True Seeing: Interacting with Spells, Curses, and Supernatural Effects which alter the nature of a target


Rules Questions

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

_Ozy_ wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Belefauntes wrote:


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.

Arcane Sight wrote:

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.

You can see auras even when you can't see the object, that's why detect magic has this text:

Quote:
The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
Quote:
The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.

The spell specifically allows you do analyze auras that not only have concealment, but total cover, as long as that cover isn't thicker than what is permitted by the spell.

Arcane sight is the same:

Quote:
The effect is similar to that of a detect magic spell, but arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly.
The only difference, as specified by the rules, is that arcane sight doesn't require concentration or the multiple rounds of study.
Arcane Sight wrote:

This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you. The effect is similar to that of a detect magic spell, but arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly.

You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight.

Note how it say that you see the auras within your sight, not that you detect magical auras, and that the effect is similar to detect magic, not that it work like detect magic.

Total concealment block arcane sight.
Quoting detect magic don't help, as Arcane sigth don't work as Detect magic, it is only similar, and the spell explain in what is similar to detect magic:

1) An aura's power depends on a spell's functioning level or an item's caster level, as noted in the description of the detect magic spell
2) As with detect magic, you can use this spell to identify the properties of magic items, but not artifacts.

Essentially, arcane sight isn't See Invisibility.


Belefauntes wrote:

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.

It seems as if the GM didnt want you to access certain information so he either ignored how the spell worked, which I think is unfair*, or he misunderstood that the illusion should have been a nonfactor.

*Sometimes this happens when GM's run things for higher level parties, and are not ready when they have an easy way to unravel whatever he has planned.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Belefauntes wrote:

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.

It seems as if the GM didnt want you to access certain information so he either ignored how the spell worked, which I think is unfair*, or he misunderstood that the illusion should have been a nonfactor.

*Sometimes this happens when GM's run things for higher level parties, and are not ready when they have an easy way to unravel whatever he has planned.

Or the demons/vampire have Mind blank and (maybe) Non detection.

I am not convinced that Non detection work against True seeing, but some GM think so.


Diego Rossi wrote:


Arcane Sight wrote:

This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you. The effect is similar to that of a detect magic spell, but arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly.

You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight.

Note how it say that you see the auras within your sight, not that you detect magical auras, and that the effect is similar to detect magic, not that it work like detect magic.

Total concealment block arcane sight.
Quoting detect magic don't help, as Arcane sigth don't work as Detect magic, it is only similar, and the spell explain in what is similar to detect magic:

1) An aura's power depends on a spell's functioning level or an item's caster level, as noted in the description of the detect magic spell
2) As with detect magic, you can use this spell to identify the properties of magic items, but not artifacts.

Essentially, arcane sight isn't See Invisibility.

The arcane sight spell specifies how it differs from detect magic:

Quote:
he effect is similar to that of a detect magic spell, but arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly.

It functions the same way as detect magic, and is blocked by the same barriers. If not, it would have added the additional differences to the ones it explicitly called out.

Of course it doesn't act as see invisibility, you can only pinpoint the square of the emanating aura. The invisible creature still has total concealment vs. your attacks.

This is a 3rd level spell, let's let it act like one.


I find the _Ozy_/Diego discussion hilarious. Like eye-rolling hilarious. Everything I've read on these boards about effects referencing other effects using terminologies such as "similar to...", "as if using...", and like lingo, it is the overall consensus that the effect in question possesses all the advantages and limitation of the effect reference, with exceptions being anything explicitly expressed in the effect in question.

For example: The Shift supernatural ability from the teleportation sub-school of conjuration states the user teleports "as if using dimension door", with the explicit differences being the action required to activate, the range of the teleport, and that no passengers are allowed. Based on the dimension door reference, however, the community consensus is that shift has the same disorienting affect on the user, causing them to lose any actions remaining in the round after shift has been used.

So, here we have Arcane Sight. This is a spell which states its effects function "similar to Detect Magic", immediately calling out the exceptions (which are improvements). But that doesn't seem to be good enough here.

For the record, just because you can't or don't see something, that doesn't mean it's not within sight. You just don't see it. To be within sight, something has to not be behind TOTAL COVER. Like behind a wall! Invisibility is not cover, it's concealment. But more than that, it's a magical effect which is causing concealment. Magical effects have magical auras. I don't believe there is anything in the description of the invisibility spells which state that their magical aura is undetectable. If the target were to also have appropriate cover, then we would reference Detect Magic to determine if the cover were adequate enough to block Arcane Sight, which functions like detect magic, only better.

"This is a 3rd level spell, let's let it act like one."

Hmmm... True Seeing is a 5th to 7th level spell. Let's neuter it. :P


I agree arcane sight also bypasses the same barriers detect magic does.

As a point of comparison detect magic says:

Quote:
If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each.

Yet is still works on things that are outside of your direct line of vision.

Since Arcane Sight is basically detect magic 2.0 it also is not stopped by anything that detect magic can bypass.

If "sight" were a real restriction then neither bypass solid barriers.

However it should be noted that you can only detect the existence of magic(with either spell) behind the barriers, not pinpoint their location like you can if there is nothing blocking your vision of the target.

Basically direct line of sight gives you the 3rd round of detect magic, for both spells.<---same thing I said above, but in a different format to make sure it is understood.


There is one other thing I think people need to take into special consideration: This stuff is MAGIC, people. It isn't inherently restricted by natural law, as we know it. A spell that grants a special form of "sight" might not be hindered by traditional visual sight, as we know it. What happens if a blind wizard casts Detect Magic/Arcane Sight/True Seeing (or any other spell of this nature)? If you limit yourself to traditional thinking, these spells automatically fail for the blind wizard. I disagree with this interpretation. While the wizard would still be blind in the traditional sense (unable to detect the traditional, mundane world with their eyes), I believe they would gain a mystical sense (targeting? Perhaps) which would allow them "see" anything with a magical aura. They'll probably still run into the wall when they makes a run for the door, but it would be a clever way for the blind wizard to use magic to detect any enemies benefiting from magical gear or effects. In a dungeon where the area is permeating with magic, the blind wizard may even be able to maneuver as if possessing traditional sight while one of the more advanced spells was in effect. Detect Undead would work similarly, specifically in regards to undead, as far as being able to identify the locations of such creatures for the purpose of targeting the foul abominations.

Of course, that's just my interpretation. I like to think outside the box, and you pretty much have to suspend disbelief when you assume magic is a real thing for these characters.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Thinking outside quickly leads to not having a box when you need it. It's all great to say 'rule this way because it makes sense' but then you lose consistency unless you can keep track of those rulings. And there are plenty of rules to track in Pathfinder already.


I understand this. I understand the need for rules. I just feel they can sometimes be too constricting, and oftentimes are very limiting to creative play. One could argue that, as none of these spells say they don't function when the character is blinded, they should still function for the blinded character, allowing them to only detect what the spells explicitly offer. Supporting that argument, Detect Magic/Greater and Detect Undead make absolutely no reference to "sight" or "seeing" (other than referencing line of sight) in any part of the description of how they function. Arcane Sight/Greater does make reference to sight/seeing, so I could kind of understand disallowing this, though the description says it "allows you to see magical auras", an ability which the character would not otherwise possess, blind or not. Additionally, however, it goes on to state "you KNOW the location and power of all magical auras within your sight", which doesn't necessarily mean you have to be able to "see", they just have to be within sight (likely meaning "line of sight" and within the range of the spell). The fact it says you "know" these things is not the same as saying "you are able to SEE" these things. It's a fine line. True Seeing is the only one which I feel would be a non-starter. Everything in that spell is actually reliant upon being able to see with your mundane eyes.

I'm just saying, by thinking outside of the box a little, it's easy to find ways to utilize magic that might bend the rules, but are completely valid interpretations.


The point of this section is to work within the rules. If your argument is saying let it work because "it's a cool idea" that is outside the scope of the rules, but you may get more support.

One can argue many things as they read the rules loosely enough, but that isn't the same as a valid or intended reading.

Just to be clear if you are the GM nobody is saying "don't allow this". We are saying that is not the intent, and don't expect for someone who knows the rules to allow it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

For someone who doesn't appear to like rules-lawyers, I'm a) wondering why bring it to the rules forum and b) seeing a lot of "if I sidle up to the rules sideways and squint at it just-so" type lawyering going on...


Given this line of text from arcane sight

Arcane Sight wrote:


If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each.

And detect magic

Detect Magic wrote:


3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each.

Tells me these spells do not need line of sight, except for the part to make a spellcraft check to determine the school of magic.

(Detect undead has similar language)

Further, also from detect magic

Detect Magic wrote:


The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.

Obviously you cannot see something on the other side of 11 inches of stone, yet you can still detect an aura on the other side of that stone.

So these spells (mostly) do not require line of sight.

To the original question though

True Seeing wrote:


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 is fully limited by your ability to actually see something. You cannot see through the illusion on the other side of even a 1 inch thick stone wall, or even know the illusion is there.

It also does not reveal possession, domination, or other charm like spells in effect as none of these are illusion covering effects, nor are they an alteration to a creatures true form. They affect a creatures true personality, after a fashion, but the spell does not reveal metaphysical concepts, only physical ones.

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / True Seeing: Interacting with Spells, Curses, and Supernatural Effects which alter the nature of a target All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.