Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rinagar 01-23-06, 12:50 AM	.. for a polymorphed or shapechanged creature to avoid being revealed?
Infernis 01-23-06, 04:49 AM	Well, Dust of Disappearence keeps you invisible through a true seeing. Disguise Skill maybe?
smrtgmp 01-23-06, 04:49 AM	Nondetection. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nondetection.htm)
Maxxx 01-23-06, 04:59 AM	Why does nondetection help, it is only effective against clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells, nothing in the description states that it helps against other divination spells.
[GSV] Kirstar 01-23-06, 05:01 AM	except that true seeing effects you sight and non detection effects divnation attempts against you. about 50% of us say that non detection works against see invisible and true seeing etc. the rest of us say it doesnt. Personally I say there needs to be a point at which detection wins against deception if only for game consistancy. If you can bypass a 5th level spell whoes only purpose is to show true whatever you see, with a 2nd level spell..... No king etc would be safe. You could never know who you were speaking too.
Seeker of Undeath 01-23-06, 09:12 AM	Kirstar']except that true seeing effects you sight and non detection effects divnation attempts against you.It only affects the caster's sight.about 50% of us say that non detection works against see invisible and true seeing etc.Do you have a reason?the rest of us say it doesnt.So you're in both groups? That's odd.Personally I say there needs to be a point at which detection wins against deception if only for game consistancy.I've got a better one for ya. True Seeing is such a pain to foil because it doesn't affect anyone but the caster. That's why there's no saves, and less than a handfull of spells even give it a tough time.If you can bypass a 5th level spell whoes only purpose is to show true whatever you see, with a 2nd level spell.....It's 6th-level by the way.No king etc would be safe. You could never know who you were speaking to.Eh, that's just a lack of creativity.
smrtgmp 01-23-06, 11:28 AM	Why does nondetection help, it is only effective against clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells, nothing in the description states that it helps against other divination spells.Nothing? How about the line "The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells..." Last I checked trueseeing was a divination. Nondetection lists examples; the list is by no means all inclusive. And if it works against detect spells, which have a similar mechanic to trueseeing (personal eminations), I see no reason why it wouldnt protect against trueseeing.
smrtgmp 01-23-06, 11:34 AM	Kirstar']except that true seeing effects you sight and non detection effects divnation attempts against you.Including detect spells, which share mechanics with trueseeing. Personally I say there needs to be a point at which detection wins against deception if only for game consistancy.Personally, I think making trueseeing impossible to counter makes it so overpowered its retarded. If you can bypass a 5th level spell whoes only purpose is to show true whatever you see, with a 2nd level spell..... If you can bypass a vast majority of an entire school with a single 5th level spell... Besides, protections are generally lower in level than the spells they ward against. Take deathward for instance. And BTW, nondetection is 3rd level, not 2nd. No king etc would be safe. You could never know who you were speaking too.This is a hyperbole. Nondetection is by no means a failsafe protection. All it does if force a caster level check, meaning the more powerful spellcaster will most likely prevail. I dont really have a problem with that.
stamhaven 01-23-06, 11:49 AM	I fall in to the group that consider non detection ineffective against true seeing (which is both a 5th, 6th and 7th level spell depending on how you cast it). I prefer implimenting a spell level threshold on the true seeing spell itself for what it pierces... thus making heighten spell more viable both for true seeing and for concealment spells.
primemover003 01-23-06, 03:24 PM	A good disguise check will beat true seeing just as an insanely high Hide check works wonders. Spells don't automatically beat skills.
Esponer 01-23-06, 05:15 PM	A good disguise check will beat true seeing just as an insanely high Hide check works wonders. Spells don't automatically beat skills. Indeed. For a very good chance of seeing through everything, play a psion (seer) with Psionic True Seeing, Touchsight and Metafaculty. I can't see any reason why nondetection doesn't beat true seeing. The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells ... If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item, the caster of the divination must succeed on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against a DC of 11 + the caster level of the spellcaster who cast nondetection. True Seeing Divination Level: Clr 5, Drd 7, Knowledge 5, Sor/Wiz 6
Irving 01-23-06, 05:56 PM	The short and easy answer: Do a good enough job pretneding to be whatever you're ploymorphed into that they never bother to cast true seeing on you. For the rules oriented, that means a good hide check... for the rest of us, it means good role playing. Kinda like the same way you defeat a zone of truth spell... when they ask a question you don't want to answer, change the subject. Q: Where are your friends hiding? A: You ought to be more worried about the traitor in your midst. Q: A traitor? Who would that be? A: Oh, come now. Surely you can guess?.... Q: Is it Redgar? A: Please, I beg you! Don't make me answer that question! See? No lies. Redgar's not a traitor; there is no traitor. Magical divination is often defeatable with some good old-fashioned sneakiness.
[GSV] Kirstar 01-24-06, 04:01 AM	A primary reason behind me allowing true seeing as the top of the tree is years ago we had a campaign with lots of polymorphing characters. Drove me slightly potty. I should stay out of these threads, they always degenerate into an argument. But as I said above, some of us say it does work, others say it doesnt. I prefer illusions and shapchanging to be easier to detect. Unlike the old 2nd ed Wizards handbook that described an illusion of a castle appearing on top of a hill then giant diamonds rolling down the hill and turning into butterflys to be a +4 save bonus only.... Now I know that underpowers illusions some, but the only other way i can see to do it is too remove the spell, or allows opposed level checks... I like that actually. Opposed level checks to see true..... /emote starts scribling probability chances.
amrothe 01-24-06, 04:59 AM	Simple answer Mind Blank. It foils everything. If you are using magic at all to find out any information about a creature even his location or what his real form is Mind Blank simply won't allow you to see him or his true form. It doesn't matter if the divination you use targets him or not. If you look at the area he is in and he is invis you simply won't see him. if you look at him you will only see his assumed form if he is polymorphed. Mind blank is god, literarly. It beats true seeing, miricle, wish and even Discern Location. Note discern location is only blocked by Mind Blank or the DIRECT intervention of a Diety. Now a better question is how do you get past Mind Blank Non detection by the way won't stop true seeing at all. It ONLY stops divination attempts which are against the protected creature. Although this could be written more clearly, the intent is that it only protects against divinations spells or effects which target the protected creature or object. Mind Blank does not have this limitation.
Seeker of Undeath 01-24-06, 05:49 AM	I can't see any reason why nondetection doesn't beat true seeing.Other than the fact that the two spells never interact. If person A casts Nondetection, it won't help when person B casts True Seeing. The reason is that True Seeing affects person B only. Nondetection won't trip unless a divination is cast on person A.
Alienfreak 01-24-06, 08:04 AM	Locate Object also affects the Caster and not the Item. Since it says "difficult to detect by divination spells such as" and such as always only names some examples it will work against True Seeing since it is a divination spell and tries to detect you. True Seeing doesnt state otherwise so its that way.
Feor 01-24-06, 10:11 AM	Best counter to Trueseeing: Craft Contingent Spell - blindness/deafness He can't see your true form, because he just can't see you, set it to go off against anything with Trueseeing within range. For the less magically inclined, a sharp stick in the eye can achieve the same approximate effect. :)
Esponer 01-24-06, 10:19 AM	Other than the fact that the two spells never interact. If person A casts Nondetection, it won't help when person B casts True Seeing. The reason is that True Seeing affects person B only. Nondetection won't trip unless a divination is cast on person A. All three of the example spells function in the same (or similar) manner as True Seeing and are prevented by Nondetection. Nondetection prevents the functioning of divinations against you, end of story. You don't need to be specifically targetted by a divination, or else none of the three example spells Nondetection protects against would be protected against. If a divination grants an area of revealed knowledge (True Seeing an emanation-of-sorts, detect spells a cone, clairvoyance a long-range eye), nondetection still protects against it. Best counter to Trueseeing: Craft Contingent Spell - blindness/deafness He can't see your true form, because he just can't see you, set it to go off against anything with Trueseeing within range. As far as I can see (no pun intended), that depends on your interpretation. Despite the analogy to "seeing", there's no indication that True Seeing requires you are actually be able to see normally first. It's entirely possible that the "divination sight" it overlaps onto your normal vision is actually merely a function of the spell, and so if you can't normally see, you just see the "divination sight" it grants. ...It's likely that there's some sort of explanation as to why you need to be able to see for True Seeing hidden away somewhere in the PHB, but I haven't found it yet. If you know better, please enlighten me.
smrtgmp 01-24-06, 12:23 PM	Best counter to Trueseeing: Craft Contingent Spell - blindness/deafness He can't see your true form, because he just can't see you, set it to go off against anything with Trueseeing within range. For the less magically inclined, a sharp stick in the eye can achieve the same approximate effect. :)Heh. Not bad. Another trick is to put a nasty symbol on your person, so that anyone who pierces the illusion sees it.
stamhaven 01-24-06, 01:56 PM	As one of the minority (at least on this thread) that rule that non detection doesn't trump true seeing I thought I'd share my reasoning (which doesn't match the other arguments made by posters that rule this way). The way I see it non detectoin foils divinations that affect you or your posessions directly. While true seeing (and even see invisible) don't do anything to the affected creature, only the spells or effects cast on them. Just as spell resistance doesn't affect a dispel magic since it's targeting the spell effects, so too do true seeing and see invisible target the illusiory invisibility spell or effect and not the creature underneath. I do allow non detection to foil true seeing's detection of true shapes as that is clearly working on their person the way I see it. Similarly i don't allow nondetection to protect blurr effects or mirror image figments. I simply see invisibility as a spell effect not part of the creature and thus protected by nondetection. Of course this sort of reasoning relies on a certain point of view with how invisiblilty works (I view it as an effect surrounding your visibily body by passing the light around it rather than your body becoming perfectly transparent, this goes part in parcel with the invisible creature being able to see themselves). If I'd ruled that invisible creatures couldn't see themselves or their stuff then I'd probably let non detection foil both true seeing and see invisible. I think the Rules of the Game article interprettion of invisiblity is where I got that view of how invisibility works.
tarkin 01-24-06, 02:06 PM	Kirstar'] about 50% of us say that non detection works against see invisible and true seeing etc. the rest of us say it doesnt. You did a survey? Can I see it? No? Instead you just made a, based on what you saw in the boards? The boards that the stricter DM's never check cause they always just say NO, while the munchkin Players are always searching for proof to show to their DM's to convince them. The boards where the people that dislike the answers given shout and complain, post many times, while the people that read them and are satisified keep quiet? ------------ Your statement is made up, with no real support. What can honestly be said is: 1) WoTC employees have said True Seeing is foiled by Non-detection. If you play on a WoTC sponsored Game, such as Gen-Con or Living City, they will play that way. 2) Some people disagree and ignore that. 3) People can always see through non-detection - it's best selling point is that it does not always work and higher level wins. If you take it away, then effectively illusions become worthless after a certain level. True Seeing becomes over-powered, and nullifies an entire school of magic, making it useless, without using additional non-core spells. Those non-core spells become essential. Net-Net, Expect to play this way: Strict Game: Non-detection may stop True Seeing, assuming the roll is made.. Loose Game: Either non-detection stop true-seeing, or they have a lot of game specific made up spells that will stop true-seeing. Power Game/Anything Goes: Nothing stops true-seeing, core illusions are worthless, special non-core illusions spells will be created that ignore true-seeing (Often based on polymorphing things but letting them retain their abiliities).
Esponer 01-24-06, 02:48 PM	Tarkin's post (the strict/powergame axis), coupled with a discussion I had today with a D&D-playing veteran I know (who says that in times of doubt, defence trumps offence), have led me to feel the need to point something out, not necessarily linked to the discussion itself. Nondetection is not necessarily the defensive here. In fact, nondetection is best used as an offensive, coupled with superior invisibility (Complete Arcane). Two different interpretations depending on the situation: • True Seeing is the defensive, protecting you from otherwise very, very dangerous invisibility tricks. • Nondetection is the defensive, protecting you from being seen and thus being attackable. Likewise, either interpretation can lead to a problem: • If Nondetection can prevent True Seeing, then Nondetection ruins almost an entire school of magic (divination), as a 3rd-level spell, with a save. • If True Seeing cannot be prevented by Nondetection, then it ruins an entire school of magic (illusion), as a 5th-level spell, with no save. ...Either way, it's going to be quite nasty for at least one school of magic. As I said before, I can't see any reason why nondetection doesn't foil true seeing. However, I think that if I was going to play in a high-house ruling, spirit of the games campaign which I DMed, I would probably have nondetection fail to prevent true seeing because I feel that the latter really has more call to be the defence here, and when there's any sort of doubt whatsoever (evident by people disagreeing) I think I'd rather side with the defensive. If I was really confident with house ruling, though, I'd change both spells, perhaps have higher level equivalents, and/or perhaps have true seeing require a check and not an absolute. To clarify, it doesn't matter that true seeing isn't targetted the creature affected by nondetection. Look up the spells nondetection says it does effect. Those mostly aren't actively targetted on the creature either. Incidentally, can I steer this topic in another direction: do mind blank, and the Illithid Slayer's (Expanded Psionics Handbook) Cerebral Blind ability both have the same ability of nondetection to overcome true seeing? In this case, it would be as an absolute, not an opposed CL check, if it worked.
stamhaven 01-24-06, 02:51 PM	True seeing nullifies plenty wether or not you let nondetection protect an invisibility spell cast on you or not. Depending on how you interpret the part of true seeing where it allows the "to see through illusions" plenty of options remain for illusionists, namely Illusion-shadow (in this case the disbeliefe would be automatic but the true seer would still have the physical component of the shadow spell to deal with) and Illusion-phantasm (in this case the illusion is all in the subject's mind and there's nothing visible to see through) subschools. My point is that non detection isn't a catchall foil for true sight. It's just a particular rules interaction that different people rule in different ways. Also DM's at WotC sponsored events have authority and leeway for interpretation during a session.
Lafing Cat 01-24-06, 02:56 PM	I'm going to chime in here with my opinion that Nondetection does *not* trump True Seeing. There are several reasons for this. 1) True Seeing is a defense, not an offense. There is no way to hurt someone directly with True Seeing, there are plenty of ways to hurt people directly with Illusions, Shadow Evocation being the most blatent example. And in DnD, Defenses trump Offenses. 2) People claim that True Seeing destroys an entire school of magic. Do these people also remove Mind Blank and Death Ward from their games? Mind Blank is *much* more punishing to Enchantment than True Seeing is to Illusion. (True Seeing only works within 120 ft, and doesn't stop all of Shadow spells) 3) Nondetection's mechanical effects are spelled out by "If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item , the caster of the divination must succeed on a caster level check" True Seeing does not have an area, nor does it create a magical sensor that then observes you. Claiming that True Seeing is "attempted against a warded creature or item" is as ridiculous as claiming that you must succeed on an SR roll to use the Bonus from Bulls Strength when making a melee attack. 4) Simply because WotC rules something doesn't make it balanced or a good idea. I can't argue that they would run it that way, but to use tarkin's qualifcations, I would say that only in an "Anything Goes Game" would the GM allow non-detection to work against True Seeing.
Esponer 01-24-06, 03:06 PM	1, 2 and 4 are all good points, but I don't think 3 is valid. The other spells nondetection specifically states it works against work in the same way, certainly the detect spells. True Seeing does have an area... 60ft sphere I believe. It's basically a divination field of sorts.
Seeker of Undeath 01-25-06, 11:38 AM	1, 2 and 4 are all good points, but I don't think 3 is valid. The other spells nondetection specifically states it works against work in the same way, certainly the detect spells. True Seeing does have an area... 60ft sphere I believe. It's basically a divination field of sorts.Clairaudience/Clairvoyance creates a magical sensor that actively searches an area or creature. Locate Object functions by specifically targeting the object to be found. The detect spells emanate from you in, IIRC, a cone and actively pick up information about the auras of those in the cone, people the caster must pause and concentrate upon. In all cases these spells actively affect a target other than the caster. True Seeing passively affects only the caster. The 60ft range is how far you can see with enhanced clarity. True Seeing isn't a field at all. The Darkvision spell also points out how far out your darkvision extends, but it's not considered an area of effect spell. Why is True Seeing to be any different?
Esponer 01-25-06, 12:55 PM	Clairaudience/Clairvoyance creates a magical sensor that actively searches an area or creature. Locate Object functions by specifically targeting the object to be found. The detect spells emanate from you in, IIRC, a cone and actively pick up information about the auras of those in the cone, people the caster must pause and concentrate upon. In all cases these spells actively affect a target other than the caster. True Seeing passively affects only the caster. The 60ft range is how far you can see with enhanced clarity. True Seeing isn't a field at all. The Darkvision spell also points out how far out your darkvision extends, but it's not considered an area of effect spell. Why is True Seeing to be any different? The means of disputing nondetection's effect on true seeing by stating that true seeing never targets the nondetected creature cannot possibly work because the Detect Spells are clearly protected against, but also never target the nondetected creature. If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item – the interpretation (actually a fair one based on these words alone) is that whenever a divination is attempted on you, in the sense of "[Spell Name] Divination Target: One living creature", nondetection can protect against it. However, Detect Evil/Good/Chaos/Law/Magic all clearly are protected by nondetection, but all five do not target. In this case, they are cone-shaped emanations. The actual shape is irrelevant, however, because they are not divinations which are targetting anybody, and so the possible interpretation of Nondetection must exclude them as well as True Seeing, or must exclude neither. Note that Clairaudience/Clairvoyance creates a magical sensor that observes an area. Your "or creature" does not appear in the description at all, but it can be used that way by looking at an area a creature is in. Because of this, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance no more targets a creature than True Seeing or the Detect spells. So if nondetection requires a spell actually state that it targets you, it must block Clairaudience too, which it doesn't. It should be entirely evident from the descriptions of the three that they all essentially do the same sort of things. They create areas in which repeated divination allows for the revelation of otherwise hidden truths. The Detect spells repeatedly divine everything within their emanation for what it is they detect – they are thus "targetting" creatures not in a "[Spell Name] Divination Target: One living creature" sense, but in a less rules-heavy sense which Nondetection seems to be referring to. Likewise, Clairaudience is creating a magical sensor which is repeatedly divining everything in it. It's not specifically in a rules-heavy sense targetting anyone, but it is "sort of" targetting everything in its area with constant divinations. Again, why does it work with Nondetection if it doesn't target the protected creature? Because they were referring to a less literal sense of targetting at the time, it's the only possible explanation in my opinion, as we know it works, and we know Clairaudience isn't actually targetting a creature. Then, we get on to True Seeing. It also isn't actively targetting anyone, but it's also doing a similar thing. Within its range (120ft, turns out), it's divining things that occur so that it can show the creature it applies to what's really going on. If the entire basis of your argument is that True Seeing says Range: Touch, whereas the others say Range: emanation or Range: Long, then in my opinion you're being rather ridiculous about the matter. It's pretty self evident that all three are the same sort of concept, and if you're so interested in the official-seeming section at the beginning of each spells, then hopefully you'll be similarly interested in Tarkin's reply that there is official clarification. But really, how can we interpret True Seeing as working if it's not creating a sort of field of divination? I know I'm going out on a limb here to use a bit of common sense, but what else is it doing? It's not some wacky transmutation which turns your eyes into wonderful perfect eyes which see things so well that they see through illusions, just because. 'tis a divination, and it's targetting (or not targetting) creatures as much as the Detect spells or Clairaudience. Incidentally, I'm not trying to say it should be considered an area of effect spell, per se. My use of the phrase "field of divination" is less than perfect rules-mongering, I'm using it to a more general sense to explain why it's not a passive spell (and since we lack "Passive" and "Active" tags on spells, it's down to interpretation in some cases). However, note that darkvision is a transmutation. You actually are transmuting your eyes into something capable of seeing in the dark, that's what the spell does. True Seeing is no transmutation, it's not transforming your eyes into something capable of seeing illusions. The capability of seeing illusions is coming from divination. I certainly wouldn't refer to darkvision as a "field of divination", because there's no divining going on and the limited range is expressly more of a physical thing, limitation of the transmutation on your eyes. My bad on Locate Object. That is targetted. (But note it doesn't bother saying "Locate Object / Divination / Target: One object". We can't go off the categories at the beginning alone or we'd come to some really strange conclusions about things.) Hope that clarified things.