Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Choos 05-15-07, 02:26 AM	Hi all, I was wondering if anyone knows of a spell or ability that could beat true seeing to help hide a creature that is polymorphed? Ideally I am looking for a spell that I can place permanantly in an item.
Witch 05-15-07, 02:26 AM	Non-detection.
Lafing Cat 05-15-07, 02:42 AM	There are two camps as to whether non-dectection does anything to stop True Seeing. I'm of the opinion it does not. However, one thing that both sides agree on is that True Seeing does nothing to stop a Disguise check. So a magical item that foils True Seeing is a +30 Competence Bonus to Disguise :D
runestar 05-15-07, 03:22 AM	One of the shadow adept feats in PGTF could be interpreted as being able of blocking out true sight on a successful caster lv check. I am not sure what to make of it though.:P
CantripN 05-15-07, 03:36 AM	Yeah, that one should work. It works a lot like Nondetection, and it even says it works on stuff like See Invisibility.
1CentSage 05-15-07, 05:18 AM	The feat Insidious Magic from FR (gained fo free by the shadow adept class) will work for spells other then evocation and transmutation if the caster of true seeing does not posses the Shadow Weave Magic feat and fails a caster level check against 11+cl. Similarily there is a racial substitution level for the gnome illusionist in Races of Stone which does the same thing for illusion spells and it specifically mentions true seeing as an example. For the feat, you can apply it to a spell when creating an item since it is a metamagic feat. For the gnome abilitiy it is not clear if it would be applicable to items, but I guess both of those abilities would apply to items created by casters with those abilities. As for spells, the interaction of nondetection with true seeing has been the subject of discussion for a long time, so it will probably depend on the DM running the campaign. I am not aware of other spells that would work. If hiding the polymorphed creature completely would also be an option, you could use dust of disappearance from the DMG as a costly way to get a greater invisibilitiy effect that defeats true seeing.
Syltorian 05-15-07, 05:49 AM	Dragon Magazine #337 has the Cloak of Khyber spell on page 59, which does precisely that, though you need to have been appearance-altered for at least six hours for the benefit to kick in. Meaning it's good for deep cover, but not if you change your appearance only as and when you need it.
Lina_Inverse 05-15-07, 06:13 AM	I was wondering if anyone knows of a spell or ability that could beat true seeing to help hide a creature that is polymorphed? Why should there be, new levels bring new tactics. Adapt.
penchant 05-15-07, 06:21 AM	I'm in the "non-detection CAN work against true seeing" camp. Normally a defense against a spell is one or two levels lower than the spell it is defending against. However Nondetection is three levels lower than True Seeing. This is resolved by the fact that Nondetection merely requires a caster level check to defeat. If the diviner can beat the caster level of the caster of the Nondetection spell then his divinations work fine, including detect spells and True Seeing. If he cannot then none of them work. This makes for a balanced rule. It means Amulets of Nondetection are not all powerful, nor is the spell. The SRD states in part: The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells. It does not say only these spells, but divination spells such as. If a spell comes from the divination school it can be protected against by nondetection. It does not say divination (scrying), but divination.
equilibrium17 05-15-07, 01:34 PM	The 10th Level Gnome Illusionist substitution level from Races of Stones Provides a power called Insidious Illusions that does what you're looking for -- it requires that any attempt to pierce illusions cast by the Gnome Illusionist must beat a caster level check, or fail. It specifically says this power works against True Seeing. With this power, even just a permanent 1st level Disguise Self Illusion could beat True Seeing, especially if the Disguise Self effect was created by a high-level caster.
WolfHati 05-15-07, 01:59 PM	Would Greater Spell Immunity work?
Millennium 05-15-07, 02:47 PM	The big weakness of true seeing is that even though it defeats all magic, it only defeats magic. For example, if you put on a mundane disguise and then use disguise self to enhance it, true seeing will only pierce the actual illusions. This can be surprisingly effective. Unfortunately, what you need to protect is a polymorph effect. There's no direct way to defeat this, but true seeing has another interesting weakness: its duration is short. Therefore, people don't usually walk around with it constantly cast on them; they cast it when they think they're going to need it. Load up on suggestion and pull a Jedi Mind Trick on suspicious casters: "You don't need to cast true seeing here."
lukelightning 05-15-07, 02:49 PM	Use a BB Gun of Eyeball Poking. That defeats any kind of seeing.
1CentSage 05-15-07, 03:47 PM	Would Greater Spell Immunity work? No. The Spell Immunity spells give you unbeatable spell resistance against the chosen spells and is therefore ineffective against true seeing except if you want to avoid that someone gives you true seeing...
Choos 05-16-07, 02:12 AM	Wonderful stuff thank you all. Syltorian, the "Cloak of Khyber" spell indeed does exactly what I am after thank you. Lina_Inverse, I really wanted this ability not to super schmuck my gaming but to add some credibility to the background of my new character, so yeah I am adapting. Everyone else my DM is in the Non-detection doesn't work camp so I was really after something definitive. Pretty cool stuff in the Races of Stone and the Shadow Weave stuff could be cool except I am planning on playing an adamantine dragon so Shadow Weave stuff wouldn't fit the mould. As for "a BB Gun of Eyeball Poking" um not quite the sort of solution I had in mind but thank you.
ArcTan 05-16-07, 04:37 AM	There are two camps as to whether non-dectection does anything to stop True Seeing. I'm of the opinion it does not. However, one thing that both sides agree on is that True Seeing does nothing to stop a Disguise check. So a magical item that foils True Seeing is a +30 Competence Bonus to Disguise :D That only works if you're mundanely disguised, though, which is what you have to do to use the ordinary Disguise check. It doesn't actually protect the fact that you're polymorphed from being detected unless you somehow go to great pains to disguise your normal form as the polymorphed form. Also, most DMs don't just go around handing out items that give +30 competence bonuses to things, at all.
ArcTan 05-16-07, 04:39 AM	The feat Insidious Magic from FR (gained fo free by the shadow adept class) will work for spells other then evocation and transmutation if the caster of true seeing does not posses the Shadow Weave Magic feat and fails a caster level check against 11+cl. Similarily there is a racial substitution level for the gnome illusionist in Races of Stone which does the same thing for illusion spells and it specifically mentions true seeing as an example. For the feat, you can apply it to a spell when creating an item since it is a metamagic feat. For the gnome abilitiy it is not clear if it would be applicable to items, but I guess both of those abilities would apply to items created by casters with those abilities. As for spells, the interaction of nondetection with true seeing has been the subject of discussion for a long time, so it will probably depend on the DM running the campaign. I am not aware of other spells that would work. Mind blank, although it's controversial for the same reason nondetection is. It's a spell you want to have on yourself anyway, though.
groveborn 05-16-07, 06:12 AM	There are two camps as to whether non-dectection does anything to stop True Seeing. I'm of the opinion it does not. However, one thing that both sides agree on is that True Seeing does nothing to stop a Disguise check. So a magical item that foils True Seeing is a +30 Competence Bonus to Disguise :D Just to start a fun argument, yes it does. It stop divination magic, true seeing is divination. Poof. That being said...:) hide behind a tree.
Witch 05-16-07, 07:18 PM	Mind blank, although it's controversial for the same reason nondetection is. It's a spell you want to have on yourself anyway, though. I don't allow mind blank while I do allow non-detection to work, for two reasons: - it is an absolute. - it's theme suggests to me that it's not intended to do this.
Nezkrul 05-16-07, 07:39 PM	mundane ways to block true seeing: disguise checks hide checks total cover/line of sight blockage smokesticks large fires magic item: dust of disappearance
Lafing Cat 05-16-07, 08:26 PM	Just to start a fun argument, yes it does. It stop divination magic, true seeing is divination. Poof. That being said...:) hide behind a tree. It has a chance to stop divinations *attempted against the target creature* True Seeing targets the caster, thus it is not a divination attempted against the target creature. Hiding behind a tree will not save you from my retaliation!
Witch 05-16-07, 08:29 PM	It has a chance to stop divinations *attempted against the target creature* True Seeing targets the caster, thus it is not a divination attempted against the target creature. Are you saying that True Seeing is a divination attempted against the creature it's cast on? I say that True Seeing is attempted against whoever it sees, and is cast on the one who's under its effects.
Lafing Cat 05-16-07, 08:30 PM	That only works if you're mundanely disguised, though, which is what you have to do to use the ordinary Disguise check. It doesn't actually protect the fact that you're polymorphed from being detected unless you somehow go to great pains to disguise your normal form as the polymorphed form. Also, most DMs don't just go around handing out items that give +30 competence bonuses to things, at all. As per the Disguise skill, Disguising yourself as a member of a different race is only a -2 on your check. Hardly "great pains". Also, I assumed this was intended for an NPC, not a PC, in which case the GM can hand out whatever bonuses he wants. If it is as a PC, I don't know that I'd worry about it so much. If the GM wants/needs an NPC to see through it, e will. If not, e won't.
Lafing Cat 05-16-07, 08:42 PM	Are you saying that True Seeing is a divination attempted against the creature it's cast on? I say that True Seeing is attempted against whoever it sees, and is cast on the one who's under its effects. That would be my position, yes. True Seeing does not target the creature, nor does it include it in an area of effect. (The True Seeing spell does not have an area of effect, and while the sight granted does, thats not the spell, thats the effect of the spell, just like you can punch a golem with your Enhanced STR from Bull's Strength despite the golem being immune to magic.) Non-detection fails to stop True Seeing for the same reason the Spell Turning fails to turn Disintegrate or any other ray. Despite the ray "targetting" the creature, it doesn't *target* the creature, in the DnD sense. Likewise, despite True Seeing revealing information about the creature, it is not attempted against it. I'm aware one can rule either way, I just chose this one as being more in line with the rules as I understand them.
cato 05-16-07, 10:53 PM	Just to start a fun argument, yes it does. It stop divination magic, true seeing is divination. Poof. That being said...:) hide behind a tree. Ring of x-ray vision ftw! :p
Optimator 05-17-07, 02:11 AM	The only thing I can think of is the distance of the spell. Just be over 120 feet away and do what you gotta do.
groveborn 05-17-07, 05:35 AM	That would be my position, yes. True Seeing does not target the creature, nor does it include it in an area of effect. (The True Seeing spell does not have an area of effect, and while the sight granted does, thats not the spell, thats the effect of the spell, just like you can punch a golem with your Enhanced STR from Bull's Strength despite the golem being immune to magic.) Non-detection fails to stop True Seeing for the same reason the Spell Turning fails to turn Disintegrate or any other ray. Despite the ray "targetting" the creature, it doesn't *target* the creature, in the DnD sense. Likewise, despite True Seeing revealing information about the creature, it is not attempted against it. I'm aware one can rule either way, I just chose this one as being more in line with the rules as I understand them. You make a damned fine argument. kudos.
Eikre 05-17-07, 05:54 AM	Okay, okay, here's one: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/cloudMind.htm Reach into the bastard's mind and take yourself out. It's not an illusion, it's not a transmutation, but you're effectively invisible to anything you target. Combine with a ring of invisibility to conserve PP, and waltz into the Magocracy without fear of anything short of a will save. Will it help your character? Haha, no. But it's good to know it's there.
Banatine 05-17-07, 06:01 AM	As per the Disguise skill, Disguising yourself as a member of a different race is only a -2 on your check. Hardly "great pains". Also, I assumed this was intended for an NPC, not a PC, in which case the GM can hand out whatever bonuses he wants. If it is as a PC, I don't know that I'd worry about it so much. If the GM wants/needs an NPC to see through it, e will. If not, e won't. This just gives me a funny image of a huge gold dragon walking through the streets with a long coat and black glasses on, smoking a pipe, trying to blend in.
penchant 05-17-07, 11:48 AM	That would be my position, yes. True Seeing does not target the creature, nor does it include it in an area of effect. (The True Seeing spell does not have an area of effect, and while the sight granted does, thats not the spell, thats the effect of the spell, just like you can punch a golem with your Enhanced STR from Bull's Strength despite the golem being immune to magic.) Non-detection fails to stop True Seeing for the same reason the Spell Turning fails to turn Disintegrate or any other ray. Despite the ray "targetting" the creature, it doesn't *target* the creature, in the DnD sense. Likewise, despite True Seeing revealing information about the creature, it is not attempted against it. I'm aware one can rule either way, I just chose this one as being more in line with the rules as I understand them. If that is the case, then non detection also does not stop Detect Magic, Detect Evil, and any other personal emanation spells. Most spells that Nondetection is designed to stop are not targeting spells, except scry. As such this argument, while sounding nifty, really doesn't answer the issue. This is why the spell does not mention "target" because this is a mechanic specific term. IF they had meant target, then they would have stated it expressly. I can attempt to disintegrate someone with spell turning, but that doesn't turn it into a targeted spell.
Nom 05-18-07, 02:49 AM	It does not say only these spells, but divination spells such as. If a spell comes from the divination school it can be protected against by nondetection. It does not say divination (scrying), but divination.Actually, the precise wording of nondetection is important. It does not say "divination spells, such as ..." but "divination spells such as ...". That comma makes a world of difference. The first text refers to "divination spells", and "such as" is providing examples or clarifications. The second text does not apply to all divination spells, but only those that are like the given examples. Whether that includes true seeing isn't specified, but considering that neither see invisibility and true seeing is listed and that they function quite differently to the listed spells I'd rule 'no'.
penchant 05-18-07, 07:24 AM	Actually, the precise wording of nondetection is important. It does not say "divination spells, such as ..." but "divination spells such as ...". That comma makes a world of difference. The first text refers to "divination spells", and "such as" is providing examples or clarifications. The second text does not apply to all divination spells, but only those that are like the given examples. Whether that includes true seeing isn't specified, but considering that neither see invisibility and true seeing is listed and that they function quite differently to the listed spells I'd rule 'no'. Where do you get that comma from? Its not in my post. "Such as", while examples, are not intended as a comprehensive list. Considering this debate has been going on for decades now(literally), I would have thought they would have definitively answered it. However even the FAQ is silent. The boards are rife with it... on both sides of the aisle. Just do a search and see. I'm not going to convince you, and you aren't going to convince me (certainly not with an argument of comma postioning, especially since this text was not written for 3.5 but adapted from text that existed in 1.0). I argue thus: a spell that offers a mere chance to be exempted from the LARGE area effect of an otherwise absolute spell is not only not game breaking, but balances things out for those who depend on stealth. What BBEG doesn't have true seeing if you have characters with invisibility? That's what the caster level check is for.
Nom 05-18-07, 09:23 PM	Where do you get that comma from? Its not in my post.Oh, but it is...If a spell comes from the divination school it can be protected against by nondetectionThis assumes that nondetection applies to the entire school ("comma reading"), when grammatically it clearly does not.
cato 05-18-07, 10:54 PM	Assuming you have the "hide in plain sight" class ability can you just walk right up to someone in an empty room and sneak attack him ?
penchant 05-19-07, 12:37 AM	Oh, but it is...This assumes that nondetection applies to the entire school ("comma reading"), when grammatically it clearly does not. Well, thats nice. . If you are in dire need of esoteric reading of comma placement, then your argument is thin to nonexistent. Now address the rest of my post.
Lafing Cat 05-19-07, 06:11 AM	If that is the case, then non detection also does not stop Detect Magic, Detect Evil, and any other personal emanation spells. Most spells that Nondetection is designed to stop are not targeting spells, except scry. As such this argument, while sounding nifty, really doesn't answer the issue. This is why the spell does not mention "target" because this is a mechanic specific term. IF they had meant target, then they would have stated it expressly. I can attempt to disintegrate someone with spell turning, but that doesn't turn it into a targeted spell. Actually, no those spells are different precisely *because* they have an area of effect. Detect Magic and Detect Evil are "Range: 60 ft" and "Area: Cone shaped emanation." This is *hugely* different than True Seeing which is Range: Touch and has no area line. Detect Magic and Detect Evil clearly include targets in their AoE, and as such are attempted against those creatures. If True Seeing were Range: 120 feet and Area: Cone shaped Emanation, you might have an argument. As it is, you don't. (or at least not a very good one)
Nom 05-20-07, 12:56 AM	Now address the rest of my post.See post #31. nondetection does not block all divination spells, but only those like locate object, clairaudience/clairvoyane, and detect .... That's exactly what the text says. RAW, the listed examples define rather than illustrate. see invisibility and true strike are nothing like locate object, only somewhat like detect magic, and conspicuous by their absence. As for targeting, Lafing Cat makes an interesting (if technical) argument. See invisbility and true seeing affect the subject, enabling them too see (among other things) invisible creatures. The spell does not affect the target creature directly, in much the same way that the bonus from cat's grace would apply to a ranged attack against a creature in an AMF while the bonus from magic weapon would not. Two interesting corollaries to this argument: (1) nondetection would not block arcane sight (2) an AMF would not block true seeing Do we want to go there, or is the arguement flawed? Note that - RAW - using detect magic violates invisibility (counts as an "attack") while using arcane sight does not, precisely because of the "what does this affect" distinction.
Lafing Cat 05-20-07, 01:08 AM	Two interesting corollaries to this argument: (1) nondetection would not block arcane sight (2) an AMF would not block true seeing Do we want to go there, or is the arguement flawed? Note that - RAW - using detect magic violates invisibility (counts as an "attack") while using arcane sight does not, precisely because of the "what does this effect" distinction. I agree with your point (1) ... point (2) I'm not entirely sure about, but AMF is its own kettle of fish. I have a feeling this falls into the same sort of gray area as the Orb spells. I do agree on the Detect magic vs Arcane Sight interaction with invisibility, per RAW however. Slight nitpick, its "what does this affect" >_>
penchant 05-20-07, 05:08 AM	See post #31. nondetection does not block all divination spells, but only those like locate object, clairaudience/clairvoyane, and detect .... That's exactly what the text says. RAW, the listed examples define rather than illustrate. see invisibility and true strike are nothing like locate object, only somewhat like detect magic, and conspicuous by their absence. As for targeting, Lafing Cat makes an interesting (if technical) argument. See invisbility and true seeing affect the subject, enabling them too see (among other things) invisible creatures. The spell does not affect the target creature directly, in much the same way that the bonus from cat's grace would apply to a ranged attack against a creature in an AMF while the bonus from magic weapon would not. Two interesting corollaries to this argument: (1) nondetection would not block arcane sight (2) an AMF would not block true seeing Do we want to go there, or is the arguement flawed? Note that - RAW - using detect magic violates invisibility (counts as an "attack") while using arcane sight does not, precisely because of the "what does this effect" distinction. Now this is an argument I can appreciate. And I have to agree with it. However "the rest of my post" was this: I argue thus: a spell that offers a mere chance to be exempted from the LARGE area effect of an otherwise absolute spell is not only not game breaking, but balances things out for those who depend on stealth. What BBEG doesn't have true seeing if you have characters with invisibility? That's what the caster level check is for. Allowing it (while against RAW as you now eloquently proof) is more balancing than true seeing simply always works. Most spells can be countered or subverted in multiple ways, but not True Seeing. I believe that the caster check that nondetection allows is a decent and balanced defense.
groveborn 05-20-07, 07:48 AM	Time to step in with a right angle. This is going to be a weak side argument on a ruling that allows nondetection to block true seeing, but it may help. Dust of Disappearance, a wondrous item that everyone knows the use of, and everyone knows the strengths of can stop true seeing. Why? It simply does. But wait, it doesn't list true seeing, therefore by the incredible logic in this forum it must work! Nope. It says it can't be detected by magic means. Using the same logic in this argument, nondetection should also work to block true seeing. So using the square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't necessarily a square objection, True Seeing = Divination Nondetection = no divination No true seeing. Good solid logic, if badly presented. Whether or not TSR or Wizards ever intended it to work isn't a worthy argument. If they intended it to work, they'd have said, by the way, true seeing can see past nondetection. Just because mechanically it doesn't make sense, doesn't mean that it can't be a rule. Just consider nondetection to be invisibility for the divination subschool. Therefore, any allowance to cause true seeing to see past nondetection would be a house rule.
Dheran 05-20-07, 09:39 AM	Assuming you have the "hide in plain sight" class ability can you just walk right up to someone in an empty room and sneak attack him ? Sure, providing You have the Supernatural version of HiPS that works near shadows. There are shadows along the route so you're always within 10' of one. Your Hide check, with any penalty for movement faster than half your speed, beats their Spot check. They don't have special abilities like Blindsight, Blindsense, or Scent, or the Blind-Fight feat. You've got the sneak attack class ability. You successfully hit their AC. They're not immune to sneak attack. Your plan isn't foiled in some other way, such as a readied action to Teleport away or cast Glitterdust when they hear you coming.
Dheran 05-20-07, 09:55 AM	I was wondering if anyone knows of a spell or ability that could beat true seeing to help hide a creature that is polymorphed? Ideally I am looking for a spell that I can place permanantly in an item. I don't know about permanency, but spells that will enhance your mundane Hide check are a good bet. Moment of Prescience, Divine Insight, Guidance of the Avatar (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20010504a), and even Guidance will help with skill checks. For existing permanent effects, the Greater Shadow armor property provides a +15 competence bonus, the Ring of Chameleon Power provides a +10 bonus, the Robe of Blending is also +10 (all DMG) and the Hat of Anonymity (Arms and Equipment Guide) provides a +10 bonus. The Epic Level Handbook has the Mantle of Great Stealth which provides a +30 bonus. Finally, if you're going to be polymorphed, you might consider a form with a big racial bonus to Hide.
Toloran 05-20-07, 01:38 PM	I don't know about permanency, but spells that will enhance your mundane Hide check are a good bet. Moment of Prescience, Divine Insight, Guidance of the Avatar (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20010504a), and even Guidance will help with skill checks. For existing permanent effects, the Greater Shadow armor property provides a +15 competence bonus, the Ring of Chameleon Power provides a +10 bonus, the Robe of Blending is also +10 (all DMG) and the Hat of Anonymity (Arms and Equipment Guide) provides a +10 bonus. The Epic Level Handbook has the Mantle of Great Stealth which provides a +30 bonus. Finally, if you're going to be polymorphed, you might consider a form with a big racial bonus to Hide. Greater Shadow is a competence bonus. (so it doesn't stack) Ring of Chameleon Power is a competence bonus. (so it doesn't stack) Robe of Blending is a Competence bonus. (so it doesn't stack) Hat of Anonymity only provides a +5 (unnamed bonus, so it does stack). It was reprinted in MIC. Mantle of Great stealth is Epic level and thus moot :)
Nom 05-20-07, 07:03 PM	True Seeing = Divination Nondetection = no divinationDid you miss the immediately preceding discussions of why nondetection does not give a blanket "no divination"? No true seeing. Good solid logic, if badly presented.Bad logic, presented without reference to the immediately preceding refutation.
cato 05-20-07, 10:30 PM	Sure, providing You have the Supernatural version of HiPS that works near shadows. There are shadows along the route so you're always within 10' of one. Your Hide check, with any penalty for movement faster than half your speed, beats their Spot check. They don't have special abilities like Blindsight, Blindsense, or Scent, or the Blind-Fight feat. You've got the sneak attack class ability. You successfully hit their AC. They're not immune to sneak attack. Your plan isn't foiled in some other way, such as a readied action to Teleport away or cast Glitterdust when they hear you coming. Ye, ofc i assumed i have the supernatural version, and in a shadowy locale, i think its only -5 on check for normal movement, classes that could have a high spot without spells and still able to cast true sight are only druids i think (assuming you yourself have the best hide gear and are something like halfling) There is a feat that protects you from been seen by stuff like blindsight and you can always use something that masks scent (assassin spell or item) As for the next two prerequisites here is my question: Assuming i have a brilliant energy /ghost striking weapon, and since the only enchant that protects against sneak attacks is fortification, does bypassing the other persons armor count negate his armor fortification enchant? As for hearing me, i intend to have as high a move silently as my hide, and as for teleporting, some spell cast on an item or some magic items prevent that if I am not mistaken.
Lafing Cat 05-20-07, 10:51 PM	Assuming i have a brilliant energy /ghost striking weapon, and since the only enchant that protects against sneak attacks is fortification, does bypassing the other persons armor count negate his armor fortification enchant? No. Brilliant energy bypasses their armor bonus to AC, not the special effects of that armor, as the ability mentions nothing about bypassing enchantments.
cato 05-21-07, 12:06 AM	Well since the armor is what protects you from sneak attacks, shouldnt bypassing it negate that effect? Imo its not right for just one item to nullify a classes main feature.. Its like saying: Armor of immunity to magic..
divide_by_zero 05-21-07, 01:37 AM	Heavy Fortification provides 100% protection from crits and sneak attacks. It costs a +5 bonus. For that price I'm ok with it blocking my sneak attacks.
cato 05-21-07, 01:44 AM	Ok give me a +5 armor of blocking any magical attack then and its even.. (QQ)
penchant 05-21-07, 03:22 AM	Ok give me a +5 armor of blocking any magical attack then and its even.. (QQ) Sneak attack does not compose the entirety of a rogues abilities. Magic does for mages. That's why there is armor of spell resistance. SR 19 for a +5 bonus. Unless fortification prevents theft... and stops UMD... and gives DR vs rogue attacks... Does your rogue really want to sneak attack someone wearing armor of full fort? UMD + Wand of Dipel Magic.
Lafing Cat 05-21-07, 04:24 AM	Well since the armor is what protects you from sneak attacks, shouldnt bypassing it negate that effect? Imo its not right for just one item to nullify a classes main feature.. Its like saying: Armor of immunity to magic.. The armor bonus to AC isn't what protects you from sneak attacks, and thats whats being bypassed. Regardless of which, its not on-topic for this thread. Back to True Seeing, or onto another thread.
Dheran 05-21-07, 12:57 PM	Greater Shadow is a competence bonus. (so it doesn't stack) Ring of Chameleon Power is a competence bonus. (so it doesn't stack) Robe of Blending is a Competence bonus. (so it doesn't stack) Hat of Anonymity only provides a +5 (unnamed bonus, so it does stack). It was reprinted in MIC. Mantle of Great stealth is Epic level and thus moot :) I have no idea what your basis for these statements is. A competence bonus stacks with anything that isn't a competence bonus, such as a racial bonus or the unnamed bonus from the Stealthy feat. What competence bonus to Hide are you already assuming so that none of these will stack with it? Also, Epic items don't require Epic levels. The standard wealth by level guidelines would allow the Mantle of Great Stealth at level 19.Epic Wondrous Items Anyone can use a wondrous item unless specified otherwise in the item’s description.
Llathos 05-21-07, 04:07 PM	The only surefire way I know if is to put 125 feet of air between you and the enchanted peepers.
cato 05-22-07, 01:15 AM	The armor bonus to AC isn't what protects you from sneak attacks, and thats whats being bypassed. Regardless of which, its not on-topic for this thread. Back to True Seeing, or onto another thread. Already on it. (btw ur not a moderator, so use a better tone when suggesting a change of thread next time)
divide_by_zero 05-22-07, 01:49 AM	If you don't mind being relatively stationary, Leomund's Tiny Hut beats True Seeing. It is an Evocation spell. Good for ranged sneak attack, at least until the enemy at 30 feet comes inside the 20 foot radius hut.