| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, based on the assumption that True Seeing is not restricted to sight and the entity with True Seeing sees through all illusions, this means that if an entity has permanent True Seeing (like some Demons/Devils/Celestials/Gods), he/she/it would not be able to dream.
False. Dreams are not Illusions. Plus, you still see the things you disbelieve, so even if you wanted to argue that dreams are illusions(they're not), you'd still have dreams, you'd just always know they weren't real. But again, dreams are not illusions so True Seeing has no effect.
Further, using the Mind Blank assertion that it counters all Divination spells: Is a being with Mind Blank invisible to someone with True Seeing, since physical appearance is technically "information about" you?
No, on many levels for many reasons. The easiest to explain is that True Seeing does not remove your normal vision when it is cast, so you could still use your normal senses to see people with Mind Blank on.
Seems to me, based on MPL's logic, if you had someone with True Seeing in the same room with someone with Mind Blank, you'd create some kind of magical paradox.
No paradox. True Seeing would simply fail to pierce any illusion or spell that concealed information about the person with Mind Blank. If someone with Mind Blank had Disguise Person on and you had True Seeing, you'd make a normal perception check against their disguise and if you fail, you'd see them as whatever they chose to look like via the spell. If they were invisible, you wouldn't see them at all.
* True Seeing sees through sight-based illusions and effects, per its description.
True Seeing never specifies "sight-based illusions."
* Mind Blank counters attempts to divine or scry information about a person, not his/her/its physical appearance or other factors some have tried to shoehorn in.
It unquestionably works in regards to physical appearances--See Invisible is even listed as an example spell Mind Blank protects against.
Additionally, True Seeing specifically deals with how the creature is perceiving the world around it.
Now who is adding to the definition, TS does not say perceive.
Page: 363 Core Rule Book
True Seeing
School divination; Level cleric 5, druid 7, sorcerer/wizard 6
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (an eye ointment that costs 250 gp)
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 min./level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually
are. The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices
secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures
or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures
or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form
of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. Further, the
subject can focus its vision to see into the Ethereal Plane (but not
into extradimensional spaces). The range of true seeing conferred is
120 feet.
True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects. It in
no way confers X-ray vision or its equivalent. It does not negate
concealment, including that caused by fog and the like. True seeing
does not help the viewer see through mundane disguises, spot
creatures who are simply hiding, or notice secret doors hidden by
mundane means. In addition, the spell effects cannot be further
enhanced with known magic, so one cannot use true seeing through
a crystal ball or in conjunction with clairaudience/clairvoyance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darkon Slayer, are you willing to say that visually perceiving something is different from seeing it?
I'm saying that mentally seeing something is not the same a visually seeing something.
remember that the mental sight is otherwise known as the sixth sense for a reason.
and no where in true sight does it say that TS extends to mental sight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's because in game terms, there is no difference between mental and physical sight! Seeing is seeing! The only kind of distinction that is ever made is "Magical" and "Mundane" for anything like this. So even though PK is mentally seen, it is still SEEN, so TS SEES through it. True Seeing doesn't state that it covers mental sight because mental sight isn't a defined part of the game.
[EDIT] Typo fixed
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
your wrong, there is.
Even the wording of the spell says there is nothing to be see by a third party so no visual aspect to see.
True Seeing never implies that you see thru something that is not in the visual range.
To say otherwise is to add words to the spell.
True Seeing doesn't state that it covers mental sight because mental sight isn't a defined part of the game.
If it was not a defined part of the game then what why do they have spells that specify mind effecting?
I still think "see through illusions" means it makes whatever false vision transparent as in the example someone gave of seeing the house underneath the guise of a mansion or seeing exactly where the caster is behind the blur spell or silent image, and actually seeing the coridor behind the illusionary brick wall in the dungeon. You still actually see the illusion, you just see what is actually there underneath it. I don't agree that "sees through illusions" automatically means disbelief of an illusion, specifically in the case of a phantasm like the way mpl stated the common phrase, "I see through your lies." Both sides keep arguing to read it literally and I think we both are but disagree on what "sees through" mean.
I think if I conjur a dementor like wraith with Phantasmal Killer to come kill you and you see it with your eyes, which in turn uses your nervous system to send signals to your brain to function it does not matter if you close your eyes or not, to you it is still there. I think if you close your eyes you don't see it but you know it is still there the same way you know that the all to real psychopath in the hockey mask is still there if you pull your covers over your head even though you can't see through them. (Unless of course they were illusionary covers and you had cast True Seeing...yes I am a prick.)
So in the case of shadow evocations and shadow conjurations being defeated with True Seeing you bring up an interesting question. I would also agree that you realize they are illusions, and see through them (make transparent) but why do you still take 20% of the damage? Of course it is printed right there in the spell so that is of course why you do but why is that exactly? Because it is in your mind...and even though the nasty critter conjured from thin air to take a swipe at you still looks goofy and fake your brain still thinks a little that it can open you up in ways that aren't pleasant. I think this all works the same way that Phantasmal Killer would work if you recognized that it is an illusion but suddenly your brain is telling you otherwise when you have to make the save. Why can PK kill the caster that it is rebounded back to? Yeah you know it is an illusion because you foolishly cast it on the demon with telepathy, but now it is thrown back in your face...I don't think vision of any kind has anything to do with the save or die part of PK, but as we all have been saying, that is just my opinion.
|
This came up in a recent PFS game, so I'm going to throw in my two cents. It seems to me that Phantasmal Killer works as follows.
1: Pulls from the target's mind the most frightening thing it can imagine.
2: Tries to make the target believe that its worst fear has just appeared through a combination of illusion and subtle mind-control, as is the nature of phantasms.
3: It takes the fear experienced by the target and amplifies it to the point that it actually dies of fright.
So it seems to me that while True Seeing might reveal the phantasm to be false, it would still inspire enough fear for the spell to affect the target. After all, this is their greatest subconscious fear. There are plenty of things that we know to not be actually dangerous that still frighten us. Remember being a little kid and watching that really scary movie? PK is that movie, except the director read your mind and designed the movie to be as scary as possible for you in particular.
Long story short: If I were to rule this situation, I might grant a circumstance bonus on the save, but not immunity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would also agree that you realize they are illusions, and see through them (make transparent) but why do you still take 20% of the damage?
Because Shadow spells are partially real and partially illusion. The 20% hurts because it is real physical stuff and for no other reason.
"Shadow: A shadow spell creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy. Such illusions can have real effects. Damage dealt by a shadow illusion is real."
True Seeing effects the physical eye and what it picks up otherwise it would be describes as mind-affecting as Phantasmal Killer is.
First, there's no evidence if affects "the physical eye." Second, you're making a judgement call about the nature of the physical eye and how vision works and you can't just stop at "it's not really there so I don't see it." You have to take the argument to its conclusion, and I don't think any of us know enough about vision and the brain to really complete such a train of thought. Hence, why I think you should stop at the fact that Phantasmal Killer (which is further defined as an image) is an illusion and True Seeing sees through illusions.
So it seems to me that while True Seeing might reveal the phantasm to be false, it would still inspire enough fear for the spell to affect the target.
This is not possible. Phantasmal Killer has a Will save for disbelief--specifically: "The target first gets a Will save to recognize the image as unreal."
You take no damage or other effects from the spell if you successfully make your will save to disbelieve and realize it is unreal. Therefore, if you automatically know it is unreal, you automatically take no damage or other effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True Seeing effects the physical eye and what it picks up otherwise it would be describes as mind-affecting as Phantasmal Killer is.First, there's no evidence if affects "the physical eye." Second, you're making a judgement call about the nature of the physical eye and how vision works and you can't just stop at "it's not really there so I don't see it." You have to take the argument to its conclusion, and I don't think any of us know enough about vision and the brain to really complete such a train of thought. Hence, why I think you should stop at the fact that Phantasmal Killer (which is further defined as an image) is an illusion and True Seeing sees through illusions.
You your self are making judgements that are not present in the spell TS when it comes to vision.
The game takes into account sight and hearing for a lot of abilities and
spells but you want to add mind effecting to TS, because of the description of PK.
The point you don't seem to get is that as a mind effecting spell your true seeing doesn't see it.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ'ed.
True Seeing allows you to see through illusions. Phantasmal Killer is an Illusion. There doesn't need to be more thought put into this. Phantasms are a rules subset of illusions. SInce they're not excluded in the spell description of True Seeing, they're defacto included.
There's no in game difference between seeing something with your eyes, and a mind effecting illusion. There are things that are immune to mind effecting spells, but not immune to illusions, so the spell descriptors bear weight and are useful.
Trying to differentiate perceiving with your character's mind because it has that descriptor, and perceiving with your character's sight is irrelevant. Your character is still perceiving an illusion, and True Seeing allows you to see through that.
So it nerfs a few illusion spells. How many combat illusion spells are there? And how many of those aren't nerfed by things as simple as blind sense or blindsight anyway? Is it really surprising that a 5th level spell can trump a 4th level spell?
Neither side is going to convince the other side they are right or wrong. I'm going to keep up with this thread in hopes someone official comes in and makes the call, but until then I'm going to agree to disagree with those of us contending TS trumps PK. I don't think it should, my GM agrees with me, so the games I run and play in are unaffected. I would hate for this to become another "Sunder is an attack action" thread and since all arguments are now only repeating themselves, I think it only behooves us to request the faq and wait.
Page: 210 and 211 of Core Rule Book.
Phantasm: A phantasm spell creates a mental image
that usually only the caster and the subject (or subjects)
of the spell can perceive. This impression is totally in
the minds of the subjects. It is a personalized mental
impression, all in their heads and not a fake picture or
something that they actually see. Third parties viewing
or studying the scene don’t notice the phantasm. All
phantasms are mind-affecting spells.
I put this here because it bears weight on the subject.
That's all that matters. You don't see the phantasm, you perceive it. True Seeing specifically says "see", not perceive. It is a mental impression, not a visual hallucination.
In the "minds" of the subject. Yes, they see it in their mind, but the line uses "perceives" for a reason, no sees. Not a "fake picture or something that they actually see."
What's so hard to understand here? It seems glaringly obvious to me.
lol You would think lantzkev, however, some people just want too much real world in an RPG.... well, as long as it justifies things for them. ;)
Could a Paizo creator make a FAQ on this?
Done already. True Seeing negates Phantasmal Killer, and should also render Phantasmal Web moot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not done. Because a phantasm exists in the recipient's mind, the recipient can perceive it no matter what its sensory capabilities are.
says it here http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060207a
And this is relevant...how?
You do realize this is a different game system, right?
His link explicitly says "True Seeing works on Phantasmal Killer".
And that is all that matters.
Because it is a FAQ for THIS game.
Not a blog post for the game that this one was based on.
A bit sad really, because it makes the 'turn back on the caster' bit somewhat superfluous in the process.
Geico commercial format:
a mental image is not really seeing...
Oh yeah? Well, did you know that you can't see some colors if your brain doesn't know to look for them?
Geico commercial format:
a mental image is not really seeing...Oh yeah? Well, did you know that you can't see some colors if your brain doesn't know to look for them?
I wrote that probably 2 years ago assuming it was copied and pasted correctly. <shrugs shoulders and smurfs off>
Here's the full quote and context for those who may not remember:
No they don't. A mental image is not really seeing, not in the sense that the spell is describing. It is like when people "see" hallucinations. They really did not see anything. They only imagined it, because it was all mental.Even if you argue that, which is fine, the victim of a Phantasmal Killer undeniably sees it--it's even described as an image.True seeing keeps using the word "seeing". There is nothing that says it ignores illusions that are not based on actual sight. I even uses the word "vision".
Here's the full quote and context for those who may not remember:
No they don't. A mental image is not really seeing, not in the sense that the spell is describing. It is like when people "see" hallucinations. They really did not see anything. They only imagined it, because it was all mental.Even if you argue that, which is fine, the victim of a Phantasmal Killer undeniably sees it--it's even described as an image.True seeing keeps using the word "seeing". There is nothing that says it ignores illusions that are not based on actual sight. I even uses the word "vision".
So would someone under True Seeing see the dress as blue and black or white and gold?
So would someone under True Seeing see the dress as blue and black or white and gold?Here's the full quote and context for those who may not remember:
No they don't. A mental image is not really seeing, not in the sense that the spell is describing. It is like when people "see" hallucinations. They really did not see anything. They only imagined it, because it was all mental.Even if you argue that, which is fine, the victim of a Phantasmal Killer undeniably sees it--it's even described as an image.True seeing keeps using the word "seeing". There is nothing that says it ignores illusions that are not based on actual sight. I even uses the word "vision".
If that dress isn't white and gold, it probably has a Mind Blank spell put on it.
Here's the full quote and context for those who may not remember:
No they don't. A mental image is not really seeing, not in the sense that the spell is describing. It is like when people "see" hallucinations. They really did not see anything. They only imagined it, because it was all mental.Even if you argue that, which is fine, the victim of a Phantasmal Killer undeniably sees it--it's even described as an image.True seeing keeps using the word "seeing". There is nothing that says it ignores illusions that are not based on actual sight. I even uses the word "vision".
LOL.You act like I continued to argue after the FAQ came out. By the time the PDT made their ruling this thread had died and when I saw the FAQ I never came back to argue because I tend to accept their decisions. So what exactly are you complaining about?