Had a game the other day and one of the players used dust of disapperance, and aurgued that because True seeing was not in the description, it couldn't be used. But I think otherwise.
The items description says "Normal vision can’t see dusted creatures or objects, nor can they be detected by magical means, including see invisibility or invisibility purge."
So because it doesn't state True Seeing, I beleive it can be used. What do you all think?
In SRD terms, true seeing trumps all magical forms of invisibility, mentioned or not. There is a big difference between arguing fine print and abusing fine print, IMO.
OTOH, a most cogent point. Teach me to leave my DMG back home.
Had a game the other day and one of the players used dust of disapperance, and aurgued that because True seeing was not in the description, it couldn't be used. But I think otherwise.
The items description says "Normal vision can’t see dusted creatures or objects, nor can they be detected by magical means, including see invisibility or invisibility purge."
So because it doesn't state True Seeing, I beleive it can be used. What do you all think?
I think listing all magical spells/abilities/items/etc. that cannot see someone using the dust would be impossible.
Especially impossible considering they would have to list spells that would appear in splat books that are published after the dust was established - they would have to see the future.
So they said "nor can they be detected by magical means".
They didn't say "nor can they be detected by some magical means".
So, by the description of the dust, magical means, all magical means, will fail to detect dusted creatures.
Sure, the dust lists a couple spells, but it says "including" those spells, not "only" those spells. Which means that other spells, other magical means, in fact, "all" magical means, will fail to see dusted creatures.
If I say "Mammals are warm blooded, including horses and giraffes", would you say "Ah, well, he didn't mention bears, so bears must not be warm blooded"?
I don't have to list all mammals, and the dust doesn't have to list all spells. Saying ""nor can they be detected by magical means" covers all spells.
Here's another way to look at it:
True Seeing lets your enemy "see invisible". A ring of invisibility lets you "be invisible". "be invisible" and "see invisible" cancel each other out. Negate/suppress each other.
But the Dust of Disappearance is different. It lets you "be invisible and prevents magic from detecting or seeing you". True Seeing does not have any "and" clause. The second part of the Dust cancels the whole part of the True Seeing, which leaves the first part of the Dust still in effect - you're invisible.
The Dust effectively gangs up on the True Seeing 2-to-1.
I don't know if that makes it any clearer.
Yeah I see your point. I got around it by doing a area dispell anyways hehe. Thanks for the clearing that up though DM, wonderful way.
