't understand how people think this spell is so great with all the restrictions they seem to want to pile onto it. If it only trumps illusions and transmutations, that's very limited. I can imagine a great many other scenarios where being able to see the truth through the magic would not involve illusions and transmutations. I get to pick TWO level 5 spells. I don't want to waste half of that on a utility spell that has such restricted "utility". I WANT True Seeing to actually be useful. By these limitations, I can imagine a plethora of methods a GM could use to get around True Seeing, simply by saying "Yeah, but wasn't an illusion or transmutation effect, so neener-neener-neener."
The benefit of True Seeing is that it always works. Wasting a Dispel Magic on the enemy's Displacement sucks when you fail the CL check. True Seeing lets you or your ally see through all magical darkness, blur, displacement, illusions, without fail. In fact, when my crew realized we had forgot to have someone with daylight available, my oracle spammed True Seeing on the party to get them into the fight. Analyze Dweomer gives you an idea, True Seeing gives you a fact.
Yes, True Seeing guarantees that the recipient, and the recipient alone, can bypass a limited number of effects 100% of the time. How many level 5 or 6 spells are you going to cast to make that work for the whole party? What level do you have to be to consider "spamming" a level 5 or 6 spell??? I don't feel that getting around a few effects for combat purposes should be the focus of this spell. It's a utility spell. I feel what it does allow you to see as "true" should be more broadly encompassing. I don't want a trump-all spell. I want it to work as advertised in the first line of the spell. Even if that means it only last 1 ROUND per level. True Seeing gives you SOME facts, and that's the problem.
I think I would need to know more about your scenario to understand why someone would want to spam a high-level spell to get into a fight, where daylight would have sufficed had it been available. It was dark? You could spam True Seeing, but nobody had Light or an everburning torch? I'm guessing not, and it must have been a desperate scenario, but I can't see this being a regular thing. I'm imagining the party learned to have a lower level utility spell available at all times for those poor saps who cant see in the dark.
Here's some examples of how True Seeing is better than relying on Analyze Dweomer (or the superior Greater Arcane Sight) in combat scenarios.
1. It lasts 10 times as long.
2. It has longer range (same for GAS).
3. It lets you know what you're facing and decide how to act now, not burn action economy and spells trying to dispel something that may not be important.
4. Illusory Wall is a permanent 4th level Wizard spell with no expensive material component. It is trivial for a Wizard to place this on every single surface in a dungeon/tower. If you have True Seeing up you can see which ones hide pits, which ones hide secret hallways, which ones hide an alcove with an Iron Golem ready to ambush you when you walk by, etc. If you have Analyze Dweomer up you see that every single surface has an Illusory Wall on it. You can't tell which are layered over real wall/floor/ceiling, and you can't dispel every single one to find out. What do you do?
5. A group of reinforcements covered by Veil rush into a fight. With True Seeing you can tell what kind of creatures they are and determine which to attack first, or if they're too dangerous and you need to retreat. With Analyze Dweomer you just know that some unknown creatures covered in Veil showed up. Are they dangerous? Decoys? Who knows?
Have you considered Truesight Goggle they're quite reasonably priced for what they do and they'll save you a spell known.
Three spells isn't too bad. My party is 7 characters deep, so this would be more than I could cover in that scenario.
I don't think True Seeing is entirely worthless. I just feel the situations where it is actually better than other options are few and far enough between that it behooves a wizard or arcanist to have it in their spell book (or on a couple of scrolls), but a spontaneous caster with a limited number of spells known is likely to feel this is too circumstantial to warrant a permanent place in their limited selection. If seeing the truth through the magic was less restrictive, by RAW, it would be easier to justify. I always attempt to get as much mileage as possible from my utility spells to justify including them in my inquisitor's permanent memory.
Have you considered Truesight Goggle they're quite reasonably priced for what they do and they'll save you a spell known.
I have considered this item, but my character doesn't have the nearly 200,000 gold for the investment. But yes, I seriously considered liquidating some of my gear to make it happen.
The other problem, however, is I'm kind of anice undead slaying sniper (Sanctified Slayer with Final Rest inquisition), and my greater sniper goggles use the same slot.
I just realized there were two key words I missed on True Seeing that ARE open to interpretation! Here is the line, verbatim:
"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."
Emphasis mine. "Changed", by process of elimination, is neither "polymorphed" nor "transmuted". And "things" is an amorphous term, not restricted to objects or creatures, so a "thing" could be anything definable, such as a soul.
Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me how wrong I am, how I am wrong, and in how many ways. *throws down gauntlet*
Tell me I'm wrong.
Shrug. Okay, you're wrong.
Tell me I'm wrong.Shrug. Okay, you're wrong.
This :D
Think of it this way: True Seeing strips away the magical impediments that would affect what you see normally.
Can you see a soul? No. Under normal circumstances, you cannot see a soul -- therefore, unless there is some sort of outward manifestation of possession (see the various movies surrounding possession -- the exorcist is my fav), you cannot detect possession.
However, lycanthropy via curse or infection is probably the only potential exception, because the line on transmutation and polymorph also mentions changed. A cursed or infected lycanthrope in their animal form is indeed changed.
An exception to this exception would be a true lycanthrope. All of the true lycanthrope's forms are his own, and would not fall under the polymorphed/transmuted and changed exception because that is his normal state upon being born.
The Pathfinder novel Death's Heretic does use a magic item that sounds like a Gem of Seeing to spot a soul trapped in a magic ring, but the novels don't really follow the rules when they get in the way of plot.
I am willing to admit that, BY ITSELF, True Seeing MAY not be able to pick up on some "things" that are "changed" if they are imperceptible to the naked eye (such as a soul). But... in conjunction with other spell affects (Detect Magic, Detect Alignment, Detect Convoluted Rules Lawyering, etc), True Seeing should allow the perception of "things" which would otherwise be undetectable with those spells alone. The demon-possessed character may not yet detect as evil via the spell Detect Evil, but True Seeing may reveal the evil soul residing within when used in conjunction with Detect Evil. Used with Detect Magic or Arcane Sight, it could flag an otherwise unnoticeable effect, such as a curse (it's a noun, so it's a "thing"), which has altered or "changed" a subject's true state of being.
While I would accept this as a caveat to detecting things otherwise imperceptible, I think a spell at the power level of True Seeing should always allow the recipient to see that "something" about the target of a curse, possession, or otherwise imperceptible "change" is "not right", "altered", "untrue", or........ "CHANGED".
I know everyone wants me to be wrong so that they can be right, but until you can tell me how Paizo and Pathfinder have defined the terms "changed" (as opposed to "polymorphed" and "transmuted") and "things" (as opposed to "creatures" and "objects") as they relate to this iteration of the d20 system, it is not possible to prove me wrong.
This is why I've repeatedly asked if there is anything "official" that precludes the detection of effects such as possessions and curses via True Seeing. And with these ambiguous words mixed into the officially defined parameters of the spell, I'm not wrong unless Paizo says so.
....
Or... Maybe everyone wants me to be wrong because they tried something similar, their GMs disallowed it, and they didn't notice the ambiguous terms gently nestled amongst the defined parameters?
Holy Subtle Ambiguities, Batman! If I had noticed those two tiny words within the defined parameters of the spell beforehand, I probably would have never posed the question, or would have at least opened with using them as the foundation for my inquiry.
As they say, "the Devil is in the details", and these details are ACTUALLY open to undefined interpretation. Mwahahahahaha!
The Pathfinder novel Death's Heretic does use a magic item that sounds like a Gem of Seeing to spot a soul trapped in a magic ring, but the novels don't really follow the rules when they get in the way of plot.
And thank you for siting an official Paizo example which supports my assertions. While it may not be official game rules, it is a Paizo Pathfinder product, and sets a precedent for such interpretations.
Most of us are GM's and not petty enough to want you to suffer for no reason. Calm down and stop taking this personally. We are trying to help.
1. Don't let your desire to want a rule to work a certain way interfere with your ability to determine how it works.
2. If this is PFS the GM wont likely care about what a novel says. They are bound to the rulebook. In that case I recommend not taking this spell if you dont like how we say it works.
If this is not PFS then it will come down to how "by the book" the GM is. I would ask the GM.
|
|
The only scenarios I can imagine where True Seeing is FAR superior to the Detect Magic/Arcane Sight plus Dispel Magic/Greater scenario? Multiple staggered illusion and transmutation effects. Likelihood of this scenario happening often enough to worry about True Seeing? Minuscule. So much so, that I can't see the point of True Seeing. True Seeing needs to have a wider range of utility, again in my humble opinion, to be considered far superior to lower level options. Greater Dispel Magic (level 6, like True Seeing) can defeat multiple effects in a 20' radius for everyone in the party, making it still a better option than True Seeing.
The other factor here is economy. Any spellcaster worth their salt is going for the most bang for their buck. By the time you get 5th or 6th level spells, it's much easier to throw away some lower level spells, but those high level slots are too valuable to be selfish with. Unless True Seeing has far more utility than the rigid text examples, it's just not economical to waste a high level spell upon. If it lasted an hour per level? Okay, that would be a lot better. Ten minutes per level? Better, but now it's a maybe option. One minute per level? That's a couple of encounters if you're rushing the dungeon and have good reason to expect illusions and transmutations. The utility to economy just isn't good enough if you limit it to the few examples given in the spell text. This is (supposed to be) a POWERFUL divination. But it isn't. It's garbage if it can be trumped by lesser spells. And it can be. I'm not even all that well versed in all that is Pathfinder, and I can easily blow True Seeing away with lower level spells. And just core spells! I'm sure there are spells from other sources that would make the job even easier.
You are thinking from an Inquisitor (or a wizard) point of view. A 5th level spell is very valuable as you get it late and you have See invisible and Arcane sight as lower level spells.
For a cleric or Oracle that isn't generally true.A spell can be great for a specific class and way less great for other classes than still get it.
BTW, note that casting 2 or more spells generally is less efficient than casting only one, even if of an higher level.
And none of the other spells beat Blur or Mirror image, AFAIK.
The benefit of True Seeing is that it always works. Wasting a Dispel Magic on the enemy's Displacement sucks when you fail the CL check. True Seeing lets you or your ally see through all magical darkness, blur, displacement, illusions, without fail. In fact, when my crew realized we had forgot to have someone with daylight available, my oracle spammed True Seeing on the party to get them into the fight. Analyze Dweomer gives you an idea, True Seeing gives you a fact.Yes, True Seeing guarantees that the recipient, and the recipient alone, can bypass a limited number of effects 100% of the time. How many level 5 or 6 spells are you going to cast to make that work for the whole party? What level do you have to be to consider "spamming" a level 5 or 6 spell??? I don't feel that getting around a few effects for combat purposes should be the focus of this spell. It's a utility spell. I feel what it does allow you to see as "true" should be more broadly encompassing. I don't want a trump-all spell. I want it to work as advertised in the first line of the spell. Even if that means it only last 1 ROUND per level. True Seeing gives you SOME facts, and that's the problem.
I think I would need to know more about your scenario to understand why someone would want to spam a high-level spell to get into a fight, where daylight would have sufficed had it been available. It was dark? You could spam True Seeing, but nobody had Light or an everburning torch? I'm guessing not, and it must have been a desperate scenario, but I can't see this being a regular thing. I'm imagining the party learned to have a lower level utility spell available at all times for those poor saps who cant see in the dark.
With an oracle? 10th.
Pit Fiend is a frog. Are situations like this a common occurrence or very, very, EXTREMELY rare ones?
You can ask that to the 1st edition barbarian with a Githyanki vorpal sword that was polymorphed into a fly in one of my campaign and was never found by his friends.
Or the the sword that contained a pit friend and released it when it was shattered (suppressing the magic with dispel magic would have had the same result).Or even in your current campaign if, as it seem, the demon possessing your companion is inside hin physically.
I would say that using dispel magic on random enchantments will release something nasty once or twice in a long campaign, about 50% of the time in a AP.
|
|
1. If a spell caster is using Detect Magic as a bad guy detector, they deserve to have their face ripped off. A slightly better option would be a permanent Arcane Sight. But if your adventurers aren't expecting everything to try to rip off their faces, they will learn to do so soon enough.
Useless against invisible creatures/objects.
This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you.
...
You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight.
with both Detect magic and Arcane sight you need to see a creature /object to see his/its aura.
Detect magic can sense the presence of magic when it has total concealed, Arcane sight don't.|
|
I am willing to admit that, BY ITSELF, True Seeing MAY not be able to pick up on some "things" that are "changed" if they are imperceptible to the naked eye (such as a soul). But... in conjunction with other spell affects (Detect Magic, Detect Alignment, Detect Convoluted Rules Lawyering, etc), True Seeing should allow the perception of "things" which would otherwise be undetectable with those spells alone. The demon-possessed character may not yet detect as evil via the spell Detect Evil, but True Seeing may reveal the evil soul residing within when used in conjunction with Detect Evil. Used with Detect Magic or Arcane Sight, it could flag an otherwise unnoticeable effect, such as a curse (it's a noun, so it's a "thing"), which has altered or "changed" a subject's true state of being.
While I would accept this as a caveat to detecting things otherwise imperceptible, I think a spell at the power level of True Seeing should always allow the recipient to see that "something" about the target of a curse, possession, or otherwise imperceptible "change" is "not right", "altered", "untrue", or........ "CHANGED".
I know everyone wants me to be wrong so that they can be right, but until you can tell me how Paizo and Pathfinder have defined the terms "changed" (as opposed to "polymorphed" and "transmuted") and "things" (as opposed to "creatures" and "objects") as they relate to this iteration of the d20 system, it is not possible to prove me wrong.
This is why I've repeatedly asked if there is anything "official" that precludes the detection of effects such as possessions and curses via True Seeing. And with these ambiguous words mixed into the officially defined parameters of the spell, I'm not wrong unless Paizo says so.
....
Or... Maybe everyone wants me to be wrong because they tried something similar, their GMs disallowed it, and they didn't notice the ambiguous terms gently nestled amongst the defined parameters?
True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects. It in no way confers X-ray vision or its equivalent. It does not negate 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.
As you are playing with indefinite terms, we can play with indefinite locations. Where is someone soul? Probably within his body, as long as he is alive.
A body is a solid object and true seeing can't penetrate it.Ergo you can't see a soul.
My other post was eaten by the site.
Basically it said if you are playing PFS you have about a 1% chance to get the ruling you want, and novels dont count as part of the rules.
If you are playing a home game just ask the GM if he will make a rules exception.
So, I decided I didn't want to be pissed off on my birthday weekend, so I ignored further responses from the rules lawyers for the remainder of the weekend.
wraithstrike: Thankfully, I don't play PFS. My GM is being a little weird about the True Seeing thing, though. Allow me to explain: This weekend we encountered a group of holy NPCs (clerics and paladins) who had been tasked to "keep trespassers from entering these lands, lest they bring back the dark one." After smoothing things over, we discover they had a caged "witch" whom they were planning to take back to a nearby city for an exorcism. First I use Detect Magic... no results. Then I use Detect Evil. Minuscule traces of evil detected. Then I cast True Seeing. I see a sinister, shadowy presence surrounding, penetrating, and enveloping the "witch" (just an old gypsy who became possessed). With True Seeing active, I turn to my comrades to advise them of what I was seeing. My GM did not permit me to see through the illusions and transmutations concealing the vampire in our midst (which is CLEARLY within the parameters of the spell). Nor did he allow me to see the demons (plural) possessing two of our party members in a very similar fashion. Our party cleric also used the same spells and took the same actions, and he was limited in what he saw the same as I.
It would seem I'm only permitted to see what is true (including any effects influencing the "soul") if I am explicitly looking for them. That's frustrating, because I'm not going to always know when to look through an illusion or transmutation, let alone when to expressly look into someone's soul.
Diego: I don't know where the soul is. I suppose that depends on your system of beliefs. Some believe it is inside of you. Others believe it surrounds you, like an aura or energy. Others may combine the two, or have a different perspective on it. I'm kind of the camp of folks who think it exists both inside you, and surrounds you. It penetrates you and binds you... like The Force. ;) But who's to say. I'm not really a religious or spiritual person any more (in real life), and I tend to think most religious and spiritual beliefs are nothing more than antiquated pseudosciences that the unenlightened still cling to, to the point of denying provable fact to their contrary, which hold us back (scientifically and intellectually) from our true potential as a species. (Greed is the other thing holding us back.) So, going off the assertion that souls exist in a fantasy role-playing game, where they exist is a topic for speculation.