Interesting Thoughts on True Seeing.

[kitteninablender]

We all know what True Seeing does. For 120 feet you see things "As they really are." You see the "True shapes of Polymorphed or altered creatures", you "See though illusions", and what-not.

Here's the question though: Suppose a really really big human changes into a really small mouse. Do you see a mouse sized human?

What if you look up at the sky to a person who is polymorphed into a bird or a bat? Do you see a human being flapping his arms like a bird?

Does the spell show you a Shadow of what they really are? Do you just ignore the Polymorph?

Suppose somebody polymorphs into a Mind Flayer. Would you KNOW they were polymorphed into a Mind Flayer, or would you JUST see them as they really are?

This could make for odd conversations. Example: You have True Sight. Your friend does not. A "dog" walks up to you, really a Druid in disguise. You begin talking to the "dog"....except you don't currently KNOW they look like a Dog, because you are seeing them for what they really are...

...your friend, however, sees you talking to a Dog.

Other interesting situations: True Sight lets you see them as they are, but it doesn't change how you interact with them. For example, a really big man who turns into a really small bird and lands on someone's shoulder weighs as much as a small bird. If you look at them with True Seeing, however, would you see a full-sized person sitting on someone's shoulder?

I suppose you could argue that since the spell is a divination effect, it simply gives you a magical insight into what the thing really is....rather than actually letting you "see" it for what it is. However, the spell name itself, true SEEING, specifies it's an act of sight.

That brings up other interesting things. If you've altered your voice via an illusion, or via altering your vocal chords via polymorph, does somebody with True SIGHT also HEAR you as you truly are? SMELL you as you truly are? If they touch you, do you FEEL like you normally would?

Suppose you are in a condition that a full-sized person would not fit, but a small thing would. For example: A human who changes into a Hamster, and then gets put in a Hamster cage. A normal sized human couldn't fit in a hamster cage. Would you see a squished up human inside of a Hamster cage, or a Hamster-sized Human spinning on a hamster wheel?

...just some interesting questions for the day. :P

[Doubtful]

Trying to rationalise fantasy magical effects into our real-world understanding is a dangerous games my friend

My personal tastes on the spell vary, but that's the whole point of a lot of magical spells and stuff to me, different mages may have different interpretations, processes and methods, so long as the end result is the same.

And yes, as it's true sight it does only effect sight. Hearing, smell, touch, taste would all still be effected by a spell or illusion that effects those senses.

[Laurk]

So a human on all fours barking like a dog. Funny!

[Doubtful]

Or a human twisted into dog shape, or something like an optical illusion where its both a dog and a person at the same time, or a human with a semi opaque dog overlay or it's a dog you see as a person or ... Well, you get the idea.

I'd guess the actual thing seen would be also vary on the nature of the spell being seen through. Piercing a glamor might present differently to seeing a shifted shapeshifter.

[Valhalla]

I recall a post about this on the Paizo forums quite awhile ago. I believe the general consensus was that it does vary based on the spell/effect you're seeing through, but that how it's represented isn't as important as the actual effect: You see things as they truly are.

It doesn't put a condition to that. So regardless of how it's presented to you, you see that person as they are and if they would be familiar to you by sight regularly, they're familiar to you with the spell.

E: Not that a general consensus on the Paizo forums necessarily means anything for Sundren.

[Grey-Moth]

Ah--I'm still surprised I was wrong about True Seeing. Could have sworn that was only for illusions.

What if it was just a mental cue? I don't want to say 'The Quickening', but if there's no real logic behind the application, it is sort of a 'third eye' sort of deal, piercing illusions and polymorphs. But just a sense of 'That cat is no cat', with a flash of the face of the individual you're regarding.

Though I guess it would need to be something a bit more 'permanent' while regarding them, so maybe a persistent mental image of the individual being observed? Like scrying, somewhat, that doesn't rob you of awareness of the world around you.

I swear, I could have bet money that didn't pierce polymorphs. Serves me for not playing a wizard in P&P before.

[sonuvalich]

I've played many wizards in PnP and I still agreed with you. I would have bet money that true seeing did not work on druids in changed shape, but I doubled checked SRD and my hard copy of 3.5 and both tell me we're wrong.

I think there was a class (maybe shifter) that became immune to true seeing working on them when they hit max level in the class, but it should work on all classes available on Sundren.

[Lugwy]

I interpret that with TS, you may see the cat in real life, but you also see the "shadow" of the druid the cat actually is over top of it, kind of how Margaret Weis' Mistress of Dragons series depicts dragons taking on human shape.

I'd imagine, though, that it would cause problems for those who have no "true" form to call their own, unless a discussion goes into what constitutes such.

[Barathos]

Well this has given me new perspective about the spell. Quite enlightening conversations, although slightly creepy.

I'm now seeing humans that are trying to act like spiders... o_O

[Grey-Moth]

I've played many wizards in PnP and I still agreed with you. I would have bet money that true seeing did not work on druids in changed shape, but I doubled checked SRD and my hard copy of 3.5 and both tell me we're wrong.

I'm slightly less red-cheeked after that mistake. Sandro to the rescue! <3

Really though, I do like the concept of a shadow nearby, that's a good concept. It'd need features of course, of the subject, but it would make for a slightly more reasonable take on things. ... but, reason and magic rarely mix, yeah. If this was a democracy, I'd vote other-worldly shadow nearby the subject, or mental image of the subject.

[Valhalla]

I'd imagine, though, that it would cause problems for those who have no "true" form to call their own, unless a discussion goes into what constitutes such.

There aren't any playable races in Pathfinder or Sundren that are born with any kind of innate shapeshifting ability. Just because you have 'A Thousand Faces' doesn't mean you weren't born with just one.

[Satoshi]

I've always imagined (and during my many years as a DM, described) True Seeing as seeing both the illusion/polymorph, and true form/image. The Illusion/Polymorph becomes translucient and shadowy to denotate that falsification of reality, while the 'true' image becomes as clear as it truly is.

[Handsomeman]

If its illusion, i think you see through illusion and view it as transparant. If they physically morph their body, i think they see the creature it morphed into, but know in their minds how the creature's true form looks like. Kinda as if he transformed in front of you. You know hes human, but you see dragon.

[Kitsunestume]

Just since I feel it should be mentioned: mundanely altering your appearance is immune to True-Sight.
Using a disguise-kit to get the disguise icon is impervious to magical detection because there is no magic. It's also really limited, unless you are one of those blokes who wanders around with three changes of gear.

More on topic, I've always held an impression similar to Satoshi. However, in the end, you have knowledge of both it's altered and unaltered-forms, though the unaltered form might ALSO be disguised (mundanely), preventing recognition.

[Grey-Moth]

Disguiseception. No--it is legend. Don't speak of it. It beckons it into existence!