| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the spells in 2e allow you to attempt a counteract check but have durations greater than a single round. Some examples include: True Seeing, Nondetection, and Aqueous Orb. The CRB is broadly silent about how these spells are meant to function after their initial counteract check.
Interestingly some spells do specify what happens after a failed initial check (Aqueous Orb for instance). There it'll say that after a failed check the spell/effect cannot try to counteract again. But that makes it an interesting problem. Many times in the CRB for 2e it's significant when there is a specifically called out example of something not being possible in one instance, but in others it is silent and often presumed to be permissive.
Here we are left to wonder. Is there a general rule that the limitations of Aqueous Orb and the like are circumscribing such that True Seeing attempts to counteract an illusion/transmutation every round so long as you are within 60 feet of the effect and the spell's duration has yet to expire. Or is the specific callout of Aqeous Orb restating what was already true and you attempt the counteract only once per effect? How would this interact with Constant True Seeing and the like. Maybe I'm missing something in the rules, but this looks like it needs an FAQ.
I don't think that's made clear anywhere in the rules.
Forwhat it's worth, I'd allow such an ongoing spell one counteract check against each effect it can target.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The specific case of Aqueous Orb comes from the fact that the counteract check is generated by a repeatable event: moving the orb. If the line forbidding multiple counteract checks was missing, they would be allowed.
In the case of Nondetection and True Seeing, there's no such line because there's no repeatable event. They attempt one counteract check per effect and that's all.
The specific case of Aqueous Orb comes from the fact that the counteract check is generated by a repeatable event: moving the orb. If the line forbidding multiple counteract checks was missing, they would be allowed.
In the case of Nondetection and True Seeing, there's no such line because there's no repeatable event. They attempt one counteract check per effect and that's all.
Ah, but what if for True Seeing the person moves outside of 60 feet and then returns? That is a repeatable trigger.
And Scrying is a sustained spell as well, does that mean when it's sustained Nondetection or Mindblank try to counteract it again?
Font of Serenity is a spell without sustain that specifies that emotion effects are immune to counteracting by it for a day (even though this is much longer than the duration of the spell).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, but what if for True Seeing the person moves outside of 60 feet and then returns? That is a repeatable trigger.
The trigger is to be in the area, not to enter it.
Also, True Seeing counteract check determines if you see through the illusion or not. Once it's determined, there's no need to determine it again. Otherwise, the illusion would be "blinking" every round, that would be very weird.Interpretation Two: You get a check every round against any effect in the area, even if you've already failed to counteract it.
There's absolutely nothing in the rules supporting this interpretation. If an effect happens every round, the rules state that it happens every round.
Assumption Two: there's supposed to be pros and cons to using true seeing rather than a heightened dispel magic.
Dispel Magic is mostly useless against illusions. To cast Dispel Magic on a spell, you need to know there's an effect, know where it is and be able to describe it. At that stage, the illusion is off.
Also, True Seeing works against any illusions and transmutations with or without durations, Dispel Magic only works against spells and items with a duration.
Detect Magic has a role against illusions
There's absolutely nothing in dispel magic saying you need to be able to describe the effect you're trying to dispel
It's a targetted effect, so if you can't give the position of the effect, then you automatically fail.
And it targets a "spell effect". So, unless your GM is ok with "spell effect" being "I don't know", you'll have to describe what you are dispelling.If you can position an illusion and describe it, chances are high that the illusion is off.
True Seeing allows you to see through anything, especially what you don't know or can't describe precisely, which is kind of the point of illusions.
and the part of true seeing that says it happens every round is that being the only possible way to combine "counteract check against any illusion or transmutation in the area" and "Duration 10 minutes"
I agree that it's not crystal clear and that they could have worded it better. But there's nothing supporting the once per round ruling.
One question regarding the repeated checks: What's so special about a round? Why not a check every other round? One per minute? One per hour?
My point isn't that these other options should be chosen, but rather that rounds are completely arbitrary, and assuming that something lasts a specified duration or happens again every certain duration is reading something into the text that simply isn't there. Unless, of course, someone can point me to a spot where rounds are referenced for counteract checks. Like... anywhere. I'm open to being proven wrong, but as far as I can tell no such reference exists, including in the relevant spells like true seeing which just says that "The GM rolls a secret counteract check against any illusion or transmutation in the area." Not one per round.
Anyway, as far as I can tell from what I've seen so far on this thread and some looking of my own it's just as valid to say that it should be every round as it is to say it should be every minute. But, no one claims that it should be once every minute. Why? Because there's no basis for that in the rules. The same standard should be applied regardless of how right the duration feels.
Technically one could argue that leaving an area and then reentering it would mean that the illusion spell is "in the area" multiple times, and thus requires multiple counteract checks, but good luck getting that one past a GM, as I see no reason why moving away from something makes you better at spotting it later.
Technically one could argue that leaving an area and then reentering it would mean that the illusion spell is "in the area" multiple times, and thus requires multiple counteract checks, but good luck getting that one past a GM, as I see no reason why moving away from something makes you better at spotting it later.
Which interestingly is exactly the way I would run it as a GM. While the spell decription does not state that it will try to counteract every round it does also not state that it will only try to counteract any given effect exactly once.
The thing that is changing when you move away (or the item / person in question moves away) is perspective. For example you can look at a hidden object puzzle game for many minutes, not finding what you are looking for, however after a short break (restroom or else) you often find the object immediately after returning. This simply is how human visual pattern recognition works. Every time you lose the pattern and have to aquire it again there is a new chance to notice differences. And while real life examples are most of the time not especially suited for comparisons to a fantasy game involving spells, this is how I make the connection.
Absent any language limiting the spell to a single check we must assume that there is a meaningful distinction to be made here since there are instances where spells with a duration that could counteract each round are proscribed from doing so. Maybe you think it's an oversight, but the history of the spell strongly suggests that it's a constant battle for magics to beat true seeing. It used to just negate things, now at least a party has a chance to cast a high level invisibility sphere and sneak past the true seeing (constant) devil.
Speaking of how would all you single check people deal with a constant innate spell True Seeing devil? Still a single check? Make them have their exploration mode activity be to constantly cast it to get another check?
Speaking of how would all you single check people deal with a constant innate spell True Seeing devil? Still a single check? Make them have their exploration mode activity be to constantly cast it to get another check?
They can't use it as an Exploration Activity as they would be fatigued after 10 minutes.
But otherwise, yes: A creature with a constant or at will True Seeing should be able to see through pretty much anything if given the proper time. That seems logical to me.
Here we are left to wonder. Is there a general rule that the limitations of Aqueous Orb and the like are circumscribing such that True Seeing attempts to counteract an illusion/transmutation every round so long as you are within 60 feet of the effect and the spell's duration has yet to expire. Or is the specific callout of Aqeous Orb restating what was already true and you attempt the counteract only once per effect? How would this interact with Constant True Seeing and the like. Maybe I'm missing something in the rules, but this looks like it needs an FAQ.
A third possibility exists: Aqueous Orb was published in the APG, much later than True Seeing. It may not have even occurred to the designers that they needed to specify this until after the CRB was published, so they are putting in the language in future spells.
Aqueous Orb also has a distinct function in needing to be actively applied and moved onto the magical effect it tries to counteract, which feels pretty different than these other spells.
Maybe you think it's an oversight, but the history of the spell strongly suggests that it's a constant battle for magics to beat true seeing. It used to just negate things, now at least a party has a chance to cast a high level invisibility sphere and sneak past the true seeing (constant) devil.
On the other hand Illusions got an overall buff, and spell level is now much more important. Allowing the spell to fish for natural 20s over repeated attempts isn't really how any other counteract check works.
Also, Aw3some is correct that this once a round is an arbitrary length of time. Personally, I think Ubertron has the right idea with shifting your perspective. If anything makes sense, it would be giving the True Seeing another counteract check if the players uses a Seek action on the illusion.
Speaking of how would all you single check people deal with a constant innate spell True Seeing devil? Still a single check? Make them have their exploration mode activity be to constantly cast it to get another check?They can't use it as an Exploration Activity as they would be fatigued after 10 minutes.
But otherwise, yes: A creature with a constant or at will True Seeing should be able to see through pretty much anything if given the proper time. That seems logical to me.
Sure they can. They're not sustaining the spell for more than 10 minutes, the spell isn't even Sustainable. They're casting it repeatedly, and there is nothing in the rules which says you cannot cast a spell repeatedly without becoming fatigued. It suggests you might be fatigued, but there's nothing actually saying you gain fatigued after casting spells for 10 minutes straight.
Also, Aw3some is correct that this once a round is an arbitrary length of time. Personally, I think Ubertron has the right idea with shifting your perspective. If anything makes sense, it would be giving the True Seeing another counteract check if the players uses a Seek action on the illusion.
I fail to see a trigger for "enters within 60 feet" on the counteract check. It is much simpler decision. Is it within 60 feet? Attempt a counteract check. Game time flow is tied to the round whether you think it makes sense or not, and is the easiest way for a GM to adjudicate how often to make a check for a spell, other than the ever popular, single check.
Also, Aw3some is correct that this once a round is an arbitrary length of time. Personally, I think Ubertron has the right idea with shifting your perspective. If anything makes sense, it would be giving the True Seeing another counteract check if the players uses a Seek action on the illusion.I fail to see a trigger for "enters within 60 feet" on the counteract check. It is much simpler decision. Is it within 60 feet? Attempt a counteract check. Game time flow is tied to the round whether you think it makes sense or not, and is the easiest way for a GM to adjudicate how often to make a check for a spell, other than the ever popular, single check.
Well, Single Check is how I think it works, so. And if you want it to allow multiple checks, it makes more sense to make it allow rerolls when someone spends actions to actively focus on something rather than an arbitrary unit of time.