Dust of Disappearance vs. True Seeing
Serge Laventure
true seeing?
DK
It is my understanding that Dust of Disappearance gives normal
invisibility, which means that truesight can see right thru it.
--
DK - The Great Tiki God<br>Vampire Lion
Give me your best warriors, magic users, clerics and thieves. I will
kill them all with a single orc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DK's Profile: http://www.dungeonkeepersdomain.com/mb/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=1
View this thread: http://www.dungeonkeepersdomain.com/mb/showthread.php?threadid=3849
Bradd W. Szonye
> It is my understanding that Dust of Disappearance gives normal
> invisibility, which means that truesight can see right thru it.
Your understanding is incorrect.
Dust of Disappearance: This dust looks just like dust of appearance
and is typically stored in the same manner. A creature or object
touched by it becomes invisible (as greater invisibility). Normal
vision can't see dusted creatures or objects, nor can they be
detected by magical means, including see invisibility or
invisibility purge.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
My Usenet e-mail address is temporarily disabled.
Please visit my website to obtain an alternate address.
Rado S
> DK <DK.u...@timelimit.dungeonkeepersdomain.com> wrote:
>> It is my understanding that Dust of Disappearance gives normal
>> invisibility, which means that truesight can see right thru it.
>
> Your understanding is incorrect.
>
> Dust of Disappearance: This dust looks just like dust of appearance
> and is typically stored in the same manner. A creature or object
> touched by it becomes invisible (as greater invisibility). Normal
> vision can't see dusted creatures or objects, nor can they be
> detected by magical means, including see invisibility or
> invisibility purge.
So we have 2 general statements with exclusive meaning but without
explicit mention of each other:
- dust == undetectable by magical means.
- true seeing == see invisible creatures.
Since the dust is created with "greater invisibility" I can see
that it overpowers 2nd and 3rd level detection spells because it's
4th level itself.
But "true seeing" is 5+, so I'd grant it the power to see
through.
What else provides enough to favor either of them over the other?
© Rado S. -- So much to do, but too little time to take care of it all.
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> It is my understanding that Dust of Disappearance gives normal
>>> invisibility, which means that truesight can see right thru it.
> Bradd W. Szonye <bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Your understanding is incorrect.
>>
>> Dust of Disappearance: This dust looks just like dust of
>> appearance and is typically stored in the same manner. A creature
>> or object touched by it becomes invisible (as greater
>> invisibility). Normal vision can't see dusted creatures or
>> objects, nor can they be detected by magical means, including see
>> invisibility or invisibility purge.
Rado S <rado...@spam.is.invalid> wrote:
> So we have 2 general statements with exclusive meaning but without
> explicit mention of each other:
> - dust == undetectable by magical means.
> - true seeing == see invisible creatures.
>
> Since the dust is created with "greater invisibility" I can see that
> it overpowers 2nd and 3rd level detection spells because it's 4th
> level itself. But "true seeing" is 5+, so I'd grant it the power to
> see through.
If that were the case, it would say "nor can they be detected by magic
means of 4th level or lower." But it doesn't. There are no exceptions.
> What else provides enough to favor either of them over the other?
The part where it says "nor can they be detected by magical means." The
examples show that it even defeats spells specifically designed to see
invisible creatures.
You're not very good at this "interpreting rules" thing, are you?
George W. Harris
<bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote:
:> What else provides enough to favor either of them over the other?
:
:The part where it says "nor can they be detected by magical means." The
:examples show that it even defeats spells specifically designed to see
:invisible creatures.
Of course, True Seeing allows the target to
see "all things as they actually are". It's an
irresistable force/immovable object dilemma; neither
allows for exceptions.
--
"Intelligence is too complex to capture in a single number." -Alfred Binet
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Bradd W. Szonye
Rado S wrote:
>>> What else provides enough to favor either of them over the other?
Bradd wrote:
>> The part where it says "nor can they be detected by magical means."
>> The examples show that it even defeats spells specifically designed
>> to see invisible creatures.
George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> Of course, True Seeing allows the target to see "all things as they
> actually are". It's an irresistable force/immovable object dilemma;
> neither allows for exceptions.
Except for the part where the dust clearly states that the invisibility
cannot be detected by magical means. Since true seeing is a magical way
to detect invisibility, the dust rule obviously applies.
Rado S
> If that were the case, it would say "nor can they be detected by
> magic means of 4th level or lower." But it doesn't. There are no
> exceptions.
>
>> What else provides enough to favor either of them over the other?
>
> The part where it says "nor can they be detected by magical
> means." The examples show that it even defeats spells
> specifically designed to see invisible creatures.
Likewise there is no exception in "true seeing".
Being specifically designed for something doesn't mean there can't
be more powerful things to bypass them.
There certainly are several cases with general and exclusive
statements but which don't deal with each other to solve a
conflict.
What's the deal in such cases?
How to resolve?
> You're not very good at this "interpreting rules" thing, are
> you?
I've never "smoked crack", if this is what you mean. ;)
I just don't accept _one_ (the first) solution offered as being
the only possible as long as it is ambiguous.
You on the other hand find something that works and refuse to
consider alternatives, or what?
I know (from reading this group for a long time) that you have a
good feeling for the rules, probably better than me, but there is
still some place left for you to be mistaken in individual cases.
Rado S
> If that were the case, it would say "nor can they be detected by
> magic means of 4th level or lower." But it doesn't. There are no
> exceptions.
>
>> What else provides enough to favor either of them over the other?
>
> The part where it says "nor can they be detected by magical
> means." The examples show that it even defeats spells
> specifically designed to see invisible creatures.
Likewise there is no exception in "true seeing".
Being specifically designed for something doesn't mean there can't
be more powerful things to bypass them.
There certainly are several cases with general and exclusive
statements but which don't deal with each other to solve a
conflict.
What's the deal in such cases?
How to resolve?
> You're not very good at this "interpreting rules" thing, are
> you?
I've never "smoked crack", if this is what you mean. ;)
I just don't accept _one_ (the first) solution offered as being
the only possible as long as it is ambiguous.
You on the other hand find something that works and refuse to
consider alternatives, or what?
I know (from reading this group for a long time) that you have a
good feeling for the rules, probably better than me, but there is
still some space left for you to be mistaken in individual cases.
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> What else provides enough to favor either of them over the other?
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> The part where it says "nor can they be detected by magical means."
>> The examples show that it even defeats spells specifically designed
>> to see invisible creatures.
> Likewise there is no exception in "true seeing".
It doesn't need one. It's a magical means of seeing invisible beings, so
the more specific rule ("nor can they be detected by magical means")
applies.
> Being specifically designed for something doesn't mean there can't be
> more powerful things to bypass them.
True. However, in those cases, the rules say so explicitly.
> There certainly are several cases with general and exclusive
> statements but which don't deal with each other to solve a conflict.
This is not one of those cases.
>> You're not very good at this "interpreting rules" thing, are you?
> I've never "smoked crack", if this is what you mean. ;) I just don't
> accept _one_ (the first) solution offered as being the only possible
> as long as it is ambiguous.
This is not ambiguous.
> You on the other hand find something that works and refuse to consider
> alternatives, or what?
I consider alternatives when they are viable. You claim that ambiguity
exists when there is no actual ambiguity.
Rado S
>>> The part where it says "nor can they be detected by magical
>>> means." The examples show that it even defeats spells
>>> specifically designed to see invisible creatures.
>>
>> Likewise there is no exception in "true seeing".
>
> It doesn't need one. It's a magical means of seeing invisible
> beings, so the more specific rule ("nor can they be detected by
> magical means") applies.
How more specific (or general) would you want "true seeing" to be
to accept that supersedes "dust of disappearance"?
>> Being specifically designed for something doesn't mean there
>> can't be more powerful things to bypass them.
>
> True. However, in those cases, the rules say so explicitly.
Does every effect that can't be dispelled mention that
"Mordenkainen's disjunction" will affect it?
Rado S
>>> The part where it says "nor can they be detected by magical
>>> means." The examples show that it even defeats spells
>>> specifically designed to see invisible creatures.
>>
>> Likewise there is no exception in "true seeing".
>
> It doesn't need one. It's a magical means of seeing invisible
> beings, so the more specific rule ("nor can they be detected by
> magical means") applies.
How more specific (or general) would you want "true seeing" to be
to accept that it supersedes "dust of disappearance"?
>> Being specifically designed for something doesn't mean there
>> can't be more powerful things to bypass them.
>
> True. However, in those cases, the rules say so explicitly.
Does every effect that can't be dispelled mention that
"Mordenkainen's disjunction" will affect it?
© Rado S. -- So much to do, but too little time to take care of it all.
JB
> George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>
>>Of course, True Seeing allows the target to see "all things as they
>>actually are". It's an irresistable force/immovable object dilemma;
>>neither allows for exceptions.
>
>
> Except for the part where the dust clearly states that the invisibility
> cannot be detected by magical means. Since true seeing is a magical way
> to detect invisibility, the dust rule obviously applies.
Is it just me or is the answer to this whole "dilemma" pretty damn obvious?
Bradd W. Szonye
> Is it just me or is the answer to this whole "dilemma" pretty damn
> obvious?
It's not just you.
Neil Cerutti
Szonye wrote:
> Rado S wrote:
>>>> What else provides enough to favor either of them over the
>>>> other?
>
> Bradd wrote:
>>> The part where it says "nor can they be detected by magical
>>> means." The examples show that it even defeats spells
>>> specifically designed to see invisible creatures.
>
> George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>> Of course, True Seeing allows the target to see "all things as
>> they actually are". It's an irresistable force/immovable
>> object dilemma; neither allows for exceptions.
>
> Except for the part where the dust clearly states that the
> invisibility cannot be detected by magical means. Since true
> seeing is a magical way to detect invisibility, the dust rule
> obviously applies.
I don't like this item.
Design Journal of Disappearance:
"Dust of Disappearance is my cool idea for an item."
"That sounds neat, but there are already lots of ways to turn
invisible. We don't need another one."
"Umm, well, but my item is cool! You see, it's this dust..."
"There are too many ways to become invisible already."
"Yeah but, see, it's magic *dust*. It's neat."
"No it isn't. It's redundant."
"But this dust... it... uh... makes you invisible... and... um..."
"Haven't we covered this already?"
"...and... Yeah! The detect invisibility spells don't work
against it."
"OK, I guess that's a little different. And it does have a cool
name...."
"Yup. I'll get to work on the description right away."
"Alright. I hope it turns out as well as your neat Tanglefoot
Bags."
Monte Cook agrees with Bradd's interpretation.
http://pub58.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm3.showMessage?topicID=145.topic
--
Neil Cerutti
George W. Harris
<bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote:
:
:Rado S wrote:
:>>> What else provides enough to favor either of them over the other?
:
:Bradd wrote:
:>> The part where it says "nor can they be detected by magical means."
:>> The examples show that it even defeats spells specifically designed
:>> to see invisible creatures.
:
:George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
:> Of course, True Seeing allows the target to see "all things as they
:> actually are". It's an irresistable force/immovable object dilemma;
:> neither allows for exceptions.
:
:Except for the part where the dust clearly states that the invisibility
:cannot be detected by magical means. Since true seeing is a magical way
:to detect invisibility, the dust rule obviously applies.
Dust: cannot be detected by magical means.
True Seeing: can see all things as they actually are.
Just as True Seeing is a magical means, something
affected by Dust of Disappearance is a thing. Neither
trumps the other.
--
When Ramanujan was my age, he had been dead for nine years. -after Tom Lehrer
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Except for the part where the dust clearly states that the
>> invisibility cannot be detected by magical means. Since true seeing
>> is a magical way to detect invisibility, the dust rule obviously
>> applies.
George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> Dust: cannot be detected by magical means.
> True Seeing: can see all things as they actually are.
>
> Just as True Seeing is a magical means, something affected by Dust of
> Disappearance is a thing. Neither trumps the other.
You missed a step.
Invisibility: can't be seen.
True Seeing: can see invisible things.
Dust of Disappearance: like invisibility, but even magic doesn't work.
If True Seeing said that you see through all illusions, even special
ones that normally can't be detected, then you'd have a conflict. But as
written, there is no ambiguity -- you can't see a dusted creature
visually or magically, and true seeing says nothing to override that
special protection.
George W. Harris
<bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote:
:If True Seeing said that you see through all illusions, even special
:ones that normally can't be detected, then you'd have a conflict.
Of course, True Seeing *does* say you can
see through illusions; no exceptions are listed.
The two descriptions form an inconsistent
system.
--
"The truths of mathematics describe a bright and clear universe,
exquisite and beautiful in its structure, in comparison with
which the physical world is turbid and confused."
-Eulogy for G.H.Hardy
JB
"George W. Harris" <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
news:5bs1nvk05bn9ccld1...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:25:31 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
> <bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> :If True Seeing said that you see through all illusions, even special
> :ones that normally can't be detected, then you'd have a conflict.
>
> Of course, True Seeing *does* say you can
> see through illusions; no exceptions are listed.
True Seeing doesn't tell you that if you walk into an Anti Magic field
you wouldn't be able to tell that the object 100ft in front of you is an
illusion. Nor does it need to because rules have a general hierachy and
one which states that "This illusion cannot be detected by magical
means" over rides one that states "This magic allows the detection of
illusions" *unless* the second rule also stated "including all those
which cannot be normally detected with magic".
> The two descriptions form an inconsistent
> system.
No it simply requires a certain level of skill at reading including the
ability to read for context.
Rado S
> True Seeing doesn't tell you that if you walk into an Anti Magic
> field you wouldn't be able to tell that the object 100ft in
> front of you is an illusion. Nor does it need to because rules
> have a general hierachy and one which states that "This illusion
> cannot be detected by magical means" over rides one that states
> "This magic allows the detection of illusions" *unless* the
> second rule also stated "including all those which cannot be
> normally detected with magic".
Do you know of any explicit passage like "including all those
which cannot be normally detected with magic" to any spell or
item?
If not, does this mean such effects are mortal magic proof?
Rado S
> True Seeing: can see invisible things.
> Dust of Disappearance: like invisibility, but even magic doesn't
> work.
So, the dust has been constructed after the spell list was done?
If people would have known about the dust before completing the
description for "true seeing", and cared to mention such an
exception, they might have done so.
Do you expect every spell and item to be cross-checked for any
single conflicting portion with other effects?
I don't think so.
As it is written, "true seeing" sounds like a "catch all" spell.
Being level 5/6 and having special material components makes it
fairly powerful enough for me to be ambiguous about what effect
wins.
To help me understand you better, will you answer the other post
about the "disjunction" spell?
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Invisibility: can't be seen.
>> True Seeing: can see invisible things.
>> Dust of Disappearance: like invisibility, but even magic doesn't
>> work.
Rado S <rado...@spam.is.invalid> wrote:
> So, the dust has been constructed after the spell list was done?
See JB's reply about antimagic fields. True seeing doesn't mention those
either, but it obviously doesn't work in them.
> To help me understand you better, will you answer the other post about
> the "disjunction" spell?
Why bother? You don't seem to understand even basic stuff.
Neil Cerutti
wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye <bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Invisibility: can't be seen.
>> True Seeing: can see invisible things. Dust of Disappearance:
>> like invisibility, but even magic doesn't work.
>
> So, the dust has been constructed after the spell list was
> done? If people would have known about the dust before
> completing the description for "true seeing", and cared to
> mention such an exception, they might have done so.
>
> Do you expect every spell and item to be cross-checked for any
> single conflicting portion with other effects? I don't think
> so.
The scenario you spun is a "genetic fallacy".
The origin of the rules is irrelevant.
> As it is written, "true seeing" sounds like a "catch all"
> spell.
Spotting invisible creatures is only one of many abilities
granted by True Seeing; perhaps not even the main one.
> Being level 5/6 and having special material components makes it
> fairly powerful enough for me to be ambiguous about what effect
> wins.
As written, DoD dusted characters can't even be seen using a
Wish. That is the rule--unless you change it.
I believe magic invisibility that can't be countered by more
powerful magic designed to detect invisibility is a bad design
adopted to justify the existence of a boring and redundant new
magic item [see my other post.]
--
Neil Cerutti
Bradd W. Szonye
> ... does this mean such effects are mortal magic proof?
Dust of disappearance generally is immune to detection by magic. That's
the whole point of the stuff. You could design a specific spell to
counter it, but it probably wouldn't be worth the effort. It's much
easier to create traps and wards that don't rely on vision.
Rado S
>> To help me understand you better, will you answer the other
>> post about the "disjunction" spell?
>
> Why bother? You don't seem to understand even basic stuff.
Because for me the 2 cases (true seeing, mages disjunction) appear
to be similar in that they overcome anything, even though at lower
levels exist spells/effects that are specifically mentioned as
being not applicable to certain effects, where both haven't been
addressed specifically nor do they carry a statement like "even
things not be dispelled normally".
Rado S
>> To help me understand you better, will you answer the other
>> post about the "disjunction" spell?
>
> Why bother? You don't seem to understand even basic stuff.
Because for me the 2 cases (true seeing, mages disjunction) appear
to be similar in that they overcome anything, even though at lower
levels exist spells/effects that are specifically mentioned as
being not applicable to certain effects, where both haven't been
addressed specifically nor do they carry a statement like "even
things not to be dispelled normally".
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> To help me understand you better, will you answer the other post
>>> about the "disjunction" spell?
> Bradd W. Szonye <bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Why bother? You don't seem to understand even basic stuff.
> Because for me the 2 cases (true seeing, mages disjunction) appear
> to be similar in that they overcome anything ....
And that's your mistake. True seeing does not trump ("overcome")
anything. It simply detects stuff. Meanwhile, dust of disappearance
specifically does trump magical detection.
Rado S
>> Do you expect every spell and item to be cross-checked for any
>> single conflicting portion with other effects? I don't think
>> so.
>
The descriptions of effects have to be limited somehow to get a
book so we can read it in appropriate time.
You can't put all side-effects with other spells/items into each
description to be fool proof, can you?
To fill the gaps it would be helpful to get the idea behind it.
George and I have ours, Bradd has his.
>> As it is written, "true seeing" sounds like a "catch all"
>> spell.
>
> Spotting invisible creatures is only one of many abilities
> granted by True Seeing; perhaps not even the main one.
Does it have a main ability?
Not having one makes it sound like a catch all "overrule".
> As written, DoD dusted characters can't even be seen using a
> Wish. That is the rule--unless you change it.
Where is that from?
(it's not in SRD3.5; I don't have the books)
Neil Cerutti
wrote:
>> As written, DoD dusted characters can't even be seen using a
>> Wish. That is the rule--unless you change it.
>
> Where is that from?
> (it's not in SRD3.5; I don't have the books)
Specifically, a Wish to detect invisible creatures will not work
against DoD.
--
Neil Cerutti
JB
> JB <JB...@talk21.com> wrote:
>
>>True Seeing doesn't tell you that if you walk into an Anti Magic
>>field you wouldn't be able to tell that the object 100ft in
>>front of you is an illusion. Nor does it need to because rules
>>have a general hierachy and one which states that "This illusion
>>cannot be detected by magical means" over rides one that states
>>"This magic allows the detection of illusions" *unless* the
>>second rule also stated "including all those which cannot be
>>normally detected with magic".
>
>
> Do you know of any explicit passage like "including all those
> which cannot be normally detected with magic" to any spell or
> item?
Not of the top of my head. Besides which that would be a poor way to
write a rule. If true seeing functioned against the D of D it would,
barring oversight, be listed as an exception to the rule in the D of D
description.
JB
> Rado S <rado...@spam.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>To help me understand you better, will you answer the other post
>>>>about the "disjunction" spell?
>
>
>>Bradd W. Szonye <bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Why bother? You don't seem to understand even basic stuff.
>
>
>>Because for me the 2 cases (true seeing, mages disjunction) appear
>>to be similar in that they overcome anything ....
>
>
> And that's your mistake. True seeing does not trump ("overcome")
> anything. It simply detects stuff. Meanwhile, dust of disappearance
> specifically does trump magical detection.
Right!
Rado S
>> Because for me the 2 cases (true seeing, mages disjunction)
>> appear to be similar in that they overcome anything ....
>
> And that's your mistake. True seeing does not trump ("overcome")
> anything. It simply detects stuff. Meanwhile, dust of
> disappearance specifically does trump magical detection.
You say true seeing "simply detects stuff".
What in the description makes it "simple"?
By all means, true seeing doesn't appear simple to me.
I say true seeing makes all invisible beings and objects visible.
It says "all things as they actually are", independent of
the means employed to foil vision, which reflected by the
list given.
This makes it "trump" anything for my understanding.
Not for you? Because it doesn't say so explicitly for true seeing?
You need it written literally?
Ok then, we can't agree here.
If DoD were to mean to cover even more powerful (by level)
countermeasures, i.e. really _all_, why not leave just the general
phrase? Why mentioning those 2 spells, why not go for the most
powerful?
Bradd W. Szonye
>> And that's your mistake. True seeing does not trump ("overcome")
>> anything. It simply detects stuff. Meanwhile, dust of
>> disappearance specifically does trump magical detection.
Rado S <rado...@spam.is.invalid> wrote:
> You say true seeing "simply detects stuff". What in the description
> makes it "simple"?
The part where it simply says that it detects stuff, with no mention of
being able to ignore specific countermeasures.
> By all means, true seeing doesn't appear simple to me.
That's your problem. You're easily confused by simple rules.
> I say true seeing makes all invisible beings and objects visible.
Unless they've used some kind of countermeasures, like the dust.
> It says "all things as they actually are", independent of the means
> employed to foil vision, which reflected by the list given. This makes
> it "trump" anything for my understanding.
That's because your ability to read and comprehend rules is
exceptionally poor. Whenever there's even a *hint* of ambiguity, you get
confused, or you latch onto the more counterintuitive of the two
meanings, or you arbitrarily change the context to fit your reading.
> If DoD were to mean to cover even more powerful (by level)
> countermeasures, i.e. really _all_, why not leave just the general
> phrase? Why mentioning those 2 spells, why not go for the most
> powerful?
They are examples. They show that it's immune both to spells which see
invisible things and to spells which remove invisibility. You're reading
too much into it, believing that it only blocks low-level divinations.
As usual, you're trying to force a very limited context onto a more
general rule.
Michael Scott Brown
Dear Rado:
You have recently insisted that "at any point" actually means "only at one
point", despite the direct conflict with all sense and reason that this
engenders.
You continue to fail to understand that True seeing is a MAGICAL means of
detection, and thus an item immune to MAGICAL means of detection will by
definition trump True Seeing, regardless of how good True Seeing is at
MAGICALLY detecting things.
The following observation has become an important one to make: Rado S, you
are a complete and irreedemable mental incompetent. Even though I'm too
busy to engage in any quality debates right now, your idiocy is so
unrepentant and blatant that I was compelled to cry out in protest. Shut
your hole, listen to what the other posters are telling you, and *learn*.
You are not smart enough to come to correct conclusions about game rules.
You are an idiot. The only way you're going to make it through life is
with help from people who are far more intelligent than you. For some
reason, other posters are actually trying to assist you in navigating
through the black clouds of your ignorance - take this precious resource
and make the most of it while you can, because eventually, they will tire
of your limitations, and then you will be treated solely with the contempt
that morons deserve. Like it or not, in the end, the only fit company for
you will be Burke and Love.
-Michael
Rupert Boleyn
>As written, DoD dusted characters can't even be seen using a
>Wish. That is the rule--unless you change it.
They can be outlined though - Wish is certainly capable of filling a
volume with cornflour. Heck, you can get yourself quite a lot of Dust
of Appearance with a Wish.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"A pessimist is simply an optimist with a sense of history."
Neil Cerutti
Boleyn wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2003 17:59:58 GMT, Neil Cerutti <hor...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>As written, DoD dusted characters can't even be seen using a
>>Wish. That is the rule--unless you change it.
>
> They can be outlined though - Wish is certainly capable of
> filling a volume with cornflour. Heck, you can get yourself
> quite a lot of Dust of Appearance with a Wish.
Agreed. But a general wish to see invisible creatures will not
work, I believe.
It might become tricky if specific wishes start entering gray
areas. For example: "I wish every creature within 50 ft of me had
a glowing red arrow floating 5 feet over them and pointing at
them, which only I can see."
Does that count as magic designed to detect invisible creatures?
Perhaps not, since the visibility of the creatures in range is
irrelevent to the wishes wording.
--
Neil Cerutti
Bradd W. Szonye
> It might become tricky if specific wishes start entering gray areas.
> For example: "I wish every creature within 50 ft of me had a glowing
> red arrow floating 5 feet over them and pointing at them, which only I
> can see."
>
> Does that count as magic designed to detect invisible creatures?
> Perhaps not, since the visibility of the creatures in range is
> irrelevent to the wishes wording.
I'd say no, because it doesn't eliminate the concealment miss chance --
the creature is still invisible. It only pinpoints him.
Ubiquitous
: When a character is under the influence of the dust, do you see it with a
: true seeing?
I want to say "Yes", but there's some thing funny about Dust of Disappearance
I can't quite remember at the moment...
JB
> Serge Laventure <sergela...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> : When a character is under the influence of the dust, do you see it with a
> : true seeing?
>
> I want to say "Yes",
Now there's a surprise....
> but there's some thing funny about Dust of Disappearance
> I can't quite remember at the moment...
You would have found all the information you needed in this thread if
you'd bothered to read it first and bloody *learn* something. But, hell,
why break the habit of a lifetime.
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> but there's some thing funny about Dust of Disappearance
>> I can't quite remember at the moment...
>
>You would have found all the information you needed in this thread if
>you'd bothered to read it first and bloody *learn* something. But, hell,
>why break the habit of a lifetime.
Oh, do get a clue...
--
======================================================================
ISLAM: Winning the hearts and minds of the world, one bomb at a time.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> You would have found all the information you needed in this thread if
>> you'd bothered to read it first and bloody *learn* something. But,
>> hell, why break the habit of a lifetime.
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> Oh, do get a clue...
We have all the clues we need, you stupid troll.
Scott Schimmel
<bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote:
>Neil Cerutti <hor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It might become tricky if specific wishes start entering gray areas.
>> For example: "I wish every creature within 50 ft of me had a glowing
>> red arrow floating 5 feet over them and pointing at them, which only I
>> can see."
>>
>> Does that count as magic designed to detect invisible creatures?
>> Perhaps not, since the visibility of the creatures in range is
>> irrelevent to the wishes wording.
>
>I'd say no, because it doesn't eliminate the concealment miss chance --
>the creature is still invisible. It only pinpoints him.
Then how about "I wish I knew exactly where all creatures within 60'
of me were"? It's not magic designed to detect invisible creatures
per se -- it's broader than that. But it would certainly locate
invisible creatures, although the wisher wouldn't *see* them. (It'd
be closer to the 3.0 version of blindsight.)
Though, really, there are many better uses for a wish...
--
Scott Schimmel * Ex ignorantia ad sapientium;
* ex luce ad tenebras.
"You really aren't normal, are you?" - Miki Koishikawa
Bradd W. Szonye
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:51:29 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
><bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Neil Cerutti <hor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> It might become tricky if specific wishes start entering gray areas.
>>> For example: "I wish every creature within 50 ft of me had a glowing
>>> red arrow floating 5 feet over them and pointing at them, which only I
>>> can see."
>>>
>>> Does that count as magic designed to detect invisible creatures?
>>> Perhaps not, since the visibility of the creatures in range is
>>> irrelevent to the wishes wording.
>>
>>I'd say no, because it doesn't eliminate the concealment miss chance --
>>the creature is still invisible. It only pinpoints him.
>
> Then how about "I wish I knew exactly where all creatures within 60'
> of me were"?
Basically the same thing, just without the special effect.
Rado S
> Specifically, a Wish to detect invisible creatures will not work
> against DoD.
Ok, I've checked now SRD3.5, SRD3.0, DMG 3.0, and in neither I
find the word or spell "wish" in the desc. of DoD.
Please, can you cite the document, page&lines where this is?
James Quick
Rado S <rado...@spam.is.invalid> wrote:
> Neil Cerutti <hor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Specifically, a Wish to detect invisible creatures will not work
> > against DoD.
>
> Ok, I've checked now SRD3.5, SRD3.0, DMG 3.0, and in neither I
> find the word or spell "wish" in the desc. of DoD.
> Please, can you cite the document, page&lines where this is?
What makes you think it has to be specifically omitted? Do you think
that a wish does not fall under the "nor can they be detected by
magical means" umbrella? Why not?
--
James Quick [][][] jamesqu...@hotmail.com
Profanity is the first resort of the inarticulate motherfucker.
-- Elizabeth D. Brooks, among others.
Rado S
>> Ok, I've checked now SRD3.5, SRD3.0, DMG 3.0, and in neither I
>> find the word or spell "wish" in the desc. of DoD.
>> Please, can you cite the document, page&lines where this is?
>
> What makes you think it has to be specifically omitted? Do you
> think that a wish does not fall under the "nor can they be
> detected by magical means" umbrella? Why not?
As you might have figured out, I tend to believe that the higher
the level, the more powerful the spell. In particular "wish" used
to be the "do it all" spell that always worked except where
specifically excluded.
So, if there were such explicit exception for "wish", then I'd have
to rest my case about "true seeing" without any doubt.
Š Rado S. -- So much to do, but too little time to take care of it all.
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> Ok, I've checked now SRD3.5, SRD3.0, DMG 3.0, and in neither I find
>>> the word or spell "wish" in the desc. of DoD. Please, can you cite
>>> the document, page&lines where this is?
> James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> What makes you think it has to be specifically omitted? Do you think
>> that a wish does not fall under the "nor can they be detected by
>> magical means" umbrella? Why not?
> As you might have figured out, I tend to believe that the higher the
> level, the more powerful the spell.
That's true. However, "higher level" does not generally mean "ignores
lower-level defenses." If that were true, spells like protection from
energy would be nearly useless. When a defense is overridden by
higher-level spells, the description says so explicitly.
Seebs
Bradd W. Szonye <bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote:
>examples show that it even defeats spells specifically designed to see
>invisible creatures.
>You're not very good at this "interpreting rules" thing, are you?
Well, compare it with Discern Location/Mind Blank. Discern Location sees
things protected from scrying, but mind blank is higher level, so it blocks
DL.
True seeing is higher level than Dust of Disappearance, and ought to punch
through it by default.
-s
--
Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ - YA blog. http://www.seebs.net/ - homepage.
C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Seebs
Bradd W. Szonye <bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote:
>And that's your mistake. True seeing does not trump ("overcome")
>anything. It simply detects stuff. Meanwhile, dust of disappearance
>specifically does trump magical detection.
True seeing is described as seeing past any and all illusions. That implies
that it trumps the normal rules for illusion effects.
The big deal, IMHO, is that there's a strong general rule that, if two spells
are directly opposed, the higher-level one wins.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> And that's your mistake. True seeing does not trump ("overcome")
>> anything. It simply detects stuff. Meanwhile, dust of disappearance
>> specifically does trump magical detection.
Seebs <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
> True seeing is described as seeing past any and all illusions. That
> implies that it trumps the normal rules for illusion effects.
>
> The big deal, IMHO, is that there's a strong general rule that, if two
> spells are directly opposed, the higher-level one wins.
That simply isn't true. Forbiddance, a 6th-level spell, seals an area
against all planar travel, including greater teleport (7th level) and
astral projection (9th level). Heck, even dimensional anchor (4th level)
prevents teleportation of all kinds. And an antimagic field (6th level)
suppresses all mortal magic -- even disjunction has only a small chance
of overcoming it.
When a spell is countered or suppressed by higher-level spells, the
description explicitly says so. Your "general rule" does not exist.
Indeed, magical defenses are often of a lower level than the spells they
protect against.
Michael Scott Brown
news:3f75e9a4$0$1097$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
> True seeing is higher level than Dust of Disappearance, and ought to punch
> through it by default.
Your argument has interesting implications for greater invisibility and
see invisibility, for Meteor Swarm and protection from fire ... accordingly,
this "ought" and "by default" does not follow.
-Michael
Seebs
Bradd W. Szonye <bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote:
>description explicitly says so. Your "general rule" does not exist.
>Indeed, magical defenses are often of a lower level than the spells they
>protect against.
Okay, you've convinced me. The special cases (light, darkness) are better
understood as introducing a special rule for light and darkness spells.
Rado S
branch:
> > James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> What makes you think it has to be specifically omitted? Do you
> >> detected by magical means" umbrella? Why not?
> >
> > As you might have figured out, I tend to believe that the higher
> > the level, the more powerful the spell.
>
> That's true. However, "higher level" does not generally mean
> "ignores lower-level defenses." If that were true, spells like
> protection from energy would be nearly useless. When a defense
> explicitly.
Right.
It seems I didn't make my point clear enough, because here we are
discussing "higher level trumps lower level", while you still
don't grant why this discussion is necessary at all.
Seebs <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnbnctqf.i...@szonye.com>,
> Bradd W. Szonye <bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote:
>>When a spell is countered or suppressed by higher-level spells,
>>the description explicitly says so. Your "general rule" does not
>>exist. Indeed, magical defenses are often of a lower level than
>>the spells they protect against.
>
> Okay, you've convinced me. The special cases (light, darkness)
> are better understood as introducing a special rule for light
> and darkness spells.
There is no written rule about "higher beats lower level", but
this isn't the point yet.
DoD says:
------ QUOTE BEGIN ------
nor can they be detected by magical means, including see
invisibility or invisibility purge.
------- QUOTE END -------
When I read TS, the whole description appears to me as equivalent
to "TS looks through all magical means to produce false
perception".
It's not literally written "(any) magical means" like it is for
DoD, but it's still the same.
Is it not? If not, why not?
If it is, then you have "all magical means" on both sides.
Now we would have to see which wins... but first you have to show
me that the TS description is not of the same power as DoD's,
meaning to work against "all magic means of the opposing type".
--
© Rado S. -- So much to do, but too little time to take care of it all.
Michael Scott Brown
news:bnbt27$q0q$1...@rzsun03.rrz.uni-hamburg.de...
> ------ QUOTE BEGIN ------
> nor can they be detected by magical means, including see
> invisibility or invisibility purge.
> ------- QUOTE END -------
>
> When I read TS, the whole description appears to me as equivalent
> to "TS looks through all magical means to produce false
> perception".
Rado, you are *still* being a gods-damnned moron.
*TS* is a *magical means* of piercing (magical) illusions.
Dust of Disappearance negates *magical means* of detection.
It's just that easy.
Shut your hole and LEARN.
-Michael
George W. Harris
: Rado, you are *still* being a gods-damnned moron.
: *TS* is a *magical means* of piercing (magical) illusions.
:
: Dust of Disappearance negates *magical means* of detection.
:
: It's just that easy.
No, it isn't. Both are clearly described,
one as an irresistable force, the other as an
immovable object. Repeating "It's an
*immovable* object!" doesn't resolve the
difficulty.
:-Michael
--
When Ramanujan was my age, he had been dead for nine years. -after Tom Lehrer
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Michael Scott Brown
news:vh3jpv0vrvr4m2qgk...@4ax.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mbr...@rand.org> wrote:
>
> : Rado, you are *still* being a gods-damnned moron.
> : *TS* is a *magical means* of piercing (magical) illusions.
> :
> : Dust of Disappearance negates *magical means* of detection.
> :
> : It's just that easy.
>
> No, it isn't. Both are clearly described,
> one as an irresistable force, the other as an
> immovable object.
Bah. It's no different from saying that you have an armor that is
immune to armor piercing bullets, which penetrate armor.
Notice what happens if you insist that True Seeing works on DoD - then
the description of the DoD is *false*.
Which is clearly silly.
But if True Seeing is a magical means of piercing (magical) illusions
*if and only if magical means can do the job*, then there is no dichotomy
if it encounters a phenomenon immune to magic.
-Michael
George W. Harris
: Bah. It's no different from saying that you have an armor that is
:immune to armor piercing bullets, which penetrate armor.
If you have armor that is immune to
armor-piercing bullets, and bullets that can pierce
anything, then...
: Notice what happens if you insist that True Seeing works on DoD - then
:the description of the DoD is *false*.
And if you insist that True Seeing *doesn't*
work on D0D, then the description of True Seeing is
false.
: Which is clearly silly.
There is no consistent interpretation of how
the two interact.
: But if True Seeing is a magical means of piercing (magical) illusions
:*if and only if magical means can do the job*, then there is no dichotomy
:if it encounters a phenomenon immune to magic.
There's no such language in the description of
True Seeing, however; it says you see all things as they
actually are. Again, if you insist that True Seeing *doesn't*
work on DoD, then the description of True Seeing is
false.
:-Michael
--
"The truths of mathematics describe a bright and clear universe,
exquisite and beautiful in its structure, in comparison with
which the physical world is turbid and confused."
-Eulogy for G.H.Hardy
Michael Scott Brown
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mbr...@rand.org> wrote:
> : Bah. It's no different from saying that you have an armor that is
> :immune to armor piercing bullets, which penetrate armor.
>
> If you have armor that is immune to armor-piercing bullets, and bullets
that can pierce
> anything, then...
You are making a willfully stupid overgeneralization. Let's try this
again -
(1) armor piercing bullets are a specific type of bullet designed to
penetrate armors.
(true seeing is a magical spell designed to penetrate illusionary
magics)
(2) armor-piercing-bullet-resistant armor is a *specific type* of armor
that is *specifically* resistant to armor piercing bullets.
Ie; the resistant armor DEFINES ITSELF as not a member of the
set-of-things that AP bullets affect.
( dust of disappearance is a specific type of magical effect that is
specifically resistant to all forms of magical detection)
In the presence of both of these concepts, we realize that armor
piercing bullets penetrate armors *exept for resistant ones*.
Basic english. Perfectly comprehensible.
When something says "magic doesn't work on me", then *magical* ways of
detecting it fail. It doesn't matter how spiffy they are, in fact, the
moment you take magic off the table, it doesn't matter what the spell
description even says; the whole effect is negated.
> : But if True Seeing is a magical means of piercing (magical)
illusions
> :*if and only if magical means can do the job*, then there is no dichotomy
> :if it encounters a phenomenon immune to magic.
>
> There's no such language in the description of
> True Seeing, however;
Nor does there bloody well need to be. TRUE SEEING IS A *SPELL*.
Is it magical? Yes.
Can magical detection work on DoD? No.
That's all she wrote. Everything about the specifics of True Seeing is
irrelevant at this point, because it's not among the set of things that can
find the target.
-Michael
George W. Harris
: Nor does there bloody well need to be. TRUE SEEING IS A *SPELL*.
: Is it magical? Yes.
: Can magical detection work on DoD? No.
Is something with DoD on it a thing? Yes.
Can True Seeing allow someone to see *all*
things as they actually are? Yes.
You can't look at just one part of the system.
There is no consistent interpretation; one or the other
descriptions must be falsified. There's no reason to
prefer to falsify True Seeing's description.
--
e^(i*pi)+1=0
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
JB
> "George W. Harris" <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
> Nor does there bloody well need to be. TRUE SEEING IS A *SPELL*.
> Is it magical? Yes.
> Can magical detection work on DoD? No.
Note that you're discussing rule interpretation with a giant spread of
nob cheese who couldn't grasp the concept of context if it yelled "grasp
me, I'm context!". The answer to this question was given *ages* ago and,
at risk of sounding like a grumpy son of a bitch, the answer is bloody
obvious to anyone with even half a brain.
Hong Ooi
|\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
>Bradd W. |\/\/\/|bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote |\/\/\/|er
>branch: |\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
>> > James|\/\/\/|JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote: |\/\/\/|
>> >> What|\/\/\/|ou think it has to be specifically om|\/\/\/|o you
>> >> thin|\/\/\/| wish does not fall under the "nor ca|\/\/\/|e
>> >> dete|\/\/\/|magical means" umbrella? Why not? |\/\/\/|
>> > |\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
>> > As yo|\/\/\/|have figured out, I tend to believe t|\/\/\/|higher
>> > the l|\/\/\/|e more powerful the spell. |\/\/\/|
>> |\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
>> That's |\/\/\/|wever, "higher level" does not genera|\/\/\/|
>> "ignore|\/\/\/|level defenses." If that were true, s|\/\/\/|ke
>> protect|\/\/\/| energy would be nearly useless. When|\/\/\/|se
>> is over|\/\/\/|y higher-level spells, the descriptio|\/\/\/|o
>> explici|\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
> |\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
>Right. |\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
> |\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
>It seems |\/\/\/| make my point clear enough, because |\/\/\/|are
>discussin|\/\/\/|r level trumps lower level", while yo|\/\/\/
>don't gra|\/\/\/|his discussion is necessary at all. |\/\/\/|
> |\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
>Seebs <se|\/\/\/|hora.net> wrote: |\/\/\/|
>> In arti|\/\/\/|nbnctqf.il7...@szonye.com>, |\/\/\/|
>> Bradd W|\/\/\/| <bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrot|\/\/\/|
>>>When a |\/\/\/| countered or suppressed by higher-le|\/\/\/|ls,
>>>the des|\/\/\/| explicitly says so. Your "general ru|\/\/\/| not
>>>exist. |\/\/\/|magical defenses are often of a lower|\/\/\/|han
>>>the spe|\/\/\/| protect against. |\/\/\/|
>> |\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
>> Okay, y|\/\/\/|nvinced me. The special cases (light,|\/\/\/|s)
>> are bet|\/\/\/|rstood as introducing a special rule |\/\/\/|t
>> and dar|\/\/\/|ells. |\/\/\/|
> |\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
>There is |\/\/\/|en rule about "higher beats lower lev|\/\/\/|
>this isn'|\/\/\/|int yet. |\/\/\/|
> |\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
>DoD says:|\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
>------ QU|\/\/\/|N ------ |\/\/\/|
> nor can |\/\/\/|detected by magical means, including |\/\/\/|
> invisibi|\/\/\/|invisibility purge. |\/\/\/|
>------- Q|\/\/\/| ------- |\/\/\/|
> |\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
>When I re|\/\/\/|he whole description appears to me as|\/\/\/|ent
>to "TS lo|\/\/\/|ugh all magical means to produce fals|\/\/\/|
>perceptio|\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
> |\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
>It's not |\/\/\/|y written "(any) magical means" like |\/\/\/|r
>DoD, but |\/\/\/|ll the same. |\/\/\/|
> |\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
>Is it not|\/\/\/|, why not? |\/\/\/|
> |\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
>If it is,|\/\/\/|u have "all magical means" on both si|\/\/\/|
>Now we wo|\/\/\/| to see which wins... but first you h|\/\/\/|how
>me that t|\/\/\/|scription is not of the same power as|\/\/\/
>meaning t|\/\/\/|gainst "all magic means of the opposi|\/\/\/|.
|\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
|\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
|\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
|\/\/\/| |\/\/\/|
Can we get back to bashing Burke now?
--
Hong Ooi | "Does *anyone* at WOTC bother to
ho...@zipworld.com.au | _think_ when making housecat stats?"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- MSB
Sydney, Australia |
JB
> Can we get back to bashing Burke now?
Burke?! I call mine the little General.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Note that you're discussing rule interpretation with a giant spread of
> nob cheese who couldn't grasp the concept of context if it yelled
> "grasp me, I'm context!". The answer to this question was given *ages*
> ago and, at risk of sounding like a grumpy son of a bitch, the answer
> is bloody obvious to anyone with even half a brain.
Is this the part where I'm supposed to say, "The only immovable object
here is George's bulletproof skull," and he starts a long bout of
stalking where he responds to everything I write with stupid objections
to "make me look bad"?
JB
> JB <JB...@talk21.com> wrote:
>
>>Note that you're discussing rule interpretation with a giant spread of
>>nob cheese who couldn't grasp the concept of context if it yelled
>>"grasp me, I'm context!". The answer to this question was given *ages*
>>ago and, at risk of sounding like a grumpy son of a bitch, the answer
>>is bloody obvious to anyone with even half a brain.
>
>
> Is this the part where I'm supposed to say, "The only immovable object
> here is George's bulletproof skull," and he starts a long bout of
> stalking where he responds to everything I write with stupid objections
> to "make me look bad"?
Obviously you're a reformable character. I, on the other hand, have been
kill filed. Who gets the worse deal?
First Prophet of Kaos
<gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>"Michael Scott Brown" <mbr...@rand.org> wrote:
>
>: Rado, you are *still* being a gods-damnned moron.
>: *TS* is a *magical means* of piercing (magical) illusions.
>:
>: Dust of Disappearance negates *magical means* of detection.
>:
>: It's just that easy.
>
> No, it isn't. Both are clearly described,
>one as an irresistable force, the other as an
>immovable object.
Meh. The irresistable foce cuts through the immovable object. No
need to move it.
--
When in doubt, RTFM.
First Prophet of Kaos
<gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>"Michael Scott Brown" <mbr...@rand.org> wrote:
>
>: Bah. It's no different from saying that you have an armor that is
>:immune to armor piercing bullets, which penetrate armor.
>
> If you have armor that is immune to
>armor-piercing bullets, and bullets that can pierce
>anything, then...
Then you have bullets which are an order of magnitude above both
'armour piercing bullets,' and the arnour designed to stop them
>: But if True Seeing is a magical means of piercing (magical) illusions
>:*if and only if magical means can do the job*, then there is no dichotomy
>:if it encounters a phenomenon immune to magic.
>
> There's no such language in the description of
>True Seeing,
Save by it's very nature.
First Prophet of Kaos
<gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>: Nor does there bloody well need to be. TRUE SEEING IS A *SPELL*.
>: Is it magical? Yes.
>: Can magical detection work on DoD? No.
>
> Is something with DoD on it a thing? Yes.
>
> Can True Seeing allow someone to see *all*
>things as they actually are? Yes.
No. True seeing allows somoene to see all things as they *actually*
are. Note the difference.
Michael Scott Brown
news:jonppvgot8iepep5k...@4ax.com...
Heh - and they've actually disappeared!
George still seems to have a problem with recognizing that a MAGICAL
means of detection cannot work if MAGICAL means of detection are
specifically disallowed, no matter how powerful the MAGICAL means of
detection would be if MAGICAL detection were on the table.
Really, kids - See Invisibility lets you see invisible things, but DoD
says it can't be seen by See Invisibility - the "conflict" you claim is
there with True Seeing is no less present there - and yet, *somehow*, every
bloody reader of the book was able to take
{sees Invisible things} + {can't bee seen by See Invisibility} = {sees
Invisible things EXCEPT for those with DoD}
Yet, for some reason, your puny little brains short circuit when doing
the same operation with true seeing.
I find this somewhat pathetic.
DoD creates an EXCEPTION. Put the rules together!
-Michael
Matthew Miller
> George still seems to have a problem with recognizing that a MAGICAL
> means of detection cannot work if MAGICAL means of detection are
> specifically disallowed, no matter how powerful the MAGICAL means of
> detection would be if MAGICAL detection were on the table.
He'd have a point if True Seeing said "penatrates all magical means of
invisiblity", or some such. But it doesn't, actually. In fact, it gives a
list of specific things it can, um, truly see.
What the rules actually *say* aside, I think it'd be *better* if things
were changed so True Seeing were more powerful, since I think that's
really the intention. But it ain't so now.
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
George W. Harris
: George still seems to have a problem with recognizing that a MAGICAL
:means of detection cannot work if MAGICAL means of detection are
:specifically disallowed, no matter how powerful the MAGICAL means of
:detection would be if MAGICAL detection were on the table.
Michael, the issue isn't that I don't understand
the description of Dust of Disappearance; I do. I *also*
understand the description of True Seeing. The two
contradict one another. *That* is the issue.
--
Real men don't need macho posturing to bolster their egos.
Michael Scott Brown
news:iamqpvo8o5ke7ql9q...@4ax.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> : George still seems to have a problem with recognizing that a MAGICAL
> :means of detection cannot work if MAGICAL means of detection are
> :specifically disallowed, no matter how powerful the MAGICAL means of
> :detection would be if MAGICAL detection were on the table.
>
> Michael, the issue isn't that I don't understand
> the description of Dust of Disappearance; I do. I *also*
> understand the description of True Seeing. The two
> contradict one another. *That* is the issue.
<shakes head sadly>
-Michael
George W. Harris
:He'd have a point if True Seeing said "penatrates all magical means of
:invisiblity", or some such.
Or if it said "You confer on the subject the
ability to see all things as they actually are."
Oh, wait.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* fifty states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris
: <shakes head sadly>
Shake it some more, maybe your brain will
fall into place.
--
They say there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
Matthew Miller
>:He'd have a point if True Seeing said "penatrates all magical means of
>:invisiblity", or some such.
> Or if it said "You confer on the subject the
> ability to see all things as they actually are."
> Oh, wait.
Well, except that's kinda vague. How, exactly, *are* things actually? Do
you see that most things are mostly vacuum? Do you perceive that all
entities are manifestations of one universal whole, and understand that
the distinction between different objects is meaningless and therefore
indistinguishable?
Probably not. What *does* happen is further specified by the core of the
description of the spell, which lists exactly the ways in which the
subject can now see.
I agree that this flavor text is useful for reading the *intention* of the
spell -- but I don't think it's clear enough to use to adjucate the
effects specifically. Especially not in cases like this one.
Neil Cerutti
Harris wrote:
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>: <shakes head sadly>
>
> Shake it some more, maybe your brain will fall into place.
It's not a real dilemma. Consider The Man in Black: He takes
advantage of a similar logical mistake by Casseti to defeat him.
--
Neil Cerutti
George W. Harris
:Probably not. What *does* happen is further specified by the core of the
:description of the spell, which lists exactly the ways in which the
:subject can now see.
"...sees invisible creatures and objects normally,..."
--
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV!
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Matthew Miller
>:Probably not. What *does* happen is further specified by the core of the
>:description of the spell, which lists exactly the ways in which the
>:subject can now see.
> "...sees invisible creatures and objects normally,..."
Right, and See Invisibility says "You can see any objects or beings that
are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are
ethereal, as if they were normally visible." That's almost exactly the
same wording -- yet we know Dust of Disappearance overrides that.
George W. Harris
:George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
:>:Probably not. What *does* happen is further specified by the core of the
:>:description of the spell, which lists exactly the ways in which the
:>:subject can now see.
:> "...sees invisible creatures and objects normally,..."
:
:Right, and See Invisibility says "You can see any objects or beings that
:are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are
:ethereal, as if they were normally visible." That's almost exactly the
:same wording -- yet we know Dust of Disappearance overrides that.
Does Dust of Disappearance specifically
mention See Invisible? Does it specifically mention
True Seeing?
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they
taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does." -Groucho Marx
Michael Scott Brown
news:dfuqpv4o7ka8m0cgc...@4ax.com...
> Does Dust of Disappearance specifically
> mention See Invisible? Does it specifically mention
> True Seeing?
By mentioning MAGIC it specifies all of them, jackass.
-Michael
Matthew Miller
>:ethereal, as if they were normally visible." That's almost exactly the
>:same wording -- yet we know Dust of Disappearance overrides that.
> Does Dust of Disappearance specifically
> mention See Invisible? Does it specifically mention
> True Seeing?
It mentions "magical means", and gives See Invisibility and Invisibility
Purge as examples. Can't you look this up?
George W. Harris
:George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
:>:ethereal, as if they were normally visible." That's almost exactly the
:>:same wording -- yet we know Dust of Disappearance overrides that.
:> Does Dust of Disappearance specifically
:> mention See Invisible? Does it specifically mention
:> True Seeing?
:
:It mentions "magical means", and gives See Invisibility and Invisibility
:Purge as examples. Can't you look this up?
Just because someone asks a question
doesn't mean they don't know the answer.
Michael Scott Brown
news:ni4rpv0bfbe4u0qdh...@4ax.com...
> :It mentions "magical means", and gives See Invisibility and Invisibility
> :Purge as examples. Can't you look this up?
>
> Just because someone asks a question
> doesn't mean they don't know the answer.
Then what about "magical means" don't you understand, exactly?
-Michael
George W. Harris
:"George W. Harris" <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
Since your asking this question indicates you
haven't read any of my other posts, I'm not going to
bother explaining it again.
:-Michael
--
"Intelligence is too complex to capture in a single number." -Alfred Binet
Michael Scott Brown
>
> Since your asking this question indicates you
> haven't read any of my other posts, I'm not going to
> bother explaining it again.
You haven't explained jack or shit, Harris - save that you continue to
*moronically* assume that there are immovable object/unstoppable force
issues here, despite the fact that everything about True Seeing's
capabilities depends on magic, which can't work, and therefore the
pre-eminence of that spell's capability is rendered *irrelevant*.
You also try to hem and haw about True Seeing being not mentioned
specifically, except that the category of means it *does* specify *includes
true seeing* (magic).
In short, you don't have any legs to stand on.
-Michael
First Prophet of Kaos
<mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"First Prophet of Kaos" <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:jonppvgot8iepep5k...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 01:48:39 GMT, George W. Harris
>> <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >: Nor does there bloody well need to be. TRUE SEEING IS A *SPELL*.
>> >: Is it magical? Yes.
>> >: Can magical detection work on DoD? No.
>> >
>> > Is something with DoD on it a thing? Yes.
>> >
>> > Can True Seeing allow someone to see *all*
>> >things as they actually are? Yes.
>>
>> No. True seeing allows somoene to see all things as they *actually*
>> are. Note the difference.
>
> Heh - and they've actually disappeared!
>
> George still seems to have a problem with recognizing that a MAGICAL
>means of detection cannot work if MAGICAL means of detection are
>specifically disallowed, no matter how powerful the MAGICAL means of
>detection would be if MAGICAL detection were on the table.
Sort of like how the immovable object isn't concerned with the
irresistable force when the force isn't even on the same plane.
First Prophet of Kaos
<gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>Matthew Miller <mat...@mattdm.org> wrote:
>
>:George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>:>:Probably not. What *does* happen is further specified by the core of the
>:>:description of the spell, which lists exactly the ways in which the
>:>:subject can now see.
>:> "...sees invisible creatures and objects normally,..."
>:
>:Right, and See Invisibility says "You can see any objects or beings that
>:are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are
>:ethereal, as if they were normally visible." That's almost exactly the
>:same wording -- yet we know Dust of Disappearance overrides that.
>
> Does Dust of Disappearance specifically
>mention See Invisible? Does it specifically mention
>True Seeing?
Does Skip wipe your ass for you?
Neil Cerutti
...so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
--
Neil Cerutti
Rado S
> capabilities depends on magic, which can't work, and therefore
> the pre-eminence of that spell's capability is rendered
Now TS "looks through" everything "changed", including changed by
magic. By your reasoning, likewise any magic source like DoD
should be _irrelevant_.
Why is this not the case, why is DoD relevant here?
--
© Rado S. -- So much to do, but too little time to take care of it all.
Michael Scott Brown
news:bnm2dp$5qb$1...@rzsun03.rrz.uni-hamburg.de...
> Michael Scott Brown <mbr...@rand.org> wrote:
> > [...], despite the fact that everything about True Seeing's
> > capabilities depends on magic, which can't work, and therefore
> > the pre-eminence of that spell's capability is rendered
> > *irrelevant*. [...]
>
> Now TS "looks through" everything "changed", including changed by
> magic.
You are repeating the same moronic mistake.
MAGIC DETECTION *CANNOT WORK*.
Therefore, the *details* of any particular magic spell are IRRELEVANT.
It doesn't fucking *matter* that True Seeing is the bees' knees in
divination - it is a TYPE of divination (MAGICAL) that is SPECIFICALLY
DISALLOWED where DoD is concerned.
-Michael
Rado S
Whether mistake or not, you are just repeating yourself, too.
> MAGIC DETECTION *CANNOT WORK*.
> Therefore, the *details* of any particular magic spell are
> IRRELEVANT.
Even though TS doesn't use the phrase "magic camouflage of any
kind doesn't work" (which DoD is), the description covers that!
> [...] - it [TS] is a TYPE of divination (MAGICAL) that is
> SPECIFICALLY DISALLOWED where DoD is concerned.
Ok, you want to say that DoD is an exception to TS, right?
So, to have an exception, you need a general statement.
You assume TS comes first (the general statement), then comes the
exception by DoD.
What if you read DoD first?
Then DoD becomes the general statement, and TS becomes the
exception.
If you argue just by the order of reading, then fine with me.
But I think there is more than just that...
Maybe George, MSB, Bradd and I are too stuck with our positions.
Can anyone pull George & me out?
Why isn't it so clear to us?
What makes DoD a valid exception to TS and not vice versa?
(if possible, only somebody answer who has at least a vague idea
why we don't get it, and just the arguments, please; we had enough
of the other crap)
JB
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> You are repeating the same moronic mistake.
>
>
> Whether mistake or not, you are just repeating yourself, too.
>
That's because he keeps having to repeat the correct answer over and
over again.
>>MAGIC DETECTION *CANNOT WORK*.
>>Therefore, the *details* of any particular magic spell are
>>IRRELEVANT.
>
>
> Even though TS doesn't use the phrase "magic camouflage of any
> kind doesn't work" (which DoD is), the description covers that!
Irrelevant.
>
>>[...] - it [TS] is a TYPE of divination (MAGICAL) that is
>>SPECIFICALLY DISALLOWED where DoD is concerned.
>
>
> Ok, you want to say that DoD is an exception to TS, right?
> So, to have an exception, you need a general statement.
> You assume TS comes first (the general statement), then comes the
> exception by DoD.
>
> What if you read DoD first?
Irrelevant.
> Then DoD becomes the general statement, and TS becomes the
> exception.
> If you argue just by the order of reading, then fine with me.
> But I think there is more than just that...
>
> Maybe George, MSB, Bradd and I are too stuck with our positions.
Bradd is stuck in the right position. There are only a limited number of
ways to communicate it to you.
> Can anyone pull George & me out?
It seems unlikely.
> Why isn't it so clear to us?
Well, I can give you my theory if you like.
> What makes DoD a valid exception to TS and not vice versa?
The answer is in the post you replied to, a plethora of others too.
Neil Cerutti
wrote:
> Maybe George, MSB, Bradd and I are too stuck with our positions.
> Can anyone pull George & me out?
> Why isn't it so clear to us?
> What makes DoD a valid exception to TS and not vice versa?
> (if possible, only somebody answer who has at least a vague
> idea why we don't get it, and just the arguments, please; we
> had enough of the other crap)
Knowledge is complex; logic is intricate.
First statement: True Seeing allows you to magically see
invisible creatures.
Second statemet: Dust of Disappearance makes you invisible in a
way that cannot be penetrated with magical means.
I view the second as an exception to the first because the second
statement is more specific; a specific statement generally
overrules a more general statement. E.g., I before E except after
C.
The consistent interpretation (as posted elsewhere) is that Dust
of Disappearance renders you actually invisible.
--
Neil Cerutti
Michael Scott Brown
> > MAGIC DETECTION *CANNOT WORK*.
> > Therefore, the *details* of any particular magic spell are
> > IRRELEVANT.
>
> Even though TS doesn't use the phrase "magic camouflage of any
> kind doesn't work" (which DoD is), the description covers that!
What about "TS is magic" don't you understand? What about "MAGIC CANNOT
WORK" don't you understand?
*If* magic can work, *then* {look at TS description to find out how it
works on this target}
It's just that easy. This is *not* a contradiction of the rules for
True Seeing, because True Seeing's specifics NEVER COME INTO PLAY.
Whereas, if you force True Seeing to work on dust of disappearance, then
you directly contradict the item description, because you're letting magic
work on a thing that says magic cannot work on it.
One approach CONTRADICTS THE RULES. The other mates them perfectly.
You *do* comprehend that True Seeing would not work within an antimagic
field ... don't you?
But the spell description says it allows you to see things as they
really are, no exceptions!
Isn't this a contradiction?
When you understand that AMF can suppress TS without a conflict, then
you can understand that DoD can bypass TS without a conflict.
> Ok, you want to say that DoD is an exception to TS, right?
No. DoD is IMPERVIOUS TO MAGICAL MEANS OF DETECTION.
> Maybe George, MSB, Bradd and I are too stuck with our positions.
> Can anyone pull George & me out?
Only with shovels to the backs of your heads.
> Why isn't it so clear to us?
Because you are very stupid people who should not play D&D without the
assistance of smarter friends than you have thus far managed to acquire.
> What makes DoD a valid exception to TS and not vice versa?
CANNOT BE DETECTED WITH *MAGIC*
-Michael
Rado S
> In article <bnmc4u$7lt$1...@rzsun03.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>, Rado S
> wrote:
>> What makes DoD a valid exception to TS and not vice versa?
>
> invisible creatures.
>
> Second statemet: Dust of Disappearance makes you invisible in a
> way that cannot be penetrated with magical means.
>
> I view the second as an exception to the first because the second
> statement is more specific; a specific statement generally
> overrules a more general statement. E.g., I before E except after
> C.
> Neil Cerutti
Thanks.
Finally I can give it a rest.
Not because this logic is new to me (I always knew why the other
side insisted on its position), but it is new to me that the other
side limits its view with "blinkers" on just that order,
neglecting alternative reasoning to allow for an alternative
ruling.
About being "specific", as you said it's "generally". DoD is
specific about the 2 given example spells, especially since they
are crafted to beat invisibility generally, but also somehow
specifically limited to invisibility.
However, the description of TS indiciates that it works
differently than "see invisibility" or "invisibility purge", which
makes me wonder whether DoD applies to TS the same way as to the 2
listed. Just wonder, i.e. there are doubts. I don't claim my
position is correct, or "more" correct than TS failing against
DoD.
BTW, if we go by DoD beats TS, what about the alignment detection
of TS: is that blocked, too?
Neil Cerutti
> Neil Cerutti <hor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <bnmc4u$7lt$1...@rzsun03.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>, Rado S
>> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> What makes DoD a valid exception to TS and not vice versa?
>>
>> First statement: True Seeing allows you to magically see
>> invisible creatures.
>>
>> Second statemet: Dust of Disappearance makes you invisible in a
>> way that cannot be penetrated with magical means.
>>
>> I view the second as an exception to the first because the second
>> statement is more specific; a specific statement generally
>> overrules a more general statement. E.g., I before E except after
>> C.
>> --
>> Neil Cerutti
>
> Thanks.
>
> Finally I can give it a rest. Not because this logic is new to
> me (I always knew why the other side insisted on its position),
> but it is new to me that the other side limits its view with
> "blinkers" on just that order, neglecting alternative reasoning
> to allow for an alternative ruling.
>
> About being "specific", as you said it's "generally". DoD is
> specific about the 2 given example spells,
But, they are *just* examples. It's hazardous to derive specifics
based on examples, which may have their own peculiarities.
> especially since they are crafted to beat invisibility
> generally, but also somehow specifically limited to
> invisibility.
>
> However, the description of TS indiciates that it works
> differently than "see invisibility" or "invisibility purge",
> which makes me wonder whether DoD applies to TS the same way as
> to the 2 listed. Just wonder, i.e. there are doubts. I don't
> claim my position is correct, or "more" correct than TS failing
> against DoD.
Sure; I wouldn't deride as idiotic a person that chose to
interpret it the other way. But I would suspect they were really
deciding an argument based on an adverse consequence, i.e., it is
BAD that TS is trumped by DoD, so I decide the other way, and
choose which statement is specific based on that.
> BTW, if we go by DoD beats TS, what about the alignment
> detection of TS: is that blocked, too?
No. The rules for using Detect [alignment] and sundries to
discern the location of a "Dusted" creature would still apply.
Note that this solution doesn't allow you to see the creature.
--
Neil Cerutti
Matthew Miller
>> About being "specific", as you said it's "generally". DoD is
>> specific about the 2 given example spells,
> But, they are *just* examples. It's hazardous to derive specifics
> based on examples, which may have their own peculiarities.
In fact, in this case, it says "including" -- making it very clear that
those are just examples.
Rado S
> [...] But I would suspect they were really deciding an argument
> based on an adverse consequence, i.e., it is BAD that TS is
> trumped by DoD, so I decide the other way, and choose which
> statement is specific based on that.
Hm, I'm not sure whether this applies to me here.
I like the idea of an "easy to come by" minor item like DoD to
play some tricks on those relying on their all-powerful
undefeatable magic. Sometimes I like to play devil's advocate,
just to make sure the "right" side is really right (beyond doubt).
Both sound like equating to "safe against everything" (independent
from which is the general and which the specific statement), so
that when you claim DoD generally disables all detection, likewise
TS generally sees through all deception; when DoD specifically
works against all magic detection, likewise TS specifically works
against all magic deception. I.e. TS carries the same range of
"exclusion"; by sound of the whole description, not by "word for
word" comparison.
Anyway, thanks again.
Rado S
> Neil Cerutti <hor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> About being "specific", as you said it's "generally". DoD is
>>> specific about the 2 given example spells,
>> But, they are *just* examples. It's hazardous to derive specifics
>> based on examples, which may have their own peculiarities.
>
> In fact, in this case, it says "including" -- making it very
> clear that those are just examples.
Sure. But mentioning just the 2 lowest of 3 total?
Still there is this "feeling" that TS works differently than the
"usual" "see invis" or "invis purge" which would cause a different
treatment with regard to DoD, too, ...
Michael Scott Brown
news:bnorkd$oab$1...@rzsun03.rrz.uni-hamburg.de...
> > In fact, in this case, it says "including" -- making it very
> > clear that those are just examples.
>
> Sure. But mentioning just the 2 lowest of 3 total?
There are more than 3, moron. The writers of the item description are
not obligated to list EVERY THING IN THE GAME that could detect an invisible
creature's presence ordinarily.
-Michael
Rado S
>
> There are more than 3, moron. The writers of the item
> description are not obligated to list EVERY THING IN THE GAME
> that could detect an invisible creature's presence ordinarily.
Ok, come on, moron, tell me some other spells (not items) that
would do the trick.