Can Anything Trump True Seeing? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Can Anything Trump True Seeing? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Burgoyne
03-20-07, 12:27 PM For the sake of suspense I'd like to find some kind of illusion or effect that could fool a true seeing spell. Got anything for me?
cwslyclgh
03-20-07, 12:51 PM normal disguise or non-magically hidden things can not be seen through with true seeing.

Individual spells would be able to say that true seeing will not detect them specifically in thier text, but can't recall any that actually do off the top of my head.

There is a long standing argument on the boards here about whether a person under the effects of a mindblank spell is immune to true seeing or not, it comes down to how you interperate both spells.
Matthew77
03-20-07, 12:54 PM It can also be argued that casting Non-detection upon yourself means that
True Seeing can't reveal any illusions or invsibility hiding you.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the arguement, but the interactions of the spells can certianly be interpreted that way, since True Seeing is a divination.
NoldorForce
03-20-07, 12:55 PM Nondetection forces True Seeing (and other divinations) to make a CL check if they wish to succeed.
solbergb
03-20-07, 01:09 PM disguise skill

hide skill

Smokestick.

Level 1 spell: Obscuring mist

Level 3 spell: Leomund's hut.

Anything in the "fog", "wall" line too.

If it blocks line of sight, it ruins trueseeing.
PhaedrusXY
03-20-07, 01:12 PM I think Mindblank should be able to trump some functions of True Seeing. My interpretation, along with alot of other stuff, is listed in the House Rules link in my sig.

Mind Blank vs. True Seeing: Mind Blank will block True Seeing from detecing the true form of a polymorphed creature, but it will not keep True Seeing from piercing an Illusion such as Change Self or Invisibility. Mind Blank will also keep True Seeing from revealing the aura of a creature, if True Seeing is cast as a Divine Spell.

My interpretation of this is as follows: seeing through a transmutation effect such as Polymorph requires divining information not available to the normal senses, since with a transmutation the subject is physically changed, not merely covered by an illusion. Mind Blank blocks such divinations.

Illusions such as Change Self and Invisibility work by placing a magically fabricated image over top of the subject. True Seeing sees through such magical fabrications. In this case, it is piercing a magical effect, not divining information directly.

Mind Blank vs. True Strike: Mind Blank has no effect.
Mind Blank + Invisibility vs. See Invisibility: Mind Blank has no effect.
Mind Blank + Displacement vs. True Seeing: Mind Blank has no effect.
Mind Blank vs. Detect X: Mind Blank prevents the spell from divining information about the subject. Mind Blank is also effective against Detect Magic, even though strictly speaking Detect Magic is a Universal spell, not in the Divination school.In general, I think defensive spells should be stronger than offensive spells. I think True Seeing is alot more offensive in nature, and Mind Blank is more defensive.
Red_Rabbit
03-20-07, 01:42 PM I believe Tenacious Spell feat or it might be insidious Spell Feat in Forgotten Realms would be what you are looking for the True Seeing person has to make a check to see your illusion as an illusion. If he fails he believes it's real.

The Rabbit
Shadowmind64
03-20-07, 01:57 PM If you are interested in a non-core spell that have some extra power against creatures with true seeing, try the spell Sensory overload (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/LQrUU7ApBttgaXkOzts.html)
Witch
03-20-07, 03:30 PM I disagree that Mind Blank should work. Non-detection should, though.
Igfig
03-20-07, 04:10 PM Well, there's a third-level Telepath power called false sensory input (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/falseSensoryInput.htm) that can, in fact, fool True Seeing. You have to concentrate to use it, however, and a Will save negates the effect.
Weiser_Cain
03-20-07, 05:36 PM Contingent teleport whenever anything looks your way.
1CentSage
03-20-07, 05:39 PM An argument could also be made that invisibility granted by Dust of Disappearance (DMG p.255) can not be penetrated by True Seeing.
PhaedrusXY
03-20-07, 06:39 PM An argument could also be made that invisibility granted by Dust of Disappearance (DMG p.255) can not be penetrated by True Seeing.I don't even think that needs an argument. It works, period. That's why Dust of Dissappearance costs so damn much for a single use invisibility spell with a short duration.
Nephlite
03-20-07, 09:12 PM For the sake of suspense I'd like to find some kind of illusion or effect that could fool a true seeing spell. Got anything for me?

Greater Concealing amorpha is a real effect and not an illusion (though it functions like Displacement and is self only).
The Simbul
03-21-07, 02:16 AM What "trumps" true seeing is the fact that it has a mediocre duration of 1 minute per level and costs 250gp per casting, in addition to using up a spell slot that could have been spent on greater dispel magic, chain lightning, disintegrate, greater heroism, or a dozen other far more readily useful 6th level spells.

The trump card here is that PCs do not habitually walk around with this spell always on, nor do NPCs casually cast it ad infinitum.
TheDarkLord
03-21-07, 02:40 AM I'm AFB at the moment, but I believe Superior Invisibility from the SpC forces a CL check against True Seeing.
Merestil Haye
03-21-07, 06:38 AM I'm AFB at the moment, but I believe Superior Invisibility from the SpC forces a CL check against True Seeing.It does not. I had one of my PCs use it a lot in my last campaign.

SI shuts down all forms of magical and extra-sensory detection except True Seeing, which simply goes straight through it. The only other ways of defeating the spell are all mundane - Spot checks, physical contact or the invisible creature leaving tracks.
Witch
03-21-07, 01:33 PM Ring of Sequestering'll trump True Seeing.
Merestil Haye
03-21-07, 02:50 PM Ring of Sequestering'll trump True Seeing.Quite possibly. I'm not familiar with the item. Where is it from?
Aracor
03-21-07, 03:21 PM Best way to use an illusion against true seeing: Patterns. They're really there, they're really mind-affecting. True seeing will let you see the patterns.
Strange Guy
03-21-07, 04:44 PM cast "blind"/deafness on true seerO_o
Whisper_Swiftblade
03-21-07, 04:53 PM hide
ArcTan
03-21-07, 05:31 PM Best way to use an illusion against true seeing: Patterns. They're really there, they're really mind-affecting. True seeing will let you see the patterns.

Does it? TS says it sees through "illusions", not just through "figments and glamers". I mean, it seems pretty clear to me that it negates phantasmal killer.

Even if patterns work normally on true seeing, you can't actually hide anything with a pattern, according to the rules, can you? Patterns are Spreads that work on things standing inside them, but while you maintain the Pattern it says nothing about creatures inside the pattern gaining concealment or others gaining concealment against them.

So while this is, sure, a way to attack someone with TS (*if* TS doesn't negate patterns) it's not a way to *counter* TS. I mean, a fireball also works on someone with TS. Big deal.
Witch
03-21-07, 05:51 PM Quite possibly. I'm not familiar with the item. Where is it from?

Epic Level Handbook. Can be found in the Epic SRD.
Elthbert
03-21-07, 06:05 PM What "trumps" true seeing is the fact that it has a mediocre duration of 1 minute per level and costs 250gp per casting, in addition to using up a spell slot that could have been spent on greater dispel magic, chain lightning, disintegrate, greater heroism, or a dozen other far more readily useful 6th level spells.

The trump card here is that PCs do not habitually walk around with this spell always on, nor do NPCs casually cast it ad infinitum.

No but for 40,500 a 9th level cleric can make a circlet, googles or the like that is command word activated and keep it on all the time.

For 90,000 they can make one which is continous.

I actually have seen the effects of virtually continuous use of this spell, I think true seeing is overly powerful for a 5th level spell.
ArcTan
03-22-07, 01:13 AM Epic Level Handbook. Can be found in the Epic SRD.

It basically lets you use the sequester spell on yourself without going comatose.

If you're okay with having whatever it is you need to hide be comatose -- or whatever you need to hide is an object rather than a person -- then you can just use the sequester spell as-is.
Six of Clubs
03-23-07, 06:27 AM No but for 40,500 a 9th level cleric can make a circlet, googles or the like that is command word activated and keep it on all the time.

For 90,000 they can make one which is continous.

I actually have seen the effects of virtually continuous use of this spell, I think true seeing is overly powerful for a 5th level spell.

um. those figures are way to low. the command word activated version should cost 106,000 (5*9*1800 + 250*100), and the continuous version is more than twenty times that (because it costs enough to qualify as an epic item).
Merestil Haye
03-23-07, 06:52 AM um. those figures are way to low. the command word activated version should cost 106,000 (5*9*1800 + 250*100), and the continuous version is more than twenty times that (because it costs enough to qualify as an epic item).If an item is Epic only because it costs over 200k, this does not trigger the *10 price multiplier.

In any case this is not an epic item, because the market price is not the quantity checked to determine whether it is over the epic threshold. It is the base price - the threshold limit explicitly eliminates costs for expensive material components when determining whether an item is Epic.

The base price would be 180k, to which is added 100 uses of the ointment (25,000gp) - thus the cost is 205,000gp but the item remains firmly non-Epic.

The question of whether this item fits into the game, and if so at what price, has not yet been determined. 205k makes it not quite an affordable item until the character has gone some way past the 20th level minimum, and it won't become a minor cost until some way into epic play. I think I could live with that.
Witch
03-23-07, 07:06 AM The base price would be 180k, to which is added 100 uses of the ointment (25,000gp) - thus the cost is 205,000gp but the item remains firmly non-Epic.
Correct. I'll also like to stress that the multiplier does not trigger epic pricing (as you said yourself). This deserves being repeated because people don't seem to realize this.
Six of Clubs
03-23-07, 07:44 AM If an item is Epic only because it costs over 200k, this does not trigger the *10 price multiplier.

In any case this is not an epic item, because the market price is not the quantity checked to determine whether it is over the epic threshold. It is the base price - the threshold limit explicitly eliminates costs for expensive material components when determining whether an item is Epic.

The base price would be 180k, to which is added 100 uses of the ointment (25,000gp) - thus the cost is 205,000gp but the item remains firmly non-Epic.

The question of whether this item fits into the game, and if so at what price, has not yet been determined. 205k makes it not quite an affordable item until the character has gone some way past the 20th level minimum, and it won't become a minor cost until some way into epic play. I think I could live with that.
hmm. you're right- I misread the srd section on that. so, just under twice as much, rather than completely out of reach pre-epic. that's still a lot more than was mentioned by Elthbert up-thread.
Nezkrul
03-23-07, 08:14 AM in Unapproachable East, there's a mask that takes the goggles slot that provides continuous True Seeing, for a mere 75,000gp, so y'all wrong :D
Witch
03-23-07, 08:24 AM in Unapproachable East, there's a mask that takes the goggles slot that provides continuous True Seeing, for a mere 75,000gp, so y'all wrong :D
That says a lot about Forgotten Realms and balance, again. Thanks for reminding me about that.

In case that wasn't revealing enough, the authors of Unapproachable East were wrong. Not us.
Elthbert
03-23-07, 10:18 AM um. those figures are way to low. the command word activated version should cost 106,000 (5*9*1800 + 250*100), and the continuous version is more than twenty times that (because it costs enough to qualify as an epic item).

Your right I didn't add in the componant cost. Remember it only cost 1/2 of the base price to craft an item. So it is 5*9*1800/2 + 250*100 so it is 65,500 and likewise the continous use version would be 115,000--- hardly epic.

People seem to forget that it only cost HALF the base price to make an item---- so this is hardly an unattainable item for characters. In fact even aitem with a 9th level spell with a command word can be created for a mear 137,700 gp well within the reach of a character capable of casting the spell.
Elthbert
03-23-07, 12:20 PM That says a lot about Forgotten Realms and balance, again. Thanks for reminding me about that.

In case that wasn't revealing enough, the authors of Unapproachable East were wrong. Not us.

Well to be fair there are numerous items which do not follow the item creation rules. Not that I disagree with you about the Realms and balance---- they are absurd.
Witch
03-23-07, 12:22 PM Well to be fair there are numerous items which do not follow the item creation rules.
Oh, I don't disagree on that. It's not a bad thing either - but in this particular case, ofcourse, it is :)
NineInchNall
03-23-07, 12:36 PM I disagree that Mind Blank should work. Non-detection should, though.

You do realize that mind blank does everything that nondetection does and then some, right?
Witch
03-23-07, 12:38 PM You do realize that mind blank does everything that nondetection does and then some, right?
Yeah, but
a) mind blank is an absolute, and I don't like absolutes.
b) mind blank is themed differently.
Elthbert
03-23-07, 04:40 PM Oh, I don't disagree on that. It's not a bad thing either - but in this particular case, ofcourse, it is :)

Oh I agree--- I can imagine my players finding out about that and wanting to make that item for 38,000 gp. THere is areason I have never liked the Realms and this just reminds me of it.
Gadren
03-23-07, 11:52 PM Well to be fair there are numerous items which do not follow the item creation rules. Not that I disagree with you about the Realms and balance---- they are absurd.

Thats probably because they aren't rules, they're guidelines. Basically, try to think how much'd you'd really be willing to pay for the item.
Elthbert
03-25-07, 11:27 PM I have concidered having true seeing make a casterlevel check agianst illusions of 8th and 9th level. I just think the ability to auto-defeat 9th level illusions is way over powered for a 5th level spell.
Kulthos
03-26-07, 01:00 AM True seeing is easily trumped by lots of simple spells and skills, just not illusions.

In a magic system with rock, paper and scissors, true seeing has a good place. Don't nerf it because you don't like it.
Optimator
03-26-07, 01:12 AM My DM just makes things very far away when true seeing is afoot.
Elthbert
03-26-07, 09:26 AM True seeing is easily trumped by lots of simple spells and skills, just not illusions.

In a magic system with rock, paper and scissors, true seeing has a good place. Don't nerf it because you don't like it.

What better reason is there to nerf anything?;)

Seriously, it is a 5th level spellwhich can completly nullify an intire school of magic. Remember it doesn't just allow you to see through an illusionary wall it also nullifies Weird, Phantsmal Killer and numerous other spells. so a 9th level cleric can just ignore the most powerful illusion spell a 17th level illusionist wizard can through at them. Thats just stupid. Now I would not have a problem with a 7th or 8th level version which defeated all illusion spells, but a 5th level one, that just seems out of whack.

specifically in order to deal with this a PC of mine made a non illusionary invisability spell. It works exactly like invisability but it actually makes you invisable, ( Transmutation). I allowed this but ruled it a fourth level spell.

I think I would allow a greater and mass version of it for 2 levels higher each, butthis has never come up.
Reyemile
03-26-07, 11:24 AM Balance issues aside, the Psionic power Cloud Mind explicitly ignores True Seeing since you are convincing the target not to pay attention to you rather than making yourself invisible.
solbergb
03-26-07, 01:37 PM What better reason is there to nerf anything?;)

specifically in order to deal with this a PC of mine made a non illusionary invisability spell. It works exactly like invisability but it actually makes you invisable, ( Transmutation). I allowed this but ruled it a fourth level spell.
.

So essentially the character is doing a polymorph-like effect to get the invisibile stalker trait?

Seems plausible I guess, but the level depends on the cosmology, how magic works in your area.

Most polymorph subschool spells are much harsher - they force you to take the entire form, and lose all your own abilities.
Elthbert
03-26-07, 01:44 PM So essentially the character is doing a polymorph-like effect to get the invisibile stalker trait?

Seems plausible I guess, but the level depends on the cosmology, how magic works in your area.

Most polymorph subschool spells are much harsher - they force you to take the entire form, and lose all your own abilities.

Well most polymorph subschool spells give you choices this does not.
MrCelsius
03-28-07, 10:12 AM Particularly as regards disguising spells, the Spymaster (CAdv) prestige class' seventh level ability Deep Cover automatically feeds any divination spell information as though you actually were the cover identity you've assumed. If your illusory appearance matches the false persona, True Seeing ought not to twig.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Burgoyne 03-20-07, 12:27 PM	For the sake of suspense I'd like to find some kind of illusion or effect that could fool a true seeing spell. Got anything for me?
cwslyclgh 03-20-07, 12:51 PM	normal disguise or non-magically hidden things can not be seen through with true seeing. Individual spells would be able to say that true seeing will not detect them specifically in thier text, but can't recall any that actually do off the top of my head. There is a long standing argument on the boards here about whether a person under the effects of a mindblank spell is immune to true seeing or not, it comes down to how you interperate both spells.
Matthew77 03-20-07, 12:54 PM	It can also be argued that casting Non-detection upon yourself means that True Seeing can't reveal any illusions or invsibility hiding you. I'm not sure I entirely agree with the arguement, but the interactions of the spells can certianly be interpreted that way, since True Seeing is a divination.
NoldorForce 03-20-07, 12:55 PM	Nondetection forces True Seeing (and other divinations) to make a CL check if they wish to succeed.
solbergb 03-20-07, 01:09 PM	disguise skill hide skill Smokestick. Level 1 spell: Obscuring mist Level 3 spell: Leomund's hut. Anything in the "fog", "wall" line too. If it blocks line of sight, it ruins trueseeing.
PhaedrusXY 03-20-07, 01:12 PM	I think Mindblank should be able to trump some functions of True Seeing. My interpretation, along with alot of other stuff, is listed in the House Rules link in my sig. Mind Blank vs. True Seeing: Mind Blank will block True Seeing from detecing the true form of a polymorphed creature, but it will not keep True Seeing from piercing an Illusion such as Change Self or Invisibility. Mind Blank will also keep True Seeing from revealing the aura of a creature, if True Seeing is cast as a Divine Spell. My interpretation of this is as follows: seeing through a transmutation effect such as Polymorph requires divining information not available to the normal senses, since with a transmutation the subject is physically changed, not merely covered by an illusion. Mind Blank blocks such divinations. Illusions such as Change Self and Invisibility work by placing a magically fabricated image over top of the subject. True Seeing sees through such magical fabrications. In this case, it is piercing a magical effect, not divining information directly. Mind Blank vs. True Strike: Mind Blank has no effect. Mind Blank + Invisibility vs. See Invisibility: Mind Blank has no effect. Mind Blank + Displacement vs. True Seeing: Mind Blank has no effect. Mind Blank vs. Detect X: Mind Blank prevents the spell from divining information about the subject. Mind Blank is also effective against Detect Magic, even though strictly speaking Detect Magic is a Universal spell, not in the Divination school.In general, I think defensive spells should be stronger than offensive spells. I think True Seeing is alot more offensive in nature, and Mind Blank is more defensive.
Red_Rabbit 03-20-07, 01:42 PM	I believe Tenacious Spell feat or it might be insidious Spell Feat in Forgotten Realms would be what you are looking for the True Seeing person has to make a check to see your illusion as an illusion. If he fails he believes it's real. The Rabbit
Shadowmind64 03-20-07, 01:57 PM	If you are interested in a non-core spell that have some extra power against creatures with true seeing, try the spell Sensory overload (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/LQrUU7ApBttgaXkOzts.html)
Witch 03-20-07, 03:30 PM	I disagree that Mind Blank should work. Non-detection should, though.
Igfig 03-20-07, 04:10 PM	Well, there's a third-level Telepath power called false sensory input (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/falseSensoryInput.htm) that can, in fact, fool True Seeing. You have to concentrate to use it, however, and a Will save negates the effect.
Weiser_Cain 03-20-07, 05:36 PM	Contingent teleport whenever anything looks your way.
1CentSage 03-20-07, 05:39 PM	An argument could also be made that invisibility granted by Dust of Disappearance (DMG p.255) can not be penetrated by True Seeing.
PhaedrusXY 03-20-07, 06:39 PM	An argument could also be made that invisibility granted by Dust of Disappearance (DMG p.255) can not be penetrated by True Seeing.I don't even think that needs an argument. It works, period. That's why Dust of Dissappearance costs so damn much for a single use invisibility spell with a short duration.
Nephlite 03-20-07, 09:12 PM	For the sake of suspense I'd like to find some kind of illusion or effect that could fool a true seeing spell. Got anything for me? Greater Concealing amorpha is a real effect and not an illusion (though it functions like Displacement and is self only).
The Simbul 03-21-07, 02:16 AM	What "trumps" true seeing is the fact that it has a mediocre duration of 1 minute per level and costs 250gp per casting, in addition to using up a spell slot that could have been spent on greater dispel magic, chain lightning, disintegrate, greater heroism, or a dozen other far more readily useful 6th level spells. The trump card here is that PCs do not habitually walk around with this spell always on, nor do NPCs casually cast it ad infinitum.
TheDarkLord 03-21-07, 02:40 AM	I'm AFB at the moment, but I believe Superior Invisibility from the SpC forces a CL check against True Seeing.
Merestil Haye 03-21-07, 06:38 AM	I'm AFB at the moment, but I believe Superior Invisibility from the SpC forces a CL check against True Seeing.It does not. I had one of my PCs use it a lot in my last campaign. SI shuts down all forms of magical and extra-sensory detection except True Seeing, which simply goes straight through it. The only other ways of defeating the spell are all mundane - Spot checks, physical contact or the invisible creature leaving tracks.
Witch 03-21-07, 01:33 PM	Ring of Sequestering'll trump True Seeing.
Merestil Haye 03-21-07, 02:50 PM	Ring of Sequestering'll trump True Seeing.Quite possibly. I'm not familiar with the item. Where is it from?
Aracor 03-21-07, 03:21 PM	Best way to use an illusion against true seeing: Patterns. They're really there, they're really mind-affecting. True seeing will let you see the patterns.
Strange Guy 03-21-07, 04:44 PM	cast "blind"/deafness on true seerO_o
Whisper_Swiftblade 03-21-07, 04:53 PM	hide
ArcTan 03-21-07, 05:31 PM	Best way to use an illusion against true seeing: Patterns. They're really there, they're really mind-affecting. True seeing will let you see the patterns. Does it? TS says it sees through "illusions", not just through "figments and glamers". I mean, it seems pretty clear to me that it negates phantasmal killer. Even if patterns work normally on true seeing, you can't actually hide anything with a pattern, according to the rules, can you? Patterns are Spreads that work on things standing inside them, but while you maintain the Pattern it says nothing about creatures inside the pattern gaining concealment or others gaining concealment against them. So while this is, sure, a way to attack someone with TS (if TS doesn't negate patterns) it's not a way to counter TS. I mean, a fireball also works on someone with TS. Big deal.
Witch 03-21-07, 05:51 PM	Quite possibly. I'm not familiar with the item. Where is it from? Epic Level Handbook. Can be found in the Epic SRD.
Elthbert 03-21-07, 06:05 PM	What "trumps" true seeing is the fact that it has a mediocre duration of 1 minute per level and costs 250gp per casting, in addition to using up a spell slot that could have been spent on greater dispel magic, chain lightning, disintegrate, greater heroism, or a dozen other far more readily useful 6th level spells. The trump card here is that PCs do not habitually walk around with this spell always on, nor do NPCs casually cast it ad infinitum. No but for 40,500 a 9th level cleric can make a circlet, googles or the like that is command word activated and keep it on all the time. For 90,000 they can make one which is continous. I actually have seen the effects of virtually continuous use of this spell, I think true seeing is overly powerful for a 5th level spell.
ArcTan 03-22-07, 01:13 AM	Epic Level Handbook. Can be found in the Epic SRD. It basically lets you use the sequester spell on yourself without going comatose. If you're okay with having whatever it is you need to hide be comatose -- or whatever you need to hide is an object rather than a person -- then you can just use the sequester spell as-is.
Six of Clubs 03-23-07, 06:27 AM	No but for 40,500 a 9th level cleric can make a circlet, googles or the like that is command word activated and keep it on all the time. For 90,000 they can make one which is continous. I actually have seen the effects of virtually continuous use of this spell, I think true seeing is overly powerful for a 5th level spell. um. those figures are way to low. the command word activated version should cost 106,000 (591800 + 250*100), and the continuous version is more than twenty times that (because it costs enough to qualify as an epic item).
Merestil Haye 03-23-07, 06:52 AM	um. those figures are way to low. the command word activated version should cost 106,000 (591800 + 250100), and the continuous version is more than twenty times that (because it costs enough to qualify as an epic item).If an item is Epic only because it costs over 200k, this does not trigger the 10 price multiplier. In any case this is not an epic item, because the market price is not the quantity checked to determine whether it is over the epic threshold. It is the base price - the threshold limit explicitly eliminates costs for expensive material components when determining whether an item is Epic. The base price would be 180k, to which is added 100 uses of the ointment (25,000gp) - thus the cost is 205,000gp but the item remains firmly non-Epic. The question of whether this item fits into the game, and if so at what price, has not yet been determined. 205k makes it not quite an affordable item until the character has gone some way past the 20th level minimum, and it won't become a minor cost until some way into epic play. I think I could live with that.
Witch 03-23-07, 07:06 AM	The base price would be 180k, to which is added 100 uses of the ointment (25,000gp) - thus the cost is 205,000gp but the item remains firmly non-Epic. Correct. I'll also like to stress that the multiplier does not trigger epic pricing (as you said yourself). This deserves being repeated because people don't seem to realize this.
Six of Clubs 03-23-07, 07:44 AM	If an item is Epic only because it costs over 200k, this does not trigger the *10 price multiplier. In any case this is not an epic item, because the market price is not the quantity checked to determine whether it is over the epic threshold. It is the base price - the threshold limit explicitly eliminates costs for expensive material components when determining whether an item is Epic. The base price would be 180k, to which is added 100 uses of the ointment (25,000gp) - thus the cost is 205,000gp but the item remains firmly non-Epic. The question of whether this item fits into the game, and if so at what price, has not yet been determined. 205k makes it not quite an affordable item until the character has gone some way past the 20th level minimum, and it won't become a minor cost until some way into epic play. I think I could live with that. hmm. you're right- I misread the srd section on that. so, just under twice as much, rather than completely out of reach pre-epic. that's still a lot more than was mentioned by Elthbert up-thread.
Nezkrul 03-23-07, 08:14 AM	in Unapproachable East, there's a mask that takes the goggles slot that provides continuous True Seeing, for a mere 75,000gp, so y'all wrong :D
Witch 03-23-07, 08:24 AM	in Unapproachable East, there's a mask that takes the goggles slot that provides continuous True Seeing, for a mere 75,000gp, so y'all wrong :D That says a lot about Forgotten Realms and balance, again. Thanks for reminding me about that. In case that wasn't revealing enough, the authors of Unapproachable East were wrong. Not us.
Elthbert 03-23-07, 10:18 AM	um. those figures are way to low. the command word activated version should cost 106,000 (591800 + 250100), and the continuous version is more than twenty times that (because it costs enough to qualify as an epic item). Your right I didn't add in the componant cost. Remember it only cost 1/2 of the base price to craft an item. So it is 591800/2 + 250100 so it is 65,500 and likewise the continous use version would be 115,000--- hardly epic. People seem to forget that it only cost HALF the base price to make an item---- so this is hardly an unattainable item for characters. In fact even aitem with a 9th level spell with a command word can be created for a mear 137,700 gp well within the reach of a character capable of casting the spell.
Elthbert 03-23-07, 12:20 PM	That says a lot about Forgotten Realms and balance, again. Thanks for reminding me about that. In case that wasn't revealing enough, the authors of Unapproachable East were wrong. Not us. Well to be fair there are numerous items which do not follow the item creation rules. Not that I disagree with you about the Realms and balance---- they are absurd.
Witch 03-23-07, 12:22 PM	Well to be fair there are numerous items which do not follow the item creation rules. Oh, I don't disagree on that. It's not a bad thing either - but in this particular case, ofcourse, it is :)
NineInchNall 03-23-07, 12:36 PM	I disagree that Mind Blank should work. Non-detection should, though. You do realize that mind blank does everything that nondetection does and then some, right?
Witch 03-23-07, 12:38 PM	You do realize that mind blank does everything that nondetection does and then some, right? Yeah, but a) mind blank is an absolute, and I don't like absolutes. b) mind blank is themed differently.
Elthbert 03-23-07, 04:40 PM	Oh, I don't disagree on that. It's not a bad thing either - but in this particular case, ofcourse, it is :) Oh I agree--- I can imagine my players finding out about that and wanting to make that item for 38,000 gp. THere is areason I have never liked the Realms and this just reminds me of it.
Gadren 03-23-07, 11:52 PM	Well to be fair there are numerous items which do not follow the item creation rules. Not that I disagree with you about the Realms and balance---- they are absurd. Thats probably because they aren't rules, they're guidelines. Basically, try to think how much'd you'd really be willing to pay for the item.
Elthbert 03-25-07, 11:27 PM	I have concidered having true seeing make a casterlevel check agianst illusions of 8th and 9th level. I just think the ability to auto-defeat 9th level illusions is way over powered for a 5th level spell.
Kulthos 03-26-07, 01:00 AM	True seeing is easily trumped by lots of simple spells and skills, just not illusions. In a magic system with rock, paper and scissors, true seeing has a good place. Don't nerf it because you don't like it.
Optimator 03-26-07, 01:12 AM	My DM just makes things very far away when true seeing is afoot.
Elthbert 03-26-07, 09:26 AM	True seeing is easily trumped by lots of simple spells and skills, just not illusions. In a magic system with rock, paper and scissors, true seeing has a good place. Don't nerf it because you don't like it. What better reason is there to nerf anything?;) Seriously, it is a 5th level spellwhich can completly nullify an intire school of magic. Remember it doesn't just allow you to see through an illusionary wall it also nullifies Weird, Phantsmal Killer and numerous other spells. so a 9th level cleric can just ignore the most powerful illusion spell a 17th level illusionist wizard can through at them. Thats just stupid. Now I would not have a problem with a 7th or 8th level version which defeated all illusion spells, but a 5th level one, that just seems out of whack. specifically in order to deal with this a PC of mine made a non illusionary invisability spell. It works exactly like invisability but it actually makes you invisable, ( Transmutation). I allowed this but ruled it a fourth level spell. I think I would allow a greater and mass version of it for 2 levels higher each, butthis has never come up.
Reyemile 03-26-07, 11:24 AM	Balance issues aside, the Psionic power Cloud Mind explicitly ignores True Seeing since you are convincing the target not to pay attention to you rather than making yourself invisible.
solbergb 03-26-07, 01:37 PM	What better reason is there to nerf anything?;) specifically in order to deal with this a PC of mine made a non illusionary invisability spell. It works exactly like invisability but it actually makes you invisable, ( Transmutation). I allowed this but ruled it a fourth level spell. . So essentially the character is doing a polymorph-like effect to get the invisibile stalker trait? Seems plausible I guess, but the level depends on the cosmology, how magic works in your area. Most polymorph subschool spells are much harsher - they force you to take the entire form, and lose all your own abilities.
Elthbert 03-26-07, 01:44 PM	So essentially the character is doing a polymorph-like effect to get the invisibile stalker trait? Seems plausible I guess, but the level depends on the cosmology, how magic works in your area. Most polymorph subschool spells are much harsher - they force you to take the entire form, and lose all your own abilities. Well most polymorph subschool spells give you choices this does not.
MrCelsius 03-28-07, 10:12 AM	Particularly as regards disguising spells, the Spymaster (CAdv) prestige class' seventh level ability Deep Cover automatically feeds any divination spell information as though you actually were the cover identity you've assumed. If your illusory appearance matches the false persona, True Seeing ought not to twig.